text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lysdexia

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:36, Nov 29, 2004), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Lysdexia | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
User:Lysdexia has been editing on Wikipedia for a few weeks, giving special attention to misspellings, grammar and punctuation errors (real or perceived). This user's edits have frequently focused on the addition of [sic] and other proofreading marks to other users' comments on talk pages, often accompanied by an insulting remark, directed at previous editors, in the edit summary (though, to be fair, these insulting edit summaries seem to have abated). Some of this user's edits, while intended as corrections, introduce new spelling, grammar, or usage errors into articles.

Simple correction of mistakes would be fine; this user appears to be more interested in making those mistakes stand out by adding proofreading commentary throughout. Another common behavior is adding template tags to articles without any justification or popular support. Requests for justification go unanswered.

Repeated pleas by other users to stop this behavior, particularly the addition of [sic] and other proofreading to talk pages, have met with silence, and a continuation of such edits.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}''

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Addition of [sic] to talk pages:, , , , , , , , , , ,
 * Evidence of personal attacks (though, as noted above, these appear to have abated): Earlier edits in the history of Lysdexia's contributions
 * Addition of tags to generally undisputed articles without justification: Helpfully notated in edit comments of Lysdexia's contributions

Applicable policies

 * Civility and No personal attacks, This user has made many personal attacks questioning the perceived mental capacity of other editors, particularly in edit summaries.
 * Talk page, though not an official policy, misrepresenting other users is discouraged.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * Requests to stop adding [sic] and so on to articles:, , and other edits in the history of User talk:Lysdexia

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Wapcaplet 18:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Chinasaur 19:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Iain 20:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Deglr6328 22:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

 * Conceited correction of casual Talk page comments is a habit which is quite off-putting. -- Netoholic @ 22:20, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
 * I and others mentioned the insulting edit summaries on Lysdexia's talk page. As said elsewhere, these have ceased. I agree with the issues about, putting [sic] on talk pages, and Lysdexia often not answering. -- Han-Kwang (talk) 11:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I'm supposed to sign. I haven't seen the disputed tags and cannot comment on that. But I have seen the insults, even on archived talk pages. And some of Lysdexia's edits or comments aren't even correct. Maurreen 06:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * He's[sic] at it again on the talk page for Laser--Deglr6328 22:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hes also at it agein on this veyr page . -- Netoholic @ 23:57, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
 * Something has to be done. The user is not responsive to any comments, and persists in his behavior. --Ben Brockert 03:23, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sanctimonious correction of users' typos is irritating (we're all human here at Wikipedia), and is considered vandalism; personal attacks in edit summaries are unacceptable; lack of response is troubling; persistence in such behavior is trollish. Especially when high-handedly editing the comments of users whose first language is not English and calling them illiterate. I shouldn't have to point out that the preceding fragment is intentional, and it's not anybody's business but mine how I express myself. Respect for other people and their comments is a basic principle of Wikipedia, and inability to adhere to such basic principles will, no doubt, result in exclusion from the project. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Lysdexia made a bizarre series of "corrections" to my talk page (thanks to Ben Brockert for spotting & reverting). The nature of changes was to switch upper case to lower case, and substitute commas for hyphens, in a seemingly random and inconsistent fashion. Very odd. The edit comment bore no relation to the action taken. Pointless, unhelpful and just plan wrong. RFC endorsed. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * And still he[sic] persists....--Deglr6328 03:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I used to be like this myself. And I cringe at the memory of it. The disputee's comments below do not help her case at all. Note also the unhelpful, self-gratifying nonsense on -Ashley Pomeroy 10:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I got into a 3RR violation with one of lysdexia's IPs, and we battled back and forth. This user is definitely somebody to be wary of (and I'm aware that my comment is a bit late, but it must still count for something). SpK (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

I've not responded to any of my user talk comments, and must not read any new messages, until I've done reading and editing whatever chunk of Wikipedia I've opened. This is also why I haven't put up a user page. It might be more helpful to leave comments on the article talk pages, but I'm not likely to get to my watchlist to read those either. I usually reply to comments if they're on a Google page I find as I'm looking for references to my work, as I don't have the time to check my messages the normal way. I've made no factual mistakes in my corrections unless they were accidental, like the typo that Wapcaplet cited. Using [sic] is not limited to quotations as it can be used on whatever text the term is meaningful on. As I wrote on my meta talk page, "quietly fixing" them does barely help the people who made the mistakes, or those who stumble onto the pages who can't tell the difference between the right and wrong; I also complained about the admins' abuses on my contributions on meta, but they abused me again by blocking me and reverting my own user talk page, with my points which they did not bother to deal with. There is no rule or law, here or anywhere, against pointing out the mistakes of others, and the only people who would find it rude are those who prefer making such mistakes. What I wrote was the sheer, open truth. There is no justification for disallowing someone to point out the mistakes of others. How I behave is needed to deal with the many mistakes, lies, fabrications, myths, delusions, red tape, obstacles, timewasters, obfuscators, and shysters that stay and run in any large group of people, here and everywhere else in the world. I hold that forbidding personal attacks, if they are true and needed to discourage someone wilfully wrong, hurts and hinders any information source, especially if they're given along with the bare correcting. Many people don't get what they deserve. Reverting a page after someone posts a comment that needed to be said cannot be justified by the admins, yet they do it. I do not offend unless I've been offended, more. You think I might be a troll when I'm sensitive to what people say and do, when others aren't. You think I've made a mistake when it is mankind which made the mistake, and I know better. I am self-important; I can't and mustn't let people be dumb and ignorant and wrong. I can't and mustn't let people do, say, and write however they want or like. There are more important rules than those a few people had thought of. Wikipedia must not encourage carelessness, and indifference about how some caused real problems is. lysdexia 02:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It'll be some time before I check those pages to show that I wasn't incorrect. Why complain about using templates? What's their point otherwise? Ye are complaining about me using Wikipedia? because it was meant to be used, not just read. lysdexia 23:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I never misrepresented anyone and you can't prove it. Fixing someone's wordy mistakes, though, is misrepresenting someone. This is why I try to read the minds of the authors and only insert something if it was really a mistake and not, say, a mistype. lysdexia 23:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Fixing spelling and grammar in articles is helpful, because those are the public face of Wikipedia. Please, continue to correct mistakes in articles! Such mistakes in talk pages, however, are of vanishingly minimal importance; talk pages are an informal forum for conversation between users, and are frequently edited in haste, with priority being placed on the expression of ideas, rather than the ideal form for that expression. Adding proofreading marks to talk pages does not help anyone. They do not help the original author (how often do authors go back and review all their old talk-page contributions?) and they do not help others who stumble upon the discussion, except to distract them from the communication, albeit informally-crafted, that takes place there. You are perfectly free to continue adding your proofreading marks to talk pages, just as others are perfectly free to revert those changes. When I see the addition of [sic] and the like to talk pages, by you or anyone else, I will revert it. I had hoped you might realize the futility of your efforts, and try to concentrate your talents on more productive activities. You talk of yourself as a campaigner against obstacles and timewasters, but somehow fail to notice that a great many of your activities are, in fact, a waste of time, and serve only to create obstacles between yourself and other contributors. You have managed to refrain from insulting other editors, for which I commend you; if you can also refrain from proofreading talk pages, I think you may become a valuable contributor. -- Wapcaplet 03:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, editing the user pages of other users could certainly be perceived as a deliberate misrepresentation. You have done this on several occasions . This is a misrepresentation in that you make it appear, for example, that User:Scooter prefers "US" over "U.S.", and "amok" over "amuck", or that User:Tagishsimon prefers to arbitrarily mix capitalized and lowercase list items. These preferences are yours, not theirs. In both these cases, both forms are correct English, so there is no justification for altering them. -- Wapcaplet 20:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Lysdexia, it took a lot of restraint for me to keep myself from marking up your response with corrections. It is littered with run-on sentences, mismatched subjects and verbs, incorrect capitalization, awkward expressions, and even a misspelled word ("wilfully"). My point, I guess, is that you have no business correcting others, especially on stylistic issues where there is no single correct approach. Please stop making corrections, especially to user pages. I'm posting this to your talk page as well as your RFC. Rhobite 05:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have already thought of everything that ye have, and they needn't be told to me. As such, I expected everyone to reply as one did and furthermore increase my contempt for the sheer and unending ignorance, meddling, and self-trapping of mankind. I already made distinctions between true mistakes and temporary carelessness before marking up. I make plenty of allowance for different expressive or rhetorical writings, as seen by my untouching of uncapitalised lines in some lists, or interjections in the right places. But I do not allow writing that is plainly wrong. Notice that I did not mark the typo Tagishsimon made, yet I marked Deglr6328's gender confusion.

Wapcaplet, you've not given any evidence that my marks help no one. They can only help to bring attention and the note that the language is wrong. You cannot (Hmm, some people ignorant of English might see that as a misspelling with the way writing now goes—I shudder!) ever prove that proofreading is a waste of time. But that's a strawman because I not only proofread but proofwrite. It doesn't matter what background the editor has, and plenty of Americans and some Britons certainly count as illiterates, especially teenagers. Calling them as such is very appropriate to limit their influence, and helps people pay attention to and think about what they write.

