text:
Talk:Ben Johnson (Canadian sprinter)

ban
ban him —This unsigned comment was added by 194.83.233.3 (talk • contribs).

Quite. When was his world record surpassed by (presumably) non-steroidal means? -Ashley Pomeroy 10:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * its incredibly naive to think the gold medalists in these events are drug free. not testing positive does not equate to being drug free. the article is excellent, renders my copy of speed trap useless (almost ;)). StrengthCoach 23:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * hmm, sorry but I don't think it's a very good article. It's an excellent story which would be perfect for a magazine or something, but using all this emotive language and summarizing a book doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It's also too long and while interesting, an encyclopedia should just list the facts and cut all the action. 218.102.71.167 10:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You're welcome to try and do better. Yankees76 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a track fan and this is a very informative and interesting article. Well done. An encyclopedia entry doesn't have to be boring. Missaeagle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missaeagle (talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
I see a contradiction: "Gold" should read "bronze", otherwise it doesn't make sense in this passage:  "In May 1987, Lewis’s father died of cancer and it was at the funeral that Lewis pulled from his pocket his gold medal from the Los Angeles 100 metres and put it in his father’s hands. “I want you to have this”, he said, “because it was your favorite event”. When his mother expressed her surprise, he said calmly: “Don’t worry, I’ll get another one”.  29 July 2006
 * I'm not following you. Carl Lewis won numerous gold medals at the LA games. Ben Johnson won the bronze. The paragraph is about Lewis - not Johnson. And please sign your posts as well. Thanks. Yankees76 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources and sensationalism
Wow, this is an extremely dramatized and sensationalistic article. Sources are badly needed here. An example is:

 * It was in a quiet meeting with Francis, in Toronto in September 1981, three months before his 20th birthday that Francis brought up the subject of steroids. He informed Johnson that steroids represented 1% of performance, or the equivalent of one metre in the 100 metres, and he suggested that it was time to put Johnson in touch with his doctor. And it was a few days later that Johnson phoned Francis. He had made up his mind, and yes, he wanted that extra metre.

How can we so baldly assert the facts of what was a private meeting of two people? Was this Francis' story, as would make sense since the article quotes from his book later? This should be stated.

 * Was Johnson panicked by all this into a late run to the drugs cabinet? Not according to Francis.

The tone here is hardly encyclopaedic.

 * In the finals, however, Ben stepped it up a notch, destroying the world record with a time of 9.83 seconds. He finished almost exactly a metre ahead of Lewis, exactly the lead that Francis once told him the steroids could provide.

The dramatic value here -- the difference equalling exactly what was promised with steroids -- seems so perfect as to cast the original account of Francis/Johnson's meeting into doubt. --Saforrest 17:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That quote/fact was obtained here: []Yankees76 13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Saforrest. I just tried to clean up the first section.  I think we could do with less melodrama and fewer sub plots. David D. (Talk) 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I fully concur. This article is smutty and written to excite and please vulgar taste. It's not written like an encyclopedia but like a tawdry British tabloid newspaper. Loginnigol (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Just out of interest, what is to stop me deleting this whole article? I just googled one of the sentences from the article and came back with this article from The Times. Clearly there is major plagarism in this article. It might be best to delete the whole thing and start again from scratch. Here is another example. Many of the sentences are identical. It looks like this whole article is a cut and paste job from multiple sources. David D. (Talk) 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just too hard to pick through and delete the plagarism sentence by sentence so i have deleted everything back to the source of the problem with this and subsequent edits. Sorry but it has to be this way. If I have deleted original work then please reinstate it. David D. (Talk) 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with David D. on this. It is a shame, as much of the plagiarized information was interesting and well written. We should leave a link on the article's page to those sources for those who want more information. Uucp 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Censoring Quotes
It's purest idiocy to use censorship on quotes! "Don't tell me I cheated the system because that's [expletive]". That should be changed immeadiatly! In other respects the article is somewhat sentimental, but that's minor. Those who care enough, just change the stylistic solutions to create for a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.16.164 (talk • contribs)

 * It seems like you care enough. The advantage of wikipedia is that you can actually make these changes yourself.  Everyone is allowed to edit the articles. David D. (Talk) 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * What do you propose we change it to? The editor above doesn't seem to have read the Boston Globe article that the quote is pulled from. The quote is word for word from that article, [expletive] included. There is no need to make any changes.Yankees76 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Exactly right. Changes should not be made with out research. David D. (Talk) 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Right. The reason I didn't change it myself is that I could't find out what it is that Johnson really said. The point was that it would be better to actually quote Johnson and not some Boston Globe reporter who apparently has got some journalistic practices very wrong. If the interviewee says something unquotable you don't quote him and censor the inappropriate parts. It would be hilarious in some other context, but here its just stupid because its so wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.16.164 (talk • contribs)
 * Okay well then I will leave it up to you to contact the Boston Globe and ask them to reprint the article uncensored or at least publish a transcript of the interview so that we may then find out what word was censored and make the correction. Let me know how that goes. Yankees76 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cynics?
"This was the start of Lewis’ calling on the sport of track and field to be cleaned up in terms of the illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs. While cynics noted that the problem had been in the sport for many years" It doesn't make a person a cynic! That's ridiculous!

False Claim
There was a claim that Carl Lewis tested positive and a citation to this article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/12/05/johnson-lewis-conspiracy.html which says no such thing. I have removed the false claim. (Of course someone could act a valid citation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.220.98 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Though this CBC article does say exactly that - presumably there is another earlier CBC article which also says this - perhaps whoever added this reference had quoted the wrong article. Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Scandal: Not Accurate
In the following link, Ben Jhonson said that the drug was a conspiracy and was sneaked into his food.

http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/athletics/story/2008/05/16/f-olympics-athletics-benjohnson.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsafe (talk • contribs) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Olympic scandal/POV
I have added the POV-section tag. The discussion of the other (true or alleged) PED users is factually disputable and lacking in neutrality. There is, for instance, no proof of deliberate and non-trivial PED use in the case of Carl Lewis---a positive test notwithstanding. "Of these, only Johnson was forced to give up his records and his medals.", again, misses the point: Johnson was the only one to be tested as positive in the relevant championship (with some minor reservation for Christie), and everything went according to the rule-book. Christie's one clear-cut cheat occured some ten years later, e.g. Other similar examples exist. 94.220.247.12 (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Christie failed two drug tests during his career. He tested positive for a banned stimulant at the 1988 Olympics but was cleared 11 votes to 10 votes by a panel after claiming to have ingested it in a cup of ginseng tea. Then he was banned for two years by the IAAF in 1999 after testing positive for nandrolone.

Nonetheless I have cleaned up the section to remove some of the obvious POV and attribute certain claims to invididuals, not to Wikipedia.--Yankees76 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfect Failure?
Is it just me or is there something about this story that comes across as a perfect failure?TonyMath (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ben Johnson (sprinter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070426093630/http://outside.away.com:80/outside/magazine/1298/9812ben.html to http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/1298/9812ben.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ben Johnson (sprinter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216225449/http://www.brandchannel.com:80/features_profile.asp?pr_id=306 to http://www.brandchannel.com/features_profile.asp?pr_id=306

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ben Johnson (sprinter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150523080648/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/jo/ben-johnson-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/jo/ben-johnson-1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brandchannel.com/features_profile.asp?pr_id=306
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=orc&id=841

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved by who perhaps forgot to close the discussion :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ben Johnson (sprinter) → Ben Johnson (Canadian sprinter) – To avoid confusion with Ben Johnson (American sprinter), who is notable in his own right. Though this Ben Johnson was born in Jamaica, he represented Canada, so he should be disambiguated as a Canadian.  ONR  (talk)  19:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support partial disambiguation is a bad idea.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and Crouch, Swale. Main title headers for all incomplete disambiguations, such as this one, should be revised. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support WP:INCDAB In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Ben Johnson (Canadian sprinter)


text:
Ideal theory

In mathematics, ideal theory is the theory of ideals in commutative rings. While the notion of an ideal exists also for non-commutative rings, a much more substantial theory exists only for commutative rings (and this article therefore only considers ideals in commutative rings.)

Throughout the articles, rings refer to commutative rings. See also the article ideal (ring theory) for basic operations such as sum or products of ideals.

Ideals in a finitely generated algebra over a field
Ideals in a finitely generated algebra over a field (that is, a quotient of a polynomial ring over a field) behave somehow nicer than those in a general commutative ring. First, in contrast to the general case, if $$A$$ is a finitely generated algebra over a field, then the radical of an ideal in $$A$$ is the intersection of all maximal ideals containing the ideal (because $$A$$ is a Jacobson ring). This may be thought of as an extension of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, which concerns the case when $$A$$ is a polynomial ring.

Topology determined by an ideal
If I is an ideal in a ring A, then it determines the topology on A where a subset U of A is open if, for each x in U,
 * $$x + I^n \subset U.$$

for some integer $$n > 0$$. This topology is called the I-adic topology. It is also called an a-adic topology if $$I = aA$$ is generated by an element $$a$$.

For example, take $$A = \mathbb{Z}$$, the ring of integers and $$I = pA$$ an ideal generated by a prime number p. For each integer $$x$$, define $$|x|_p = p^{-n}$$ when $$x = p^n y$$, $$y$$ prime to $$p$$. Then, clearly,
 * $$x + p^n A = B(x, p^{-(n-1)})$$

where $$B(x, r) = \{ z \in \mathbb{Z} \mid |z - x|_p < r \}$$ denotes an open ball of radius $$r$$ with center $$x$$. Hence, the $$p$$-adic topology on $$\mathbb{Z}$$ is the same as the metric space topology given by $$d(x, y) = |x - y|_p$$. As a metric space, $$\mathbb{Z}$$ can be completed. The resulting complete metric space has a structure of a ring that extended the ring structure of $$\mathbb{Z}$$; this ring is denoted as $$\mathbb{Z}_p$$ and is called the ring of p-adic integers.

Ideal class group
In a Dedekind domain A (e.g., a ring of integers in a number field or the coordinate ring of a smooth affine curve) with the field of fractions $$K$$, an ideal $$I$$ is invertible in the sense: there exists a fractional ideal $$I^{-1}$$ (that is, an A-submodule of $$K$$) such that $$I \, I^{-1} = A$$, where the product on the left is a product of submodules of K. In other words, fractional ideals form a group under a product. The quotient of the group of fractional ideals by the subgroup of principal ideals is then the ideal class group of A.

In a general ring, an ideal may not be invertible (in fact, already the definition of a fractional ideal is not clear). However, over a Noetherian integral domain, it is still possible to develop some theory generalizing the situation in Dedekind domains. For example, Ch. VII of Bourbaki's Algèbre commutative gives such a theory.

The ideal class group of A, when it can be defined, is closely related to the Picard group of the spectrum of A (often the two are the same; e.g., for Dedekind domains).

In algebraic number theory, especially in class field theory, it is more convenient to use a generalization of an ideal class group called an idele class group.