The note by Rdsmith4 above and in my email expressed the same basic message, that he is ignorant of what vandalism is and that none of my actions in talk pages or articles constitute vandalism. Not only do talk and user pages not apply—with my actions—to vandalism, being irritating or harassing other users doesn't apply either: Vandalism. Yet he has acted under his wilful mistake, based on yet another's mistaken words, after very limited involvement in the relevant areas of Wikipedia, by blocking me, so he deserves to be reprimanded. Any change I make that improves Wikipedia that is reverted or removed by another user or admin is vandalism. The users and admins here and on meta who do not understand this simple and universal rule should likewise be reprimanded and removed of their editing and admin privileges until they do.

As said early, I already consider writing preferences before editing. If there was a preference I changed it was because the use was wrong. Although both spellings of amok are used, Scooter intended to spell the word right and mistakenly defended his use by offering the dictionary entry saying that amuck was a variant, as an allusion to being a right use, rather than saying that he meant to use the word because, say, he preferred it over amok. For Tagishsimon, his careless complaining makes it look like I really vandalised his page. If either of ye actually, carefully looked at my change, it was to differentiate names and words, which he was not doing. I also changed the " - " to ", " because it's not a valid clause separator, and is only valid, say, as similar-title separators or for computerised indicing. As for removing dots from the acronym, considering the argument that it's to distinguish a capitalised word from an acronym, I did it because all arguments for keeping the old use fall apart: Now that most computer users accept that typing in all caps is shouting, and that it has fallen away to styled text, an acronym now cannot be mistaken for a word. The letter-dots are meant for abbreviations, where the reader is expected to say out the word past the dot, and the capitals are meant for acronyms, where the reader is expected to say each letter name. There is no use in typing U.S..

Rhobite, keep to yourself and maybe go back to school. You are the kind of person I face every time I take over what is right—being an inimitable, incorrigible, prodigious savant who is taking over the world—someone who thinks I can be taken down using the pitiful, common background of mankind. I know and ken more than ye put together, and I'm likely younger too. Stop accusing me of silly and dumb mistakes when I can point them out in others and more. I made none. A midsentence mark is grammatical, rhetorical, expressive, literary, and historical. Wilfully is the right spelling for a combining form which Americans have since befouled. I used no awkward expressions that did not intend to express awkwardness. The people who've gone up against me are unfit to edit, and have been repeatedly proven wrong. I deserve to take over by virtue of having the resources and abilities.

I'll make another argument to blanket my deeds. An edit cannot be considered vandalism, say, if the main editor of the page gave informed consent of such. Because informed consent includes making edits according to the intended meaning and meaningful intention of the page and its edits, any following edit that falls within these goals is not vandalism. If a plaintiff of vandalism gave noninformed nonconsent of the edit, the report was faulty and the edit was not vandalism. Such was Tagishsimon's. I did not do wrong.

lysdexia 01:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * One thing I would like to point out here: why are you simply adding proofreading marks?  In articles, it might make more sence to simply correct the errors yourself.  And if a persno maeks a tpyo now and then in their conversations on talk pages, why correct them?  It's their business, not yours. hfool/Wazzup? 01:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay bro, do what you like. Just be aware that a lot of other contributors here won't agree with your edits, and will change or revert them. -- Wapcaplet 12:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't call me that. And if they can't support their changes, like I can, I'll change them until they're right. lysdexia 00:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I demand apologies from those people here, and on this talk page. lysdexia 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Um, no thanks. -- Wapcaplet 12:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please hold your breath while waiting for this to happen.--Deglr6328 22:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Outside views
These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

According to Talk page, "typing errors, grammar, etc are always fair game." Even though talk pages function much differently from articles (where we all agree that a grammar correction is acceptable), this is still a wiki. I don't think I would mind if someone corrected a typo or a grammar error in a comment by me, although I'd wonder whether they had something better to do with their time. I'm curious about what people think of this—people may not realize that Wikipedia allows grammar corrections on talk pages. On the other hand, adding "[sic]" to talk pages is awfully rude. Lysdexia seems to have studied writing and the use of language, so of all people he/she should know that "sic" is mostly used in quotations to indicate that an error has been left intact. We aren't quoting people here, so don't use "sic". It's simply mean-spirited to point out other people's grammatical errors instead of quietly fixing them.

For the earlier stuff: Edit summaries like "learn English", "learn how to punctuate", and "learn the difference between brackets and parentheses" are incredibly rude. Not everyone has lysdexia's command of the English language, and not even lysdexia's nitpicks have been correct 100% of the time, for example changing "viruses" to "viri". Hopefully lysdexia will continue to refrain from making overt insults.

I'm also puzzled by lysdexia's recent behavior, adding notices to various phonetics pages. I know next to nothing about phonetics but his/her disputes appear to have been quickly dismissed as minor or incorrect. This spelling error he/she introduced is also odd: Clearly people should keep an eye on lysdexia's contributions. Correcting grammar or spelling isn't bad, but it's harmful to add "sic", use insults, and initiate pointless disputes.

I never agreed with the tendency to only have one summary on RFC. Someone else should summarize this dispute in addition to me. Rhobite 04:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) I believe this same user caused similar problems on Meta and was blocked at one point, though I haven't checked back to see how/whether things resolved themselves. --Michael Snow 06:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Link: Lysdexia on meta-wiki (no further comments, I already endorsed -- Han-Kwang)

I think that "Lysdexia" is such a clever, clever Wiki-stage-name that you guys should cut him some slack. And, by the way, I found in Merriam-Webster that either "wilful" or "willful" is OK. Carrionluggage 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

title: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lysdexia


text:
Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science

The Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science (Skytteanska priset) was established in 1995 by the Johan Skytte Foundation at Uppsala University. The foundation itself goes back to the donation in 1622 from Johan Skytte (1577–1645), politician and chancellor of the university, which established the Skyttean professorship of Eloquence and Government.

The prize, 500,000 Swedish kronor (approximately $52,000) is to be given "to the scholar who in the view of the Foundation has made the most valuable contribution to political science". Since its creation in 1995, the Johan Skytte Prize has garnered a prestigious reputation within the social science community, earning the nickname "the Nobel Prize for Political Science." According to reputation surveys conducted in 2013–2014 and 2018, it is the most prestigious international academic award in political science.

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

title: Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science


text:
User talk:Dabbler

Moved contents to Archive 3

Review request on Bangalore Theological Forum
Dabbler, would you be able to have a look at Bangalore Theological Forum, I had cited other sources but someone has put a tag on notability. Request your advise.Meher Mansion (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You may like to ask the editor who posted the Notability tag on the page if he has any specific comments. I am not sure why he put it there. It is undoubtedly a specialised journal and you have not yet expanded the article to discuss why it is important, but the Notability guidelines do not require content, they require references to demonstrate that the journal is Perhaps you could look for some other references which cite the journal to show that it is a notable resource for theologians. Just some ideas. Good Luck, Dabbler (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Kilt
kilt An obsolete or dialectal preterit and past participle of kill.

(Source: Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia)

The British manner of speaking predates modern English spelling and conjugation.John Paul Parks (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the descriptive word "obsolete" in the definition. Wikipedia is written in modern English which even in archaic Britain (and I speak British English like a native) does not use the word kilt for killed. The only time I think I have ever seen it used was in a cartoon of American hillbillies.  Dabbler (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Riddle of the Sands
Hi there, why did you consider the See also 'not relevant' to a fictional book? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello again, please direct me to the relevant MOS for citing a published edition of the subject? Many thanks80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 * The book is a primary source for itself. Primary sources are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. If you can provide another secondary source which says that the book was an influence on the Normandy Invasion or is in some meaningful way related to the Normandy Invasion then please provide it. Otherwise it is arguable that you should list all such invasions from Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain in 55 BC onwards. Just because there was an invasion it does not follow that it was in any way related to the book which is the purpose of the See also section. There is a section referencing invasion scare literature such as Buchan's Thirty Nine Steps in the article with more relevance than a military operation more than 40 years after the book was published. Dabbler (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Many thanks, will need the precise MOS if possible - what we have here is a Penguin edition, first published 1952 (my copy is the 1955 edition) where the publisher provides an introduction of two paragraphs on the inside front cover. Without seeing the MOS, it seems reasonable to me that the publisher could be described as a secondary source as they did not write the book. I can add more details and a quotation of the relevant sections in the cite or add a passage in the body of the article?80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The new link you have posted is great. On topic and very relevant as it offers the reality compared to the fictional suggestion of the book. Dabbler (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discovered while 'prospecting' around H G Wells' The War in the Air and plans to invade the US.80.229.34.113 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Image of the Monument of the Unknown Soldier
I am very sorry to inform you that I have deleted the image you recently added to the article, Rifat Chadirji. The image in question was uploaded as a non-free use item and has limited fair use provisions attached to its use. I sourced it and uploaded it because I wanted to include it in the article The Monument to the Unknown Soldier and was required to write a justification for its use in relation to that article. If the image is to be included in any other new articles, it would be necessary for someone to write a new justification for its use for every associated article. It is not easy getting non-free use images through Wiki Commons' onerous copyright provisions - and my fear is that if images are not used correctly, they will be deleted permanently, and by implication unavailable for use in any article at all. I am sure that you understand about these delicate copyright provisions.

Incidentally, I am very grateful to you for adding the free image of Khaled al'Rahal's Unknown Soldiers Monument to the article. I have not had any success gaining copyright permission for suitable images, and one that I had previously uploaded to Commons was eventually knocked back (somewhat surpringly since it is currently in use on the Arabic Wikipedia), just days before you added your image - and without question your image is far superior and looks great in the article. Thanks again BronHiggs (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 * OK, I admit I was pleased to find the image and used it without reviewing the full copyright details on its page. I remember the original monument from when my father worked in Baghdad in the early 1960s, so it is quite nostalgic for me. However, I don't have any pictures of it to uplooad.Dabbler (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 * You are indeed fortunate to have seen first hand some of Iraq's mid-20th century art and sculpture. At any time in the future, if you feel up to writing a justification for including the image on Rifat Chadirji's article, there is no obvious reason why Commons would reject it. Ths main thing is to stress the scarcity of the image (not difficult since it was removed 15 years ago) and ensure that the destination article includes some type of commentary about the image that would not work so well in prose alone. This might require a little bit of tweaking to the article to establish a link between the prose and the image. You might be interested in looking at this article from an online magazine which shows how Chidarji developed the idea for the work: http://isqineeha.tumblr.com/post/59363871467/before-monument-to-the-unknown-soldier Best wishsed BronHiggs (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of boats in Arthur Ransome books for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of boats in Arthur Ransome books is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of boats in Arthur Ransome books until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dabbler


text:
Stewart Loudoun-Shand

Major Stewart Walter Loudoun-Shand VC (8 October 1879 – 1 July 1916) was a British recipient of the Victoria Cross (VC), the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces. He was posthumously awarded the VC for his actions during an attack near the French village of Fricourt on the opening day of the Battle of the Somme.

Early life
Stewart Walter Shand was born on 8 October 1879 in Ceylon, and was one of ten children of John Shand, a tea planter, and his wife Lucy Lawson. Both his parents were originally from Scotland. The family, wealthy from trading in tea, later moved to South London. They lived in Dulwich, where all the boys of the family attended Dulwich College. Stewart excelled at sport, especially cricket. His brother, Eric, later represented Scotland in Rugby union.

South Africa
Shand was working at a bank when the Second Boer War broke out in South Africa in 1899. He volunteered for the British Army's London Scottish Regiment but was not considered for service in South Africa on account of his age. He transferred to the Pembroke Yeomanry and was posted to its 9th Battalion, and with them was able to participate in the war. Having attained the rank of lance corporal, his service ended in 1901 but he remained in South Africa, working for a merchant company at Port Elizabeth. He left after a few years to take up a position in Ceylon, his place of birth, as a tea merchant; his father was instrumental in securing him the role.

First World War
On the outbreak of the First World War, Loudoun-Shand, as he was now known following the change by deed poll of his family name, travelled to England to volunteer for service with the British Army. He was commissioned as a lieutenant and posted to the 10th Battalion of The Yorkshire Regiment. He spent the next several months training in the Surrey region with the battalion and, in June 1915, was promoted to captain.

The 10th Battalion arrived on the Western Front in September 1915, as part of the 62nd Brigade, 21st Division. Shortly afterwards, it fought in the Battle of Loos. Casualties in the battalion as the result of its role in the battle were such that in December, Loudoun-Shand was promoted to temporary major and given command of a company. He was wounded the following March but was only out of the frontline for a few days.

For 1 July 1916, the opening day of the Battle of the Somme, the 62nd Brigade was tasked with securing the area around the village of Fricourt, held by the Germans. Loudoun-Shand's company was part of a second wave of attacks that followed the initial assault that commenced at 7:30 am. In the face of heavy machine gun fire, his men were reluctant to advance from their trenches. To encourage them forward, he leapt on the parapet of the trench and despite the danger from machine gun fire, urged and encouraged his men forward. He was soon wounded but remained in the frontline and continued to urge his men forward until he died of his wounds. For his actions, he was recommended for the Victoria Cross (VC). The VC, instituted in 1856, was the highest award for valour that could be bestowed on a soldier of the British Empire. The citation reads as follows: "'For most conspicuous bravery. When his company attempted to climb over the parapet to attack the enemy's trenches, they were met by very fierce machine gun fire, which temporarily stopped their progress. Maj. Loudoun-Shand immediately leapt on the parapet, helped the men over it, and encouraged them in every way until he fell mortally wounded. Even then he insisted on being propped up in the trench, and went on encouraging the non-commissioned officers and men until he died.'"

Casualties were high amongst Loudoun-Shand's company, and by the conclusion of the day, 94 of the 122 men who commenced the attack had been wounded or killed.

Loudoun-Shand is buried at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's Norfolk Cemetery at Becordel-Becourt, near the Somme. His name is among those listed on the Dulwich College War Memorial and is on the Loudoun-Shand memorial at the West Norwood Cemetery.

Medals
Loudoun-Shand's VC was presented to his father by King George V in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on 31 March 1917. The VC, along with his service medals from the First World War and the Second Boer War, were retained in his family for some time until purchased by Lord Ashcroft in 2005. They are displayed in the Lord Ashcroft Gallery at the Imperial War Museum in London.

title: Stewart Loudoun-Shand


text:
Monar

Monar is a Polish non-governmental organization focused on helping drug addicts, the homeless, those who are HIV positive or who have AIDS, and many other groups of people who need help. It was established formally as an association in 1981.

The origins of Monar lie in the centre which was opened on 15 October 1978 in Gloskow near Garwolin, by Marek Kotański. He and several other volunteers rebuilt an abandoned house in ruins.

The organisation maintains 30 stationary centres of rehabilitation, and 28 points of "temporary help" for drug and alcohol addicts. It also maintains 70 hostels for homeless people and 13 points of information trying to prevent AIDS, drug addiction, helping parents etc.

The organisation employs around 700 professionals (medical staff, psychologists etc.) and it is supported by around 300 volunteers each year. Around 2,000 drug and alcohol addicts are recovered each year. Around 20,000 homeless people are using Monar hostels.

title: Monar


text:
Talk:Loop quantum gravity/Archive 2

intuitive understanding
it seems to me this article doesnt explain what loop quantum gravity is to a layman. how about some more intuitive examples or analogies to explain say what a loop is? the dogman

Wilson loops and spin networks

 * The development of a quantum field theory of a force invariably results in infinite (and therefore useless) answers. Physicists have developed mathematical techniques (renormalization) to eliminate these infinities which work for the electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces, but not gravity.

 * The most obvious ways of combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle field) run quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem. Gravity particles would attract each other and if you add together all of the interactions you end up with many infinite results which can not easily be cancelled out. This is in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where the interactions do result in some infinite results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via renormalization.

 * Thus the development of a quantum theory of gravity must come about by different means than were used for the other forces.

 * In LQG, the fabric of spacetime is a foamy network of interacting loops mathematically described by spin networks. These loops are about 10-35 meters in size, called the Planck scale. The loops knot together forming edges, surfaces, and vertices, much as do soap bubbles joined together. In other words, spacetime itself is quantized. Any attempt to divide a loop would, if successful, cause it to divide into two loops each with the original size. In LQG, spin networks represent the quantum states of the geometry of relative spacetime. Looked at another way, Einstein's theory of general relativity is (as Einstein predicted) a classical approximation of a quantized geometry.

in my opinion this section is relevant to the subsection "space atoms", and "space atoms" is a relevant implication of LQG, but if you disagree miguel, and you decide to remove it, i'll respect your decision and won't reverse it.

 * This should actually be part of the general quantum gravity article. — Miguel 16:40, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Special relativity and Lorentz invariance
I have replaced the following

 * In order to account for the structure of space and time at the Planck scale, LQG breaks Lorentz invariance and posits that certain well known effects of special relativity such as length contraction and time dilation cannot occur below the threshold of the Planck scale. It also predicts that the speed of photon propagation in vacuum may be dependent on the photon's wavelength, and not constant as demanded by special relativity (where it is denoted by c). It is not clear whether an approximate Lorentz invariance can be recovered in LQG at long distances and whether LQG can explain the plethora of successful experimental tests of special theory of relativity. LQG proposes a privileged reference frame associated with the spin foam, and therefore it is natural to expect that it may suffer from the usual problems of the old-fashioned theories of luminiferous aether.

by an entirely new account. Comments are welcome! At the very least, the readability of the section needs to be improved. — Miguel 21:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms of the article
1. The introduction. "String theory claims to be a theory of everything". First, string theory is not "claiming" anything: it is *people* who might make such claims. Second, is there any citation for a leading figure in string theory actually saying or writing "String theory is a theory of everything"? I don't think anyone has seriously believed this since 1985 or so. The sentence could be rephrased as follows: "while LQG is intended to be only a quantum theory of gravity, string theory can accomodate many other phenomena including matter and gauge (vector) particles; this fact has led to attempts to model not only gravity but also elementary particle theory with strings. The sentence about "mutually exclusive/incompatible models" with "6,7, or 22 extra dimensions" is somewhat misleading, because since about 1995, it is known that different types of superstring theory are interrelated through dualities, so that what were previously apparently "mutually exclusive" solutions are now seen as different points in a single parameter space or space of vacua. For example it is thought that there is a smooth transition from IIA strings in 10D to 11D supergravity. So, it would be more correct to say that at most one point in the (apparently very large) space of possible vacua could describe our patch of the Universe. Most obviously, the reason why there are so many more strings papers is the fact that they *do* have matter and gauge particles, so there are many more opportunities to compare models with data. The number of particle theory papers *without* strings is similarly large. If you don't concern yourself with particle physics, then obviously you have a lot less to write about.

 * IMHO, there are too many mentions to String Theory in this article. There was an old version where I wrote something to the effect that "no attempt will be made to describe String theory in more detail here since it wouldn't be possible to do it justice" and left it at that. This page is slowly morphing into a debate of the relative merits of String Theory and LQG as theories of quantum gravity, which belongs neither in string theory nor here, but under quantum gravity.