Closure operations
There are several operations on ideals that play roles of closures. The most basic one is the radical of an ideal. Another is the integral closure of an ideal. Given an irredundant primary decomposition $$I = \cap Q_i$$, the intersection of $$Q_i$$'s whose radicals are minimal (don’t contain any of the radicals of other $$Q_j$$'s) is uniquely determined by $$I$$; this intersection is then called the unmixed part of $$I$$. It is also a closure operation.

Given ideals $$I, J$$ in a ring $$A$$, the ideal
 * $$(I : J^{\infty}) = \{ f \in A \mid fJ^n \subset I, n \gg 0 \} = \bigcup_{n > 0} \operatorname{Ann}_A((J^n + I)/I)$$

is called the saturation of $$I$$ with respect to $$J$$ and is a closure operation (this notion is closely related to the study of local cohomology).

See also tight closure.

Local cohomology in ideal theory
Local cohomology can sometimes be used to obtain information on an ideal. This section assumes some familiarity with sheaf theory and scheme theory.

Let $$M$$ be a module over a ring $$R$$ and $$I$$ an ideal. Then $$M$$ determines the sheaf $$\widetilde{M}$$ on $$Y = \operatorname{Spec}(R) - V(I)$$ (the restriction to Y of the sheaf associated to M). Unwinding the definition, one sees:
 * $$\Gamma_I(M) := \Gamma(Y, \widetilde{M}) = \varinjlim \operatorname{Hom}(I^n, M)$$.

Here, $$\Gamma_I(M)$$ is called the ideal transform of $$M$$ with respect to $$I$$.

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

title: Ideal theory


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Summer Hill, New South Wales

Summer Hill, New South Wales
My objections helped shoot this article's last nomination down, but most of these have been picked up, and it really is the best example of this type of article that we have. I don't really agree with the author about the landmarks section, but nevertheless, it's featured-worthy. Ambi 12:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Multiple one sentence paragraphs show poor writing style. (Two is not good either :) They need to be either expanded into a full idea worthy of a paragraph or merged with good style into other paragraphs covering related ground. Also the notable people section is odd.  Either they are not that notable or they a) would warrant an article of their own, or b) are worthy of at least a few sentences in a well formed paragraph instead of a list. - Taxman 23:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - excluding lists and list-lead-ins, there are now no single sentence paragraphs. The Notable Citizens section is based on a similar section in the Marshall, Texas feature article. I can kill it if you like, but it does make the area more human by including a very quick blurb about previous notable inhabitants. I've deleted the least notable person (Max Wurcker), and if you'd like I can also delete Dr Henry Hinder who is a bit marginal, but the rest are noteworthy. All the best, -- Nickj 01:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good work on much of that. But 1) for some there are lists were there is no need for them.  Especially the transportation and politics sections have no good reason not to be rewritten as prose. 2) The section on local landmarks is in an odd half list, half paragraph form, with bold headings.  Overall it seems quite jarring to me.  In addition the St Patrick's church note is still one sentence, and the Chinese temple is two.  Those both still fall under the one and two sentence paragraph problem above. 3) I happen to like all the pictures and find them very good, but they present a serious problem in readability especially in the landmarks section.  Perhaps some could be moved to a subarticle that is listed in the see also section. 4) I don't know anything specific about whether those people are notable, but as noted above, the fact that they typically have only one sentence fragment each makes it hard for me to believe they are.  If they are, please expand what is said about them and at least create stub articles.  If they are not worth stub and eventually full articles, don't keep them as empty wikilinks, even if you want to keep a few sentences about each here. Having the section is not a problem in and of itself to me if it is well done. - Taxman 03:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. Re: 1) Have left message for copyedit guru Ambi - "Help me Ambi, you're my only hope!" (with apologies to Star Wars) 2) will come back to later Converted landmarks section from bolding to headings for each landmark; Have contacted St Patrick's church and the Buddhist temple asking if there's anything they'd like to add, awaiting responses. 3) I've tried scattering the pictures throughout the article, let me know if you think it works any better now. 4) The notable citizens section has been updated now so that either the links are gone (where it's less likely articles will be written), or stubs have been added (where it's more likely that others will expand them); Also Dr Henry Hinder has been deleted. All the best, -- Nickj 02:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Nickj 00:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Support. I think I've found a template to use when decide to retackle regional townships.--ZayZayEM 12:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Jackson 5/archive1