 * Yes, I quite agree. I will continue to edit, reminding myself not to mention string theory unless necessary.

 * I think your criticism is well-places and I encourage you to act on this criticism by editing the article yourself. There are a lot of argumentative statements in the article that really get in the way of presenting LQG and, as you point out, cause internal consistency problems.

 * Miguel 02:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2. SR/Lorentz invariance. I don't understand the sentence "effects of special relativity such as length contraction and time dilation cannot occur below the threshold of the Planck scale". Surely this is just the reverse of what people have been proposing (doubly-special relativity) - roughly that SR is exact in the low-energy limit but that transformations and dispersion relations become affected at energies near the Planck scale. Also, the statement "the speed of light, c, may be variable" is very confused. The value of c, the invariant speed of relativity, is defined exactly in SI units and cannot change. But, the actual speed of photon propagation may be frequency-dependent: in which case, it is inappropriate to denote it by the symbol "c". Rather than "the speed of light" I would use some other phrase such as "the speed of photon propagation". 3. Quantum cosmology. I agree with some previous commenter that any statement about "the Platonic ideal of absolute truths" is out of place and irrelevant in an article about a theory of physics. Also, so far as it makes sense, the discussion in the first paragraph is not directly related to LQG but could apply to almost any theory of quantum cosmology. As for the cosmological constant, much of the discussion is quite erroneous. The observations which suggest nonzero Lambda are of *supernovae* (not galaxies) and include both brightness (magnitude) and cosmological redshift. The sentence "Some physicists have put forward the thesis that a positive cosmological constant is incompatible with supersymmetry, which, if true, would represent a problem for string theory and M-theory (...)" is pointless, since this thesis is simply wrong. What is the reference for this? String theorists (e.g. the Kachru group) are routinely discussing solutions with softly-broken supersymmetry which have positive cosmological constant. There is no incompatibility at all. (Exact supersymmetry, to be sure, is not compatible, but it has been known for decades that exact supersymmetry does not describe the world.) 4. Black holes. The discussion here seems to contradict the claim in the introduction that LQG has a higher level of mathematical rigour than strings. To truncate the interior region away and use an uncalculable free parameter does not seem to be a rigorous procedure, it seems rather arbitrary. Perhaps the meaning was that the rigour goes into the setting-up of the theory, but not into the derivation of its physical consequences? Also, while it is interesting that the radiation spectrum has fine structure, I don't think this can be called "potentially an improvement" without some reason. Why is a spectrum with fine structure an "improvement"?

 * In the same way that the fine structure of the Hydrogen atom is an improvement over the Balmer series and not a way to argue that Pauli's theory of electron spin must be wrong. You just can't use an empirically untested semiclassical result as a benchmark for a purported nonperturbative quantization. Miguel 02:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm still puzzled. Do you mean improvement in the 'technical' sense of a more accurate calculation within a given theory, e.g. the scalar potential "improved" with radiative corrections?

5. Quantum field theory. It should be mentioned that string theory also addresses the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (a.k.a. problem of divergences). String theory allows the calculation of graviton scattering to one-loop, which is finite, and in principle to arbitrary loop order, although this presents considerable technical difficulty. 6. Graviton. Similar remarks apply here. While of course it does not have a real background-independent formulation, string theory has a graviton. 7. Theory of Everything. TOE is not a theory, as yet, since no-one knows if such a thing exists. Best to say "hoped-for theory" or similar. Is string theory "intended" to be a unified TOE? As far as I know it was invented as a theory of the strong interactions. Does string theory "have the capacity" to describe all matter and interactions? No-one knows, and I don't know of any leading string theorist who makes precisely such "grandiose" claims. Reference please? There is a common error in stating that the electromagnetic and weak forces "become indistinguishable" at the electroweak breaking scale. Not so, they just get mixed up into two other *distinguishable* gauge groups SU(2)xU(1). The statement "unification can no longer be expected from low-energy phenomenology" is extremely dubious. It depends very much on the details, for example threshold corrections. Unified models exist that still work perfectly well, although they are increasingly tightly constrained. The sentence implies that unification is ruled out by data, which is not true. Unification is not just a matter of philosophy, it is a matter of physics, since it implies constraints and predictions, and the more constraints and predictions, the better the theory (ceteris paribus). 8. Experimental tests. In fact, people such as Kostelecky have done work on spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in string theory. Hence it is incorrect to say that 'string theory predicts exact Lorentz symmetry at all scales'. To be sure, spontaneous violation of Lorentz symmetry would be an unexpected result, but it would not precipitate a crisis. 9. Sociology and politics. I'm not sure what this section, which consists mainly of opinion and gossip, is doing in an encyclopedia. It seems to have a (completely unwarranted) assumption that LQG and string theory should have "equal rights" and thus any inequality ("imbalance"!) between them is remarkable and worthy of discussion. Since LQG deals with only quantum gravity, whereas strings deal with both gravity and particle physics, I don't see any reason why they should be treated equally. (Besides which, there is the great difference in the number of things that can be calculated in each theory.) The apparent complaint that string theory funding is not fungible into LQG funding is particularly bizarre. If a department has a professor who is expert in string theory, they are hardly going to accept a grad student to study LQG (or vice versa). The remark "it is psychologically difficult for anyone to accept he or she may have dedicated their graduate studies and academic careers on the wrong theory" is tangential and (at present) irrelevant, since we have no idea what is "the wrong theory". I don't know why the fact that Motl and Baez and Carlip used to argue on s.p.r. (etc.) is important enough to mention here. --Tdent 15:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moved from introductory paragraph

 * This may be due to many factors: the greater range of physical application of string theory, its close connection with many areas of advanced mathematics which flourished in the 1990's, and the existence of very many different solutions or vacua of string theory (related to the existence of extra dimensions beyond the observed 3 of space and 1 of time, which have to be "hidden" by compactification somewhat as in Kaluza-Klein theory) without a conclusive principle to choose which solution describes our Universe.

Feel free to move it back, but does the fact that one theory has more activity than the other really need explaining rathen than just stating? Miguel 03:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * OK. I only wrote that because the previous version had a supposed explanation at this point - which only mentioned the vacuum selection problem and nothing else.

String theory not only is connected to flourishing branches of mathematics, but it is responsible for some of that flourishing and actually spawned some of those branches of mathematics. Miguel 03:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure, but this doesn't explain why strings themselves remained popular - mathematicians have little influence in funding/directing physics.

Another removed bit:
 * while string theory is typically established at the level of rigour of theoretical physics

which really is gratuitous ST-bashing. I left it in the article that LQG is established at the level of rigour of mathematical physics because LQG practitioners take pride in actually having quantized a constrained, non-linear gauge field theory from scratch using rigorous existence theorems for all the objects involved. A mathematical physicist is really a breed of mathematician, and most theoretical physicists really couldn't care about that level of rigour, which brings them back bad memories of things like axiomatic quantum field theory. In fact, the original spin network papers of Rovelli and Smolin was very physicsy, and were then polished into actual mathematical theorems by the likes of Ashtekar, Baez, Krasnov and Thiemann. Miguel 03:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * OK. As you said, the article is not for a comparison of string theory with LQG.
 * --Tdent 18:27, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On "communities"
I assume something is missing here, which the contributors of the article may find self evident: I read, that there is a string community and a loop community. And the Differences between LQG and string/M-theory may come from the fact, that String theory and LQG are the products of different communities. Namely String theory emerged from the particle physics community.

O.K. now the $1M question which isn't addressed: Where and in which community did LQG emerge?

Or can all this community-talk be moved that a sub-article?

Pjacobi 17:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think LQG can be ascribed to any one community, unline string theory which has both feet firmly grounded in high-energy physics. LQG comes of the intersection of general relativity, axiomatic quantum field theory, and high-energy physics, and I think for a while people in LQG didn't fit in any community and had a hard time finding jobs while string theory was accepted as mainstream theoretical high-energy physics.

The article shows that LQG is based on Dirac's work on quantization of constrained systems, Einstein-Cartan theory, lattice gauge theory, axiomatic quantum field theory, and topological quantum field theory. All actually very mathematical and farther removed from experiment than the originators of string theory (theorists working on quark confinement in the 1970's). The philosophical influence of MTW's Gravitation and of Wheeler in general is immense.

String theory has its roots in the attempts to understand quark confinement in the 1970's. Lattice gauge theory is a theory with phase transitions and in one of the phases it has string-like excitations. This was one of the motivations for Polyakov's first string lagrangiann models. 't Hooft's work on the large-N limit of SU(N) theories also showed that to leading order in 1/N the theory is described by planar (actuall, spherical) diagrams composed of closed strings. Then people realized that the spectrum of string theory necessarily contained the graviton, and string theory became the leading candidate for a unified theory of all interactions. Finally it was realized that extra dimensions and/or supersymmetry were necessary for mathematical consistency, and made the perturbative theory much better behaved than could be expected in light of past experience with QFT. So, in terms of community, string theory originated from high-energy physics, and Weinberg's book an gravitation is written from this perspective. Philosophically, the HEP community viewed gravity as just another interaction to be quantized, mediated by the graviton. For example, if you look at Feynman's lectures on gravity you'll see that he takes this approach, and (at the classical level) he shows that starting with a massless spin-2 particle minimally coupled to the traceless symmetric part of stress-energy one has to add correction terms for consistency until one gets the full-blown Einstein-Hilbert action, that the background metric one started with becomes physically unobservable and that the graviton gauge freedom corresponds to general covariance. This is very much like what string theory says: start with a background metric, quantoze a string on it, obtain the graviton, and then let "graviton condensation" change the background metric.