The Jackson 5
Originally nominated as Jackson 5 before the article was moved

Not a self-nom, though I've made some recent edits. Tuf-Kat 02:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Weak object, while I know each member has their own page. I think the article in question here should at least contain maybe a 2-3 line bio in the member section. Or at least why they quit the group. Just for completenesses sake. Also I'm rather curious with so many members why it was called the "Jackson 5" i dont really get the straight answer from the history. make these changes and you get my support. Alkivar 04:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Brief bios added, along with an explanation of the number. Tuf-Kat 06:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. It seems to be overly short - about half the article consists of various lists (compare Bob Dylan). It'd be nice to see the lead section trimmed a bit, too - things like the (rather tenuous) Dashboard Confessional link could probably go somewhere else.
 * Lead section shortened. Tuf-Kat
 * Object. Lead is too long and doesn't include the names of the members. Also includes POV language about a brother being less talented at dancing than the other. I'm pretty sure this article could be expanded as well. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:42, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Lead shortened, members included. As absurd as it is, the article no longer claims Marlon was less talented at dancing than Michael. Tuf-Kat 14:55, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * still object. More can be said of the individual members in the members section. Why not summarize the existing articles on them? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Because there are existing articles on them. If someone wants to know more about one of the brothers, there's a handy link right there. Tuf-Kat 15:35, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * All but Michael are most important for being in this group, so this article should include a reasonable amount of information about each, more than one or two sentences. The two that are redlinks should be unlinked if they are not notable enough for their own article.  Also, the statement about Michael being the more talented dancer can be put back in if you can find someone else reputable that said it that you can cite. If you cite a reasonably consensus held opinion, it is not POV. - Taxman 13:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * The two redlinked articles do deserve articles of their own. Adding more biographical info on the individuals here would make the article more off-topic -- this is an article on a group, famous as a group, and individuals have their own articles.  WRT to Michael being a more talented dancer, I have removed the claim; there is no one to cite because no one bothers comparing Michael and Marlon because Michael is one of the world's most renowned entertainers and Marlon is not.  Wikipedia does not need to acknowledge POVs that could theoretically be held, only actual opinions which notable people believe in. In any case, I have removed the claim so it doesn't matter. Tuf-Kat 16:33, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Multi Fibre Arrangement

The Multi Fibre Arrangement (MFA) governed the world trade in textiles and garments from 1974 through 1994, imposing quotas on the amount developing countries could export to developed countries. Its successor, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), expired on 1 January 2005.

History
Since the (re)emergence of developing countries as a source of cotton textiles, production from these countries steadily increased after colonial independence. A number of treaties concerning Short-Term Arrangements regarding International Trade in Cotton Textiles (Geneva, 21 July 1961); Long-Term Arrangement regarding International Trade in Cotton Textiles (Geneva, 9 February 1962 and 15 June 1970), and Arrangement regarding International Trade in Textiles (Geneva, 20 December 1973) established trade rules in textiles. Eventually, the Multi Fibre Agreement was established in 1974.

Impact
The MFA was introduced in 1974 as a short-term measure intended to allow developed countries to adjust to imports from the developing world.

At the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round, it was decided to bring the textile trade under the jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization. The Agreement on Textiles and Clothing provided for the gradual dismantling of the quotas that existed under the MFA. This process was completed on 1 January 2005. However, large tariffs remained in place on many textile products.

Bangladesh was expected to suffer the most from the ending of the MFA, as it was expected to face more competition, particularly from China. However, this was not the case. It turns out that even in the face of other economic giants, Bangladesh's labor is "cheaper than anywhere else in the world." While some smaller factories were documented making pay cuts and layoffs, most downsizing was essentially speculative – the orders for goods kept coming even after the MFA expired. In fact, Bangladesh's exports increased in value by about $500 million in 2006.

title: Multi Fibre Arrangement


text:
User talk:Antichrist

Do you believe in God? Later!!! Chili14 17:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No (no longer agnostic)... (Antichrist 10:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 18:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 18:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:MichalYannai.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MichalYannai.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 18:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard
I think it's only fair to inform you that there is some discussion going on at the administrators' noticeboard regarding your username. -- joturn e r 05:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TilDeathHangedFromBridge.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TilDeathHangedFromBridge.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:TilDeathJCVD.jpg
I have tagged Image:TilDeathJCVD.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Rettetast 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:3wPlayer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:3wPlayer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Drama Kitten
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Drama Kitten, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

have marked a date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustav Mean (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wizard rock task force proposal
The idea of a Wizard rock WikiProject was proposed almost two years ago. Now that there are two more bands and a few more Harry and the Potters releases with articles, it would benefit to have a wizard rock task force. There just thirteen articles related to wizard rock, however the task force will not only be a place that improves these articles, but will also be a place to gather sources, build new articles in collaborative sandboxes and discuss uploading the mass of photographs related to wizard rock to WikiCommons (from Flickr). The task force will be under the umbrella of WikiProject Harry Potter.

To get involved within the task force or discuss it, see here. Alex Douglas (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Switchblade Kittens
A tag has been placed on Switchblade Kittens requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mush-Room (film)

The article Mush-Room (film) has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * no significant coverage, does not meet criteria for notable films

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Circadian Rhythm (film)

The article Circadian Rhythm (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Antichrist


text:
User talk:Bholz

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

title: User talk:Bholz


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kardashev scale/archive1

Kardashev scale
(self-nomination) I put this through peer review with no response. I believe it needs some more work, nothing very major, but I do not have the time right now to do it. Basically, I would like an opinion as to if this is to featured article specifications--in that does it need more work. My gripes and grievances are listed on the to-do list on the article's talk page- please look at it, in the "copy" of what I originally posted on peer review. I know this is nonstandard, but basically, I want to know if no one responded on peer review because the article was up to spec, or because they were not interested. Well on to the discussion. 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) Revised by -- 00:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) so it did not take up so much of the page. Please check the article's talk page.