The interesting thing is that lattice gauge theory and Wilson loops techniques are at the core of both strings and loops. But in high-energy physics lattice theories are seen as computational techniques, not fundamental models. This is totally unlike statistical mechanics, and is one of the reasons that the renormalization group looks so different seen from high-energy physics and from condensed-matter physics.

I can't really do sociology, but I can do history a little better, so rather that talk about communities I prefer to look at the history of the development of theories and try to draw conclusions from there.

I would move the community talk elsewhere, but I don't know where. Maybe to quantum gravity?. Also, do we have a page about "the sociology and politics of science"? If we can come up with a cogent analysis of this which does not descend into partisan bickering and name-calling as on USENET the quantum gravity communities could be a case study of scientific communities. But I think a lot of it has to do with people who dislike string theory and want to argue that LQG isn't more popular because of politics and sociology. I think I can see that subtext in the current state of the article, and I don't like it because it gives LQG a bunch of points on the crackpot index.

Miguel 20:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Content rearrangement
The article is rather long (42k) and it contains sections, which don't give core information but are meta to the topic. Also the extensive lists in Research in LQG and related areas detract from the core message. IMHO, and believe I don't want to start editing the page, the lists should go to Research in LQG and LQG and the sociology and politics of science, Differences between LQG and string/M-theory, and Philosophy around LQG should go to LQG in context (not that brilliant a title). Pjacobi 22:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I have recently broken up the absurdly long "implications" section, and most of the subsections need to be rewritten because the emphasis of the sections they are in is different (and for quality). Some of the early sections of the article are in a mature state, and already contain links to "main articles". They might be summarized (maybe one sentence per paragraph) and the current text moved to the main article. I would like to wait until some of the later sections reach a more mature form before moving them elsewhere. Miguel 16:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But now you are outsourcing the core the other articles and keeping all the fluff here. If you take this to the extreme, the article will look like some weirdo pseudo-science. Just my 0.02 Euro on this. Pjacobi 16:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't have time to do all the rewriting that I think is necessary. The "fluff" can't be moved out either, IMHO most of it needs to be rewritten. I'll revert to the longer paragraphs if you prefer, and leave it to others to reduce the length. Miguel 20:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's the deal: I have become the de-facto maintainer of the article and I don't particularly like that. It encourages feelings of ownership that are contrary to the wiki spirit. Anyway, I have my hands full just reacting to people's criticism of the article. I had in mind a complete rewrite and I started from the beginning. The sections up to Loop Quantization are the result of that effort. Admittedly, that is just about 1/3 of the article so far, but at least that means the first 14k of the article are ok. I don't think it's right to move stuff around until it has been massaged into its final form. I also agree a lot of the content does not belong here, but I haven't decided where it should be, or how I'd like to see it rephrased. But, if you think stuff should be moved around, be bold in updating pages. Miguel 20:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV and achievements
I added the POV label because the current version of the article contains too many things that are believed to be incorrect by most theoretical and particle physicists. For example:

 * Read: most string theorists. — Miguel 16:46, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

 * The main successes of loop quantum gravity are: a nonperturbative quantization of 3-space geometry, with quantized area and volume operators; a calculation of the entropy of physical black holes; and a proof by example that it is not necessary to have a theory of everything in order to have a candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. Many of the core results in LQG are established at the level of rigour of mathematical physics.

The quantization of the area operators' eigenvalues is not a result, it is a defining assumption of the theory. The metric tensor degrees of freedom are rewritten using the gauge field. This map is fine locally, but it is not faithful globally exactly because it imposes new periodicites and quantization rules on the degrees of freedom. They are seen as the area quantization rules. This area quantization has nothing to do with quantum gravity - it is a trivial consequence of the particular not-quite-legitimate change of variables.

Also, it is not generally accepted that LQG has been able to calculate the black hole entropy, and a growing amount of recent evidence seems to indicate that it is not the case. Also, it is generally believed that a quantum theory of only gravity cannot be consistent, and loop quantum gravity has not proved the opposite. (Well, no one can prove it because it is not true, but I admit that this sentence is a POV.) The comment about the "level of rigour" sounds very arrogant. It would be more appropriate to say that many LQG proponents like to pretend that they are very rigorous, but they do not care whether their models have anything to do with physics and whether they respect at least the most basic principles of physics.

Similar criticism applies to most of the other sections, and I believe that the reader has the right to learn what theoretical physicists think about this speculative approach to quantum gravity.

20:55, 11 Sep 2004 User:Lumidek
 * Attribution added Pjacobi 20:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"lumidek:, there have been requests to merge your essay "loop gravity" with this article, would you prefer to

1- leave it as it is, do not merge the two articles, but keep them seperate 2- merge them, with your criticisms at the end, possibly after "recent research directions" as one long continuous section 3- intersperse and interdigitate the two artciles?

for (2) or (3) would you prefer to do this, or would you want a volunteer to do this?

05:33, 20 Sep 2004 64.63.220.226
 * Attribution added.
 * Folks, is it that difficult, to put the four tilde signs at the end of your post?
 * Pjacobi 06:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Loop quantum gravity/Archive 2


text:
Karl Genzken

Karl August Genzken (June 8, 1885 – October 10, 1957) was a Nazi physician who committed medical atrocities on prisoners of several concentration camps. He was a Gruppenführer (Major General) of the Waffen-SS and the Chief of the Medical Office of the Waffen-SS. Genzken.

He was tried and convicted as a war criminal and for crimes against humanity in the 1947 Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, but his sentence was commuted to 20 years and he was released in 1954.

Nazi Party membership
Genzken had joined the NSDAP on July 7, 1926 (party member No. 39,913). He joined the SS on November 5, 1933 (No. 207,954).

In 1934, he was reactivated as a reserve officer in the Naval Medical Service. After that, he transferred to the SS Operational Main Office then was promoted from an assistant medical director to the medical superintendent of the SS Hospital in Berlin, and appointed Chief of the Medical Office of the Waffen-SS in 1942. He rose to the rank of Major General in the Waffen-SS.

War crimes
Genzken was involved in a series of human experiments that were carried out on prisoners of several concentration camps. Genzken was accused and convicted of involvement in the typhus experiments conducted from December 1941 – February 1945, which were conducted for the benefit of the German armed forces to test the effectiveness of vaccines against typhus, smallpox, cholera, and other diseases. The experiments were conducted at Buchenwald and Natzweiler. Genzken was also accused of involvement in sulfanilamide experiments, poison experiments, and incendiary bomb experiments but was not convicted on these counts.

Trial and conviction
Genzken was found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an illegal organization by the American Military Tribunal No. I (the Doctors' Trial). He was condemned in August 1947 to life imprisonment by the tribunal. His sentence was later reduced to 20 years and he was released in April 1954.

title: Karl Genzken


text:
Simão Rodrigues

Simão Rodrigues de Azevedo, SJ (1510, Vouzela, Portugal - 15 June 1579, Lisbon), also known in English as Simon Rodericks, was a Portuguese Catholic priest and one of the co-founders of the Society of Jesus.

A Portuguese nobleman, Rodrigues was one of the six very first companions of Ignatius of Loyola at the University of Paris who took vows of poverty and chastity at the chapel of Montmartre, on the 15 August 1534. The group of 'Friends in the Lord' will ultimately form the nucleus of the Society of Jesus, approved in 1540 (in Regimini militantis ecclesiae).

After some years working under the direction of Ignatius in Italy, he was sent to Portugal, where his strong personality immediately attracted many young men to the Society and he became very influential at the royal court. Unfortunately, as the Provincial of the Portuguese Jesuits he allowed certain spiritual devotions to develop into extreme ascetical practices, and thus cause public scandal (night-time public calls to penance, with self-flagellation, in the streets of Coimbra). Several letters of Ignatius, calling to restrain and obedience, fell on deaf ears. The province was in two minds as many Jesuits admired and respected him. Complaints were made and Rodrigues was recalled.

Dragging his feet he finally reached Rome where, at his own request, he was tried (1544). His three Jesuit judges found him guilty of 'excesses and lack of obedience'. All penances were lifted by Ignatius except that he was not allowed to return to Portugal. He was assigned to other duties in Italy and, later, Spain. Rodrigues was recalcitrant and for several years sought to overthrow the decision against him, but his appeals to friends he had made in high places were unsuccessful.

Eventually, he gave up these attempts and returned to obedience. As an old man, he was allowed to go back to his native country, where, before dying, he wrote a history of the early years of the Society.

title: Simão Rodrigues


text:
Vasili IV of Russia

Vasili IV Ivanovich Shuisky (Василий IV Иванович Шуйский, c. 1552 – 12 September 1612) was Tsar of all Russia from 1606 to 1610, after the murder of False Dmitri I. His rule coincided with the Time of Troubles. He was the only member of House of Shuisky to become tsar and the last member of the Rurikid dynasty (Yurievichi branch) to rule as tsar.

Life
He was a son of Ivan Andreyevich Shuisky. Born Prince Vasili Ivanovich Shuisky, he descended from the Yurievichi sovereign princes of Nizhny Novgorod, and was allegedly a 20th-generation male-line descendant of the 9th-century Varangian prince Rurik. Vasili Ivanovich was one of the leading boyars of the Tsardom of Russia during the reigns of Feodor I ((r. 1584 – 1598)) and Boris Godunov ((r. 1598 – 1605)). In the court intrigues of the Time of Troubles (1598–1613), Vasily and his younger brother Dmitry Shuisky usually acted together and fought as one.

It was Shuisky who, in obedience to the secret orders of tsar-to-be Boris, went to Uglich to inquire into the cause of the death of the Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible ((r. 1533 – 1584))), who had perished there in mysterious circumstances in May 1591. Shuisky reported that it was a case of suicide, though rumors abounded that the Tsarevich had been assassinated on the orders of the regent Boris Godunov. Some suspected that Dmitry escaped the assassination and that another boy was killed in his place – this story provided impetus for the repeated emergence of impostors such as False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II, and False Dmitry III. On the death of Boris, who had become tsar, and the accession of Boris's son Feodor II in 1605, Shuisky went back upon his own words in order to gain favour with the pretender False Dmitriy I, who was attempting to gain the throne by impersonating the dead Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. Shuisky recognized the pretender as the "real" Dmitry, despite having earlier determined that the boy had committed suicide. Soon afterwards the young Tsar Feodor fell victim to an assassination.

Shuisky then turned against the false Dmitry and brought about his death (in May 1606) by stating that the real Dmitry had indeed been slain and that the reigning tsar Dmitriy (False Dmitriy I) was an impostor. After Dmitriy's death, Shuisky's adherents proclaimed him tsar, on 19 May 1606. He reigned until 19 July 1610, but was never generally recognized. Even in Moscow itself he had little or no authority, and he only avoided deposition by the dominant boyars because they had no one to replace him with.

The popularity of Vasili Shuisky's cousin, Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, who commanded an army aided by an allied Swedish force led by Jacob de la Gardie, allowed Shuisky, for a time, to remain on his unstable throne. In 1610 the Seven Boyars, notably his former adherents Princes Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky and Fedor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, deposed him. He was forcibly made a monk and eventually transported together with his two brothers to Warsaw by the Polish hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski. He died a prisoner in the castle of Gostynin, near Warsaw, in 1612, followed soon after by his brother Dmitry. The Romanovs, elected as rulers of Russia in 1613, recognized Vasili posthumously as a legal tsar, and during their negotiations with the Polish authorities constantly demanded the right to rebury his body in Russia. Following the Treaty of Polyanovka in 1635, Vasili's remains were finally returned to Moscow and laid to rest in the Archangel Cathedral.

Marriages and issue
Vasili Shuisky was married twice. His first wife, Elena Mikhailovna Repnina, died prior his election to tsardom, and he had no children from that marriage. After his coronation, Vasili married Princess Ekaterina Buynosova-Rostovskaya, whose name was changed to Maria, deemed more suitable for a tsarina consort. They had two daughters together, princesses Anna and Anastasia, but both died in infancy during their father's reign, and were buried in the Old Maiden's Convent in Kremlin. As both brothers of Vasili, princes Dmitri Shuisky and Ivan Shuisky the Button, died also childless, the Shuiskys' princely house became extinct after the death of the latter in 1638.

In literature
The future Tsar Vasili IV serves as a character in Alexander Pushkin's blank verse drama Boris Godunov and Modest Mussorgsky's opera of the same name. In both depictions, the character is an adviser to Boris Godunov and a master of palace intrigue. Despite being fully aware that Tsar Boris ordered the assassination of the child Tsarevich Dmitriy, Vasili Shuisky remains outwardly loyal, only switching his support to the Pretender when the latter appears likely to win. Pushkin later described his intention to write further plays about the Time of Troubles.

About Vasili Shuisky, Pushkin wrote,

"I intend to return to Shuisky also. In the historical account he shows a singular mixture of audacity, flexibility, and strength of character. Lackey of Godunov, he is one of the first boyars to go over to Dmitri's side. He is the first one who conspires, and note this, he is the one who risks himself; he is the one who vociferates, who accuses, who after being chief becomes a soldier in the front ranks. He is about to lose his head, Dmitri pardons him when he's already on the scaffold, he exiles him, and with the thoughtless generousity of this amiable adventurer, he recalls him to court, and covers him with gifts and honors. What does Shuisky do—he who has come so close to the hatchet and the block? He has nothing more important to do than conspire anew, to succeed, to have himself elected Tsar, to fall and during his fall to preserve more dignity and strength of spirit than he had ever had in his entire life."

Only Pushkin's death in a duel at the age of 37 prevented him from composing further plays about the reigns of tsars Dmitriy and Vasili IV.

title: Vasili IV of Russia


text:
Talk:John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge

Untitled
An interesting story involving "recycling" of material here. In the 1830's prior to the growth of railroads, canal building was a major effort to get goods to markets in England and here in the eastern United States. A consortium was formed in Kentucky in this period with the goal of making the Licking river (the third longest north flowing river in the world - a grand 75 miles or therabouts) and turn it into a canal, so goods could be moved from deep into Kentucky to the Ohio River for distribution to Cincinnati or even further up and down the Ohio River. At that time, the point that the Licking entered the Ohio was actually a small waterfall(about 8-10 feet to the normal level of the Ohio which varied greatly as this as before the Markland dam created its more or less current day pool of about 28 feet at Cincinnati) where it fell into the Ohio river, so a channel was blasted out and seven dams with locks were orginally projected to let canal boats come from Falmouth Kentucky up to the Ohio. Three of dam were completed, one of which was fitted with gates for the locks, Four others were in various stages of completion when an economic bust hit in 1836. The consortium was out of money. The one dam fitted with gates was left with gates wide open and the entire project was abandoned.

The stone in the immediate area is not suitable for heavy construction. So all the stone that was used to build the dams was brought down river from West Virginia. 30 years later, When Shinkle and company began building the bridge towers, it made sense to use the abandonded dams as a source for stone at least for the interior portions of the towers and shoreside footings, so the dams were dismantled and the stone "recycled"

Add to main article
That's interesting. Do you have citations? Why not put it in the main article page? --Tysto 06:29, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I would like to suggest this sentence be inserted as the third sentence of the introductory paragraph of the main article, but I don't see an "edit" button that will let me do it myself. "The bridge, which has carried wagons and streetcars in the past, now carries motor vehicles that weight less than 11 tons and pedestrians."(From the way the article now stands, it's not at all clear that it carries anything other than pedestrians.) LankyYankee (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohio River vehicular bridges in Cincinnati
Hi all, this section is redundant with the article List of crossings of the Ohio River. I propose removing this section (also from the other two articles that have it) and replacing it with a see also section pointing to the list of Ohio crossings. The recent addition of the crossings navbox gives the ability to navigate locally, using a standard scheme which is used extensively for other bridges in the area. Let me know what you think. Robshill 18:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Difference in piers (in and out of water)
In the 1870 picture, the bridge piers are on land. By 1907 the river banks have receded. And the modern picture shows the piers completely in water. Was this notable change in geography taken into account when the bridge was built? Erosion seems to have been quite pronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.148.178 (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent observation and question. The 1870 photo shows the Ohio River at a fairly good level, which probably indicates that the image was made in mid- or early-Summer (note the short shadows from the awning in the right foreground).  Prior to the construction of dams on the river, it was known to be reduced to just its main channel, making river transportation almost impossible in some places. The 1907 photo shows the river to be rather high (still before the 1910 dam projects, which weren't completed until 1929), indicating that the photo was probably made in Spring; the Island Queen was an excursion boat and it would seem unlikely that it would be heading up to Coney Island in late fall or early winter (times that the area gets significant rainfall).  In more recent photos, the inundation of the bridge's piers is the result of the Ohio River dams, which created a series of pools between the locks and dams to enable year-round navigation.  Hope this helps answer your question.  Spacini (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Clifford Zink book
That appears to cross the line into WP:SPS TEDickey (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Roebling-Bridge-To-Close-For-Several-Months/M9EqyfFMTUm8mwtjVLbtFQ.cspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Threats
The Roebling Bridge has been subject to threats and damage.

On September 13, 2023, the John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge was closed due to a bomb threat as well as all river traffic near it. The threat was made seeking $400,000 or everyone would die according to the dispatchers. There were further threats to police, which is alarming considering this occurred 2 days after 9/11. (https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2023/09/13/john-a-roebling-suspension-bridge-closed-due-to-bomb-threat/70839935007/) 216.195.89.58 (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge


text: User talk:198.63.16.200

title: User talk:198.63.16.200


text:
Patrick Mylott

Patrick Mylott, VC (June 1820 – 22 December 1878) was an Irish soldier and a recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Military career
Mylott was born in Hollymount, Claremorris, County Mayo. He was approximately 37 years old, and a private in the 84th Regiment of Foot (later the 2nd Battalion, York and Lancaster Regiment), British Army during the Indian Mutiny when the following deeds took place for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross: "For being foremost in rushing across a road, under a shower of balls, to take an opposite enclosure; and for gallant conduct at every engagement at which he was present with his Regiment, from 12th of July, 1857, to the relief of the garrison. Elected by the private soldiers of the Regiment"

Mylott later achieved the rank of sergeant. He died in Liverpool, Lancashire on 22 December 1878.