 * Object - no lead image (hardly any images at all); the lead is far too long and detailed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you objecting on the idea that the first section really should be split into 5 (I think it should, see the talk page)? Or are you objecting because there is too much information? --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 00:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Images added and then removed, I can't win! --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 17:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Images addded
 * Lead shortenned, second half move to its own section, more appropriate due to the nature of applying the Kardashev scale to human civilization, whose type does not yet exist. Has the page been fixed to your satisfaction? --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 03:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Object. 1) The "hypothetical futures" section seems to be original research. 2) The "Current values" table and calculations report ten or even thirteen significant digits, which conveys false precision. 3) The calculations after the table need to be explained better. 4) Overall the article seems to be a mix of science, science fiction and unfalsifiable speculation. Maybe the science and the fiction should be split into separate articles. PRiis 20:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) PRiis 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I broght together many souces. A lot of people say this stuff, just that it is all over the place, from Issac Asimov to Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking. That is why there are so many sources. That reminds me that I have to include Stephen Hawking's life in the universe cd as a source, it has a large discussion of hypotheticals by Hawking himself, but not in relation to Kardashev Scale, but into information expansion and anthorpic theory, but along pararell lines of discussion of net energy needed to maintain sentient being status (sentient beings are both entropic and anti-entropic) grows on a exponential scale in relation to the real information or technology produced by that being and not by its biological needs. 2)The lowest I can see going is to the thousandth decimal place, the percision is there because we are talking about a number that is 10^18, derived from values that are much smaller than it. You can know something to the trillionth place, especially if you are measuring it by in units that are one trillionth the size of what you are expressing it as in the end product. (ie. You can say there are 0.254233 trillion tribbles, if you have a report saying that there are 254,233,000,000 tribbles. Similarly, even though we are calculating using so-called exact values of the population, we are taking it to a percission where if we are off by 200,000 watts per person in energy consumption, and 10 million persons in the total population, changes would not be reprsented until appoximately the 13th signifcant figure if dealing with values in the 10^16 range. Note that, if the Kardashev scale value was closer to one, this type of percision would be inapproriate, but in the midsection of this logathmic scale, it is specially appropriate due to the statistical values we know. 3) Could you help me clean up the calculations, I though a page of explaination was enough. Also, from information I found, unfortunately we may not know what the true value is for 2005 due to changes in China's infrastructure (Three Gorges Dam) and the questionable numbers coming from a redeveloping Iraq (ie, do you count energy that was never consumed). 4) It is a mix of science that has been co-opted by science fiction. The specualtion is clearly noted, in my opinon. --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 02:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I was too terse. Let me clarify. 1) Section 4.2, Hypothetical futures: you should probably say who--specifically--thought of this scenario and assigned the values to each step. If that person is you, then it's original research. So the way to resolve this would be to cite where the information in this section came from. 2) Significant figures: it's the number of figures in the mantissa that matters. Your example above has six significant figures whether you express it in nanotribbles or exatribbles. World population estimates have an error on the order of 1% according to the UN. I don't know what the error on the energy production estimate would be, but I'd guess it's on the same order. No answer you derive from these numbers can have more precision than that. Including more significant figures is just misleading. I'd guess three significant figures would be right, but I assume you did the calculations so you can say for sure. 3) I'm referring here to the calculation after the table, where, apparently, you're estimating the mtoes for years 2004 and 2005. I can't find the page of explanation for these calculations that you refer to above. I'm just saying you should state what you're showing in these calculations without forcing the reader to figure out what they are by trying to see what numbers match with what. Whether those calculations even need to be included at all is a separate question. 4) Maybe this is not actionable--I'll defer to the opionions of others on this. But look at Fermi paradox to see how this sort of material can be handled. PRiis 18:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I will put in the sources for each part, since I have now seperated them and made them into tables, making sources much easier 2)I will defer to you on significant figures. That said, I would go to the thousandths place (0.814 for example), which still delinates differences between years. 3) I was using page as an exagerative word, I misunderstood you, I was refering to the calculations as an explaination itself, but I will annotate them, or remove them, if others agree to the removal of 2004 and 2005. 4( I will look into the fermi paradox page --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 19:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1)sources added to hypothetical futures--[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 20:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2)Fixed current values table 3) Provided explaination --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 20:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*Support: This article meets all the main criteria for being a featured article - it is exceptionally informative and easy to read, even for the layman, it is comprehensive and well written. As for accuracy, there is no apparent disagreement in the talk pages, and it contains Italic textmany references as well as numerous explinations on errata by the chief contributor. It has a concise opening and table of contents, and contains well made graphics. All while being on an utterly fascinating subject - it is a great example of a featured article. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 7 Jan 2005

 * Object. Article has improved a lot but it is still a mess. (1) I have tried very hard to understand the diagram at Image:Development-Diagram.gif and I have failed. What do the axes represent? What do the coloured areas and lines represent? The image description talks about features like "rotating triangles" and "red curve" that I cannot identify on the diagram. You can see at Image talk:Development-Diagram.gif that I am not the only one to have trouble. (2) The images in section 2 don't appear to illustrate the text. (3) The numbers in the table in section 5 have ludicrous precision. (4) Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation, nor for original research. We must include only verifiable claims. Because speculation inherently cannot be verified it is necessary to identify who is responsible for each piece of speculation. For example, section 1.1 says "predictions are from what seems most likely given current trends in research." That is no good: "what seems most likely" is someone's point of view. This section must say something like, "Professor X proposes the following timeline" and cite the paper where he or she proposes it. Section 2 needs to name the most notable people making the arguments for and against. Section 3 says "given the fact that there must be a transition between civilization periods for each level". I don't think it's a fact, but rather someone's theory. Whose is it and what do they mean by "transition"? And so on. Almost every paragraph has speculation masquerading as fact, or weasel words like "Many individuals have pointed to". Gdr 20:22, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * Who reposted the nomination? I self-nomed a few weeks ago, but not this time. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 15:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It was posted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson on 2005-01-07 Gdr 18:37, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Quiggles

Image copyright problem with Image:Quigley_Gary.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Quigley_Gary.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 03:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beenybabe.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Beenybabe.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Beenybabe.jpg

The file File:Beenybabe.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Quiggles


text:
Talk:Hal Draper

Untitled
From the article (version of December 6, 2004):

Hal Draper (1914 -1990) was a socialist activist, Marxist, Left-Shachtmanite, and author. Initially a member of the Young People's Socialist League he was won with that organisation to Trotskyism. Along with the YPSL he took part in the founding of the Socialist Workers' Party in 1938.