title: Patrick Mylott


text:
User talk:Fitzner

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Mury
- thank you for that tiny yet great article. It's really comforting that anyone from outside Poland remembers the effort of Polish scouts during WWII. You might be interested in the other articles on the topic: Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego, Szare Szeregi and the one on the Polish Scouting Cross. Halibutt 23:39, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mariusz Zaruski
Mariusz Zaruski has been tagged for deletion. It appeared to be a copy off of a blog or online forum at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1053808&sid=cd6f330b20d7b0369900dac5e47d7b87 and as such meets Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria as a copyright infringement. However, even if it were not a copyright infringement, please also note that information on Wikipedia must come from reliable sources, and blogs or online forums generally do not meet that standard. Thank you. Pan Dan 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not rush with deletion of the article. This is my own translation of a Polish article about gen. Zaruski by an unknown so far author. My translation of the article was posted by my Polish friend Janusz on the blog. Please do not shoot messenger neither - I have received the information about gen. Zaruski from Janusz and was asked to translate it into English and post on Wikipedia website which I have done in good faith. Janusz forgot to give me the source of the information. I am in the process of establishing a source of the information right now. Thank you for patience. fitzner 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The source of the article comes from Polish Wikipedia: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariusz_Zaruski I hope the aforesaid closes the copyright infringement case :) fitzner 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ravensbrück concentration camp
Hi Fitzner,

Excellent choice of yours to remove the segment about brothels at Ravensbrück concentration camp, it is totally unnecessary for that article. Best wishes. -- Rob NS  17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fitzner


text:
File:VCClaudeRaymond.jpg

Photo of Victoria Cross recipient Claude Raymond, migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference site with permission. Photo submitted by Gerald Napier - (from the Royal Engineers Library with permission).

title: File:VCClaudeRaymond.jpg


text:
File:VCClaudeRaymond2.jpg

Submitted by Neil Hutton, 16 Nov 2001.

title: File:VCClaudeRaymond2.jpg


text:
Gheorghe Mironescu

Gheorghe G. Mironescu, commonly known as G. G. Mironescu (January 28, 1874 – October 8, 1949), was a Romanian politician, member of the National Peasants' Party (PNȚ), who served as Prime Minister of Romania for two terms.

Biography
Born in Vaslui, Mironescu graduated from the University of Bucharest's law faculty in 1894 and from its literature and philosophy faculty the following year. In 1898, he earned a doctorate in law from the Faculty of Law of Paris (University of Paris). In 1900, he was named prosecutor at the Ilfov County tribunal, and served as state's attorney from 1900 to 1901. He was a professor of law at his alma mater from 1903 to 1939, and in 1938 was elected an honorary member of the Romanian Academy. Initially joining the Conservative Party, he switched to Take Ionescu's new Conservative-Democratic Party in 1908. An advocate of Romania's entering World War I on the side of the Allies, he was in Paris from 1917 to 1918, writing editorials in the French press and particularly in La Roumanie. In late 1922, he entered the Romanian National Party, which became the PNȚ in 1926. Elected to the Assembly of Deputies in 1911, he became a Senator in 1914.

His first stint in government was in Ionescu's cabinet, from December 1921 until the following month, when he served as Education Minister. After 1926, he became one of the most recognizable PNȚ leaders, the main figure of a pro-authoritarian faction bitterly opposed to left-wing groups such as those of Nicolae L. Lupu, Petre Andrei, Mihai Ralea, and Armand Călinescu. From November 1928 to October 1930, he served as Foreign Minister in Iuliu Maniu's first two cabinets. As such, he participated in the two Hague conferences on reparations, and backed Aristide Briand's proposal for a Federal Europe.

In 1930, Carol II of Romania returned incognito to Romania (with a fake passport). On the morning of June 7, 1930, the Government convened Parliament in order to cancel the act of January 4, 1926, through which Carol had renounced the throne. Carol was proclaimed the new King of Romania, replacing his own son Michael. Maniu resigned, and a new PNȚ government was formed, under the leadership of Gheorghe Mironescu, restoring Carol II to the throne on June 8, 1930. The cabinet was welcomed by regent Nicholas with the words: "'You are called on to fulfill King Ferdinand's dream, and you are the most qualified to do it.'"

The PNȚ subsequently repealed the 1926 laws preventing Carol from inheriting the Crown, and faced a constitutional crisis after Constantin Sărățeanu and Patriarch Miron Cristea resigned from the regency in protest. The impasse was quickly prevented, as the two chambers of parliament passed legislation awarding Carol the crown and awarding Michael the honorary dignity of Grand Voivode of Alba Iulia. That same evening, Mironescu resigned in order for the king to name a new government.

The king's project for a broad-coalition government was not accomplished: Carol offered the appointment to Maniu (who cited health reasons in his refusal, but was in fact disappointed by Carol's ongoing scandalous relationship with Magda Lupescu) and then to General Constantin Prezan (who was rejected by the National Liberal Party). Eventually, the king renounced the project, recognized the mandate of Maniu as majority leader, and conceded to a regular cabinet. Mironescu remained in office as Foreign Minister for the duration of his premiership.

His second time in office, with Ion Mihalache as Minister of Internal Affairs and Carol's supporter Mihail Manoilescu as Minister of the Economy, was marked by the outlawing of the far right movement known as the Iron Guard and the arrest of its leader Corneliu Zelea Codreanu (who was later tried and acquitted). Nevertheless, Mironescu was to contribute to the appeal of fascism: his was the first in a series of governments that, faced with the Great Depression, reduced salaries for state employees, who soon began supporting the revolutionary solutions advanced by Codreanu. Other economic measures he took included contracting a foreign loan, ending export taxes on agricultural products and initiating a road-building project. The cabinet was ultimately ousted by the king himself, who nominated an attempted technocracy under Nicolae Iorga (aiming to provide a mask for Carol's camarilla). In Alexandru Vaida-Voevod's government, he was Finance Minister from June to August 1932 and Interior Minister from January to November 1933. He also served as deputy prime minister from October 1932 until November 1933.

In early 1943, during World War II, Mironescu was given a mandate to approach the leadership of Miklós Horthy's Hungary, in an attempt by Romania's Ion Antonescu to have both countries achieve a new territorial settlement and a common withdrawal from the Axis Powers (see also Romania during World War II); he began talks with Miklós Bánffy's delegation in Bucharest (June 9), but these negotiations ended when the two sides could not agree on a future status for Northern Transylvania, a region held by Hungary at the time.

He died in Bucharest in 1949.

title: Gheorghe Mironescu


text:
Category:Winds

Named winds.

See also Boxing the compass.

title: Category:Winds


text:
Claud Raymond

Claud Raymond VC (2 October 1923 – 22 March 1945) was a British recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces. As a member of an old County Kerry family with strong links to the Indian Army, Raymond is also regarded as an Irish VC.

Details
Claud Raymond was the son of Lieutenant Colonel Maurice Claud Raymond CIE, MC, and Margaret Lilias Nancy Raymond (née Brown), of Fulham. He was 21 years old, and a Lieutenant in the Corps of Royal Engineers, British Army during the Second World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.

On 21 March 1945 at Talaku, Burma (now Myanmar), Lieutenant Raymond was second-in-command of a reconnaissance patrol when they were fired on by a strongly entrenched enemy detachment and the lieutenant at once led his men towards the position. He was first wounded in the shoulder and then in the head, but continued leading his men forward, when he was hit a third time, his wrist being shattered. He still carried on into the enemy defences where he was largely responsible for capturing the position. In spite of the gravity of his wounds, he refused medical aid until all the other wounded had received attention. He died the next day, aged 21.

Legacy
Raymond grew up in Seaford, Sussex, and is remembered on the town's war memorial. A road in the town is also named after him.

The Medal
His Victoria Cross is displayed at the Royal Engineers Museum in Chatham, Kent.

title: Claud Raymond


text:
Velouté sauce

A velouté sauce is a savory sauce that is made from a roux and a light stock. It is one of the "mother sauces" of French cuisine listed by chef Auguste Escoffier in the early twentieth century, along with espagnole, tomato, béchamel, and mayonnaise or hollandaise. Velouté is French for 'velvety'.

In preparing a velouté sauce, a light stock (one in which the bones of the base used have not been roasted previously), such as veal, chicken, or fish stock, is thickened with a blond roux. The sauce produced is commonly referred to by the type of stock used (e.g. chicken velouté, fish velouté, seafood velouté).

Derived sauces
Sauce velouté often is served on poultry or seafood dishes and is also used as the base for other sauces.

Sauces derived from a velouté sauce include:
 * Albufera sauce: with addition of meat glaze, or glace de viande
 * Allemande sauce: by adding a few drops of lemon juice, egg yolks, and cream
 * Aurore: tomato purée
 * Sauce bercy: shallots, white wine, lemon juice, and parsley added to a fish velouté
 * Hungarian: onion, paprika, white wine
 * Normande sauce: prepared with velouté or fish velouté, cream, butter, and egg yolk as primary ingredients; some versions may use mushroom cooking liquid and oyster liquid or fish fumet added to fish velouté, finished with a liaison of egg yolks and cream.
 * Poulette: mushrooms finished with chopped parsley and lemon juice
 * Sauce à la polonaise ("Polish-style"): sauce velouté mixed with horseradish, lemon juice, and sour cream (different from Polonaise garnish)
 * Sauce ravigote: the addition of a little lemon or white wine vinegar creates a lightly acidic velouté that traditionally is flavored with onions and shallots, and more recently with mustard.
 * Sauce vin blanc: has the addition of fish trim, egg yolks, and butter and, typically, it is served with fish.
 * Suprême sauce: by adding a reduction of mushroom liquor (produced in cooking) and cream to a chicken velouté
 * Venetian sauce: tarragon, shallots, chervil
 * Wine sauce: such as white wine sauce and champagne sauce

title: Velouté sauce


text:
Ambrose Madden

Ambrose Madden VC (Anmchadh Ó Madaidhín; 1820 – 1 January 1863) was an officer in the British Army. Born in Cork he was an Irish recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Details
He was about 34 years old, and a sergeant-major in the 41st Regiment of Foot, British Army during the Crimean War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.