By 1940 he was part of a faction within the SWP which objected to the internal regime of that party and was developing an analysis of the USSR as a bureaucratic collectivist society in which a new class, the state bureaucracy, held social and state power. In 1940 they became the Workers Party led by Max Shachtman.

By 1948 the WP believed that the prospects for revolution were receding and that it must transform itself into a propaganda group. Therefore it became the Independent Socialist League and Hal Draper continued as one of its leading writers and functionaries.

---> Could you PLEEEEAASE add which part of the world you are talking about? I came across this page via the List of socialists, and I have no idea!  10:53, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Part of world
Draper lived and worked in the United States. (Brooklyn is part of New York City.Dogru144 (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Relative?
Is he related to the labor activist, David Dubinksy?Dogru144 (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hal Draper


text:
Solec Kujawski radio transmitter

The Longwave transmitter Solec Kujawski (Radiowe Centrum Nadawcze w Solcu Kujawskim; RCN Solec Kujawski) is a longwave broadcasting facility of Polskie Radio for the AM-LW (longwave) 225 kHz frequency/1333 meters wavelength. Its construction was necessitated by the collapse of the Warsaw radio mast on 8 August 1991 and the resistance of the local population to its reconstruction. Tower Height 948 feet/289 meters and 1080 feet/330 meters. Height above sea level 209 feet/64 meters MSL (Mean Sea Level).

The transmitter was built in 1998–99 on a former military area near Solec Kujawski. The area was originally a hamlet called Kabat (Grosswalde) until World War II, when the Germans established a military artillery and rocket training ground in the area. The transmitter, manufactured by Thomcast, has a power of 1200 kilowatts (used 1000 kW) and is equipped with MOSFET amplifiers. The carrier frequency is, as in earlier days of the Konstantynow transmitter, generated by a set of twin high-accuracy thermally-stabilized quartz oscillators. It transmits the longwave signal of Polskie Radio Program I at 225 kHz frequency, which it has broadcast on since moving from 227 kHz in 1988.

It uses a directional aerial, consisting of a 330 m high and a 289 m high guyed grounded mast 330 metres apart. The taller mast is Poland's eighth highest structure.

Furthermore, there is a freestanding lattice tower close to the station building that is used for directional radio links, which serve among others for passing the program to the station.

On 16 May 2017, an engineer was electrocuted and died during maintenance work on the transmitter. The transmitter therefore had to remain silent for two more days while a safety review was conducted.

title: Solec Kujawski radio transmitter


text:
Louis Wigfall

Louis Trezevant Wigfall (April 21, 1816 – February 18, 1874) was an American politician who served as a Confederate States Senator from Texas from 1862 to 1865. He was among a group of leading secessionists known as Fire-Eaters, advocating the preservation and expansion of an aristocratic agricultural society based on slave labor. He briefly served as a Confederate Brigadier General of the Texas Brigade at the outset of the American Civil War before taking his seat in the Confederate Senate. Wigfall's reputation for oratory and hard-drinking, along with a combative nature and high-minded sense of personal honor, made him one of the more imposing political figures of his time. He was also a slave owner.

Youth
Wigfall was born on a plantation near Edgefield, South Carolina, to Levi Durant and Eliza Thomson Wigfall. His father, who died in 1818, was a successful Charleston merchant before moving to Edgefield. His mother was of the French Huguenot Trezavant family. She died when young Louis was 13. An older brother, Hamden, was killed in a duel. Another, Arthur, became a bishop in the Episcopal Church.

Tutored by a guardian until 1834, he then spent a year at Rice Creek Springs School, a military academy near Columbia, South Carolina, for children of elite aristocrats. He then entered the University of Virginia. A perceived insult by another student prompted the first of many dueling challenges he would make, but the affair was resolved peaceably.

In 1836 he entered South Carolina College (now the University of South Carolina) to complete his studies, but his attendance was erratic. He developed an interest in the law, participated in the Euphradian Society, and wrote epistles on student rights. Most of his time however, was spent at off-campus taverns rather than at his studies. He abandoned academics altogether for three months to fight in the Second Seminole War in Florida, achieving the rank of Lieutenant of volunteers. Despite these distractions he managed to graduate in 1837. A fellow graduate considered to be his closest friend was John Lawrence Manning, who would later become governor of South Carolina.

In 1839 Wigfall returned to Edgefield and took over his brother's law practice. Having squandered his inheritance, and with a proclivity for drinking and gambling, he accumulated debts. He borrowed from friends to maintain a freewheeling lifestyle, including from his future bride. "Mere office business" as an upcountry lawyer did not suit his temperament and sense of purpose, nor prove to be as profitable as he had hoped.

Personal life
In 1841 Wigfall married his second cousin, Charlotte Maria Cross, daughter of the prominent Charlestown lawyer and former South Carolina State Controller, Col. George Warren Cross, and his wife, Frances Maria Halsey. They had three daughters: Francis Halsey, Louise Sophie, and Mary Frances (Fanny) Wigfall. Louise was a Civil War diarist.