On 26 October 1854, in the Crimea, at Little Inkerman, Sergeant Madden headed a party of men of the 41st Regiment which cut off and took prisoner one Russian officer and 14 privates, three of whom were personally captured by the sergeant.

Further information
Madden was commissioned into the 2nd West India Regiment in 1858 and promoted to lieutenant in 1861. He died in Jamaica on 1 January 1863.

title: Ambrose Madden


text: User talk:62.131.16.84

title: User talk:62.131.16.84


text:
Herbert Macpherson

Lieutenant-General Sir Herbert Taylor Macpherson (22 January 1827 – 20 October 1886) was a Scottish recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Early life
Macpherson, was born at Ardersier, near Fort George in Scotland, the son of an officer in the 78th Highlanders. In 1845 he was commissioned ensign in his father's former regiment. Travelling with the regiment to India, he served in the Persian campaign of 1857 and in the Indian Mutiny the following year.

Victoria Cross
He was 30 years old, and a lieutenant in the 78th Highlanders (later The Seaforth Highlanders) British Army, during the Indian Mutiny when the following deed took place on 25 September 1857 at siege of Lucknow for which he was awarded the VC: "For distinguished conduct at Lucknow, on the 25th September, 1857, in setting an example of heroic gallantry to the men of the regiment, at the period of the action, in which they captured two brass nine-pounders at the point of the bayonet."

- Field Force Orders of the late Major-General Havelock, 17 October 1857

Promoted captain in October 1857, he served at the defence of the Alambagh, and as brigade major during the final capture of Lucknow, where he was wounded. He was also promoted brevet major.

Later career
After the Indian Mutiny, Macpherson transferred to the Indian Army. He served on the North-West Frontier in the Black Mountain campaign of 1868, the Lushai Expedition in 1871–72, and the Jowaki Expedition of 1877. During the Second Anglo-Afghan War he commanded a brigade that advanced up to Khyber Pass in 1878–79 and, during the second phase of the war in 1879–80, a brigade of the Kabul Field Force. For his service in Afghanistan, he was given the local rank of major-general in October 1880, and made a knight commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in March 1881.

In July 1882 Macpherson was promoted to lieutenant-general, and given command of the Indian contingent that served in the Egypt campaign, including the battle of Tell El Kebir. For this, he was made a knight commander of the Order of the Star of India (KCSI) in November 1882, and the Turkish Order of the Medjidie, second class.

Returning to India, in March 1886 he became Commander-in-Chief of the Madras Army and, after travelling to Burma to take command during the Third Anglo-Burmese War, he died of fever on the steamer Irrawaddy, on 20 October 1886.

Family
Herbert's father was Col Duncan MacPherson of the 78th Regt, Herbert had 10 siblings, with his elder brother being Maj Gen Sir James Duncan MacPherson KCB, In 1859, he married Maria Eckford, daughter of Lieutenant-general James Eckford, C.B. they had 3 children, 1 daughter and 2 sons, both his sons served as officers in the Army

The medal
Macpherson's awards, including his Victoria Cross, are displayed at the Regimental Museum of Queen's Own Highlanders at Fort George, Inverness-shire, Scotland.

title: Herbert Macpherson


text:
Manolache Costache Epureanu

Manolache Costache Epureanu (1823–1880) was twice the Prime Minister of Romania both as a representative of the Conservative Party and of the National Liberal Party, more specifically for the first time in 1870 (20 April–14 December) and for the second time in 1876 (6 May–5 August).

Biography
Born in Bârlad, Moldavia, he studied in Heidelberg, Germany and returned to Moldavia to participate in the 1848 revolutionary movement, being part of the ad hoc committee.

In 1866, he was the president of the council which decided to invite a foreign dynasty to rule Romania. In 1871, during the Lascăr Catargiu conservative government, Epureanu was the Minister of Justice between October 1872 and March 1873. He then switched to the opposition and in 1876, he was a national liberal Prime Minister, but later he switched again to the Conservative Party.

He published Chestia locuitorilor privită din punctul de vedere al Regulamentului organic (1866) and Despre pretinsa rescumpărare a căilor ferate (1879).

He was the father of Elena Bibescu. He died in Schlangenbad, Duchy of Nassau, which is now in Germany.

title: Manolache Costache Epureanu


text:
The Penal Colony

The Penal Colony may refer to:

 * The Penal Colony: Stories and Short Pieces, a collection of short stories and recollections by Franz Kafka
 * The Penal Colony (film), a 1970 Chilean drama film

title: The Penal Colony


text:
Interstate 610 (Texas)

Interstate 610 (I-610) is an auxiliary Interstate Highway that forms a 37.972 mi loop around the inner city sector of the city of Houston, Texas. I-610, colloquially known as The Loop, Loop 610, The Inner Loop, or just 610, traditionally marks the border between the inner city of Houston ("inside the Loop") and its surrounding areas. It is the innermost of the three Houston beltways, the other two being Beltway 8 (Sam Houston Parkway/Tollway) and State Highway 99 (SH 99; Grand Parkway), of which various segments are under construction or planning. In Houston, the area inside I-610 is the urban core. Jeff Balke of the Houston Press wrote that the freeway "is as much a social and philosophical divide as a physical one". Mike Snyder in the Houston Chronicle wrote that, as someone from inside I-610, he historically felt "kind of special" due to being close to "the city's historical core and its major business, educational and cultural institutions".

Route description
Major segments of I-610 are known as the North Loop, the South Loop, the East Loop, and the West Loop. The North Loop runs from U.S. Highway 290 (US 290) to US 90, the East Loop runs from US 90 to SH 225, the West Loop runs from US 290 to the South Post Oak Road spur, and the South Loop runs from South Post Oak Road to SH 225. Sometimes, a direction name is added as a suffix to denote a more specific part of a portion of the loop and this does not denote the direction of traffic flow. For example:
 * The North Loop West Freeway refers to the portion of the North Loop between US 290 and I-45. The North Loop East Freeway refers to the portion between I-45 and US 90.
 * The East Loop North Freeway refers to the portion of the East Loop between US 90 and I-10. The East Loop South Freeway refers to the portion between I-10 and SH 225.
 * The South Loop East Freeway refers to the portion of the South Loop between SH 225 and SH 288. The South Loop West Freeway refers to the portion between SH 288 and the South Post Oak Road spur.
 * The West Loop South Freeway refers to the portion of the West Loop between the South Post Oak Road spur and Buffalo Bayou (which is just south of I-10/US 90). The West Loop North Freeway refers to the portion between Buffalo Bayou and US 290.

Lane configurations
Starting at US 290, moving in a clockwise direction, mainlane counts are as follows:
 * Four lanes each way between US 290 and I-45
 * Six lanes each way between I-45 and I-69/US 59
 * Four lanes each way between I-69/US 59 and I-10
 * Five lanes each way between I-10 and SH 225
 * Four lanes each way between SH 225 and SH 288
 * Five lanes each way between SH 288 and the South Post Oak Road spur
 * Five lanes northbound and four lanes southbound between the South Post Oak Road spur and Bissonnet exit
 * Five lanes northbound and five lanes southbound between the Bissonnet and Bellaire Boulevard exits
 * Four lanes northbound and five lanes southbound between the Bellaire Boulevard exit and Woodway Drive
 * Five lanes each way Woodway Drive and I-10/US 90
 * Six lanes each way between I-10/US 90 and US 290

History
The concept of building a bypass highway around Houston was first proposed in 1931, but plans did not begin to formalize until 1941. The loop was initially proposed to transport troops and materials around the city. On May 3, Harris County voters approved a bond to build the "Defense Loop". It was officially designated as Loop 137 in 1942, and the North Loop was approved by the Texas Transportation Commission. World War II delayed construction of the loop until the 1950s.

In July 1953, the city of Houston asked the Texas Transportation Commission to include two new sections of Loop 137 (the West and South loops) as part of the state's highway system. It was initially rejected, but, in October 1954, the North Loop was upgraded to a freeway, and the West and South loops were approved as freeways.

When the Interstate Highway System was authorized in 1956, the then-C-shaped Loop 137 (now designated I-610) was adopted into the plan. The East Loop would not be approved until 1960. That segment was finished in 1973 with the opening of the Sidney Sherman Bridge over the Houston Ship Channel.

Construction on the North Loop began in 1950. Construction was sporadic throughout the 1950s and 1960s. It was completed in 1976 with the interchange that connects I-610 to I-10 east of Houston.

In the early 1990s, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) proposed a widening project for the West Loop, which, at the time, was the busiest freeway in Houston. One of the proposals was for a dual–dual freeway with a total of 24 lanes in some places, which would have made it the widest freeway in the world. Amid vocal opposition and little apparent support, the plans for expansion were canceled.

In the late 1990s, the need to repave and reconstruct portions of the West Loop became evident. The reconstruction project was approved, but only as a "no-capacity-added" project; only safety and structural improvements could be made. Some Houston residents, however, have noted that merging lanes and exit ramps are particularly long and, in effect, serve as additional lanes.

, the segment of the West Loop from the Katy Freeway (I-10) to the Southwest Freeway (I-69) is ranked by TxDOT as the most congested roadway in the state, based on annual hours of delay per mile.

Parts of I-610 flooded during Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

title: Interstate 610 (Texas)