Violence and politics
In the South Carolina gubernatorial election of 1840, Wigfall actively supported the candidacy of John Peter Richardson over the more radical James Henry Hammond, which led to public exchanges of arguments and insults. In a five-month period, Wigfall managed to get into a fistfight, two duels, three near-duels, and was charged, but not indicted, for killing a man. This outbreak of political violence culminated in 1840 on an island in the Savannah River near Augusta, Georgia, where Wigfall took a bullet through both thighs while dueling with future Congressman Preston Brooks. Although Hammond lost the race for Governor, he attempted to mediate the dispute between the two hot-headed young men. Wigfall received an aide-de-camp and Lieutenant Colonelcy on Governor Richardson's staff, but never was completely satisfied with the outcome of the Brooks affair.

This initial foray into politics and the Brooks affair destroyed his law practice. He was elected delegate to the South Carolina Democratic convention in 1844, but his violent temperament and behind-the-scenes meddling had already doomed his youthful political ambitions. He piled up medical bills because of a sickly infant son who eventually died. Sheriff sales followed, swallowing up his Edgefield estate. A Texas cousin, former South Carolina governor James Hamilton, Jr., arranged a fresh start with a law partnership.

Wigfall's reputation as a duelist, often exaggerated, followed him his entire life, even though he gave up the practice entirely after his marriage. However, he would continue to claim the code duello was an important "factor in the improvement of both the morals and manners of the community."

Gone to Texas
Arriving in Texas in 1848, Wigfall joined William B. Ochiltree's law practice at Nacogdoches, Texas, then settled in Marshall, Texas. He quickly dove back into politics, serving in the Texas House of Representatives from 1849 to 1850, and in the Texas Senate from 1857 to 1860. He became a staunch political opponent of Sam Houston. When Houston ran for governor in 1857, Wigfall followed him on the campaign trail, attacking his congressional record at each of Houston's stops, and accused Houston of being a traitor to the South. He claimed that Houston had ambitions for a presidential nomination and courted the support of Northern abolitionists.

He organized state Democrats to resist the Know Nothing party, but with their defeat his radical views descended in the estimation of Democratic moderates. John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry propelled him and his radical views back to prominence in the state.

United States Senator
The Texas legislature elected Wigfall to the United States Senate in 1859 as a Democrat to the 36th United States Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of James Pinckney Henderson. Matthias Ward was appointed to the Senate following Henderson's death and served from September 27, 1858, until Wigfall was elected and sworn in on December 5, 1859. Wigfall served until March 23, 1861, when he withdrew. He was expelled from the Senate on July 11, 1861, for support of the rebellion. He also served as a member of the Texas delegation to the Provisional Confederate Congress, which formed the provisional government of the Confederacy, and which selected Jefferson Davis as its president. Wigfall had continued to hold his seat after Texas had seceded on February 1, 1861, and was admitted to the Provisional Confederate Congress on March 2, 1861, exhorting the rightness of the Southern cause and berating his Northern colleagues whether on the floor of the Senate or in Capitol Hill saloons. During this time in Washington, he spied on Federal preparations for the coming conflict, secured weapons for delivery south, and upon expulsion by his fellow Senators, he went to Baltimore, Maryland and recruited soldiers for the new Confederacy before traveling to the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia.

American Civil War
In the days leading up to the start of hostilities, Wigfall advocated an attack on Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens in Florida to prompt Virginia and other upper southern slave states to join the Confederacy. In January 1865, Wigfall stated his reasons for having supported the Confederacy, namely, opposition to African American equality:

"Sir, I wish to live in no country where the man who blacks my boots or curries my horse is my equal."

He arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, as the siege of Fort Sumter commenced. According to diarist Mary Chestnut, he was the only "thoroughly happy person I see." While serving as an aide to General Beauregard during the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and without authorization, he rowed a skiff out to the island fort and demanded its surrender from Major Robert Anderson. The incident was widely reported in the newspapers furthering his celebrity, but the story redacted the important detail that Wigfall had not spoken to Beauregard in two days. When the authorized emissaries arrived at the fort, they were dismayed upon learning that Wigfall had granted terms to Anderson that Beauregard had already rejected.

Brigade commander
With his newfound celebrity Wigfall secured an appointment to full colonel of the 1st Texas Infantry Regiment, and a rapid promotion thereafter to brigadier general of the "Texas Brigade" in the Confederate Army. He took up residence near his encamped troops in a tavern at Dumfries, Virginia, during the winter of 1861–1862, where he would frequently call the men to arms at midnight, imagining a Federal invasion. His nervousness was blamed on his fondness for whiskey and hard cider. He appeared visibly drunk, on and off-duty, in the presence of his men on more than one occasion. He resigned his commission in February 1862 to take a seat in the Confederate Senate, and was replaced by John Bell Hood.

Confederate States Senator
At the beginning of the war Wigfall was a close friend of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Like political alliances throughout his career, he would first support then split with Davis as the war progressed. Davis supported an increasingly strong national government, while Wigfall, forever an advocate of states rights, moved to block the creation of the Confederate Supreme Court, fearing Davis' appointments would rule against the states. Wigfall also challenged Davis, a West Point graduate and former United States Secretary of War, on many of his military-related policies, citing his own military experience in the Seminole Wars. Wigfall was a close friend of Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston and frequently proposed legislation on the general's behalf. He was also an early proponent of making Robert E. Lee commander of all Confederate armies.

Later life
At the conclusion of hostilities, Wigfall escaped back to Texas in the company of Texas troops with a forged parole, then went to London in 1866 as an exile, where he intrigued to foment trouble between Britain and the United States. He bought a mine in Clear Creek, Colorado, returning to the United States in 1870. He lived for a while in Baltimore, Maryland, and was in Galveston, Texas, in January, 1874. He died a month later of "apoplexy" and is buried there in the Episcopal cemetery.

In popular culture
In the 1992 alternate history/science fiction novel The Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove, Senator Wigfall appears as a character. The book uses real quotes of Wigfall.

In the historical novel The Lincoln Special by Peg A. Lamphier, Wigfall appears as a major character and villain with some creative dramatization. The novel as a whole is about Kate Warne and the Pinkerton Detective Agency investigating the Baltimore Plot against Lincoln.

title: Louis Wigfall


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory/archive1

Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory
(self-nomination) An early suburb of Canberra, Australia's capital city. Created as an example suburb for WikiProject Canberra. Martyman 01:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Wow! Fantastic! Support. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article on a suburb which is actually moderately interesting, even though limited in its scope. It's an interesting suburb I guess, and definately a good article. Psychobabble 07:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Certainly not bad, but needs work. 1) Copyedit needed. I'm not a native English speaker, but I picked out (and fixed) minor things already. A native speaker would probably find much more. 2) I miss an explanation of the name Yarralumla. 3) There are many brief sections. Some could be expanded, others be merged (e.g. Major Roads with Geography). Especially the "Notable Places" section needs expansion, given there are "main articles" quoted while the text here is only two or three sentences. 4) Some non-digital references or further reading would be very welcome. 5) The table of suburbs at the bottom is a bit ugly, and should probably be made into a proper footer. Jeronimo 08:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) More copyediting has now taken place. I would appreciate it if anyone else could do some more copyediting on it. 2) The name is now further explained in the article. 3) Some expansion has taken place. Many of the notable places where spun off into their own articles when the section started getting too big. It seems strange to have more than a short summary on this page for each one when the details are listed on a seperate page. 4) I have now listed some non-digital further reading, but can't list anything as a reference if I didn't use it as such. 5) The locator table has now been replaced with a newer neater version. This is a standard suburb locator table used in most Australian suburb articles. Martyman 03:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Jeronimo has outlined most of my concerns, although I disagree with him on the fate of the footer, which is part of most Australian suburb articles. In addition to his comments - a) the lead section could do with a bit of work (it's not so much length as that it doesn't summarise the content of the article), b) the notable places section is too long - this isn't WikiTravel. It might be an idea to merge all the paragraphs into one section - I don't think summary style works well there, c) the suburb amenities section needs a good copyedit, and could be split up and merged with some others - the Summer Hill article does a much better job of covering this ground, d) it'd be nice to see the references properly styled, e) the politics section could be slightly expanded, I think. Ambi 08:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Many of Jeronimo's objections have been addressed above. a) The lead section has been modified. I think the lead section does summerise the article. You are comparing it to the Summer Hill lead section which is not in any was a summary as not a single fact mentioned in the lead section is repeated later int he article. b) I feel in an article about a suburb (espesialy one notable for it's landmarks) space should be used for mentioning notable landmarks. All of the landmarks mentioned are significant at a Canberra level, but I wouldn't expect to see them mentioned in the Canberra article. An article about less than 1% of Canberra should be able to go into a bit more depth about such things. c) The amenities section has been reworded do you still object to it having it's own section? d) References done. e) The politics section ahs been slightly expanded. I can't find any more relevent information than this. Martyman 21:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. As long as which particular embassies are in this suburb - rather than just "Yarralumla is home to many of Canberra's foreign embassies and high commissions"--ZayZayEM 04:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bernard Williams

Bernard Williams
(Self-nomination) This is about Sir Bernard Williams, the British moral philosopher, who died last year. Slim 22:35, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bode well that I had to go in and add his full name and date of birth; that should be taken care of long before a featured nomination. Also, shrink the picture. But this isn't an objection. Everyking 00:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that Everyking. We were actually editing at the same time. I had the dates lower down in the article, but I've gone back and have re-written the intro and also added a few more details. Slim 00:52, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Object: the lead section is inadequate, giving no idea of the content of his philosophy (we don't need a deep explanation, but some pigeon-holes would be nice). Some of the writing is overly Mills and Boon (He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore).  Mark1 02:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mark. I'll rewrite the lead. As for the Mills and Boon bits, they are all absolutely true. :-) Slim 04:03, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Mark, I have rewritten the lead, added a bit more detail, and a few more links. That sentence (lean and attractive) is still there though, because I have grown somewhat attached to it. :-)  Slim 05:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Support. Comments – This is well-written and referenced. I like the large photo. But it needs some tuning.
 * The caption doesn't work for me: "He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore." It echoes the main text. Readers can judge for themselves whether he was lean and attractive. The reference to white suits jars with the photo of a dark suit.
 * This sentence doesn't work for me: " He abhorred scientific and evolutionary reductionism, once calling reductionists 'the ones I really do dislike,' because, he said, they are morally unimaginative." "Dislike" is so much milder than "abhor."
 * Need to say which war in "missing war service by only a couple of years".
 * This statement appears to need more support: "There is no doubting the enormous influence of his approach." A quote from someone else should do the job.
 * " He died on June 10, 2003 while …" needs a comma after "2003".
 * This needs to be fixed: "{South America|South American]]"
 * I don't know what this means: "congratulatory first".
 * It should be put in the "Philosophers" category. Maurreen 07:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added the cat, and fixed some spelling+grammar. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:56, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I tried to strike out all my comments, but I'm doing something wrong. Maurreen 08:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Object. Contains POV language. Don't know enough to fix it. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:56, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Properly fixed and well-referenced. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Agree with MGM on the POV language. Take the first sentence for example, " arguably the most erudite of his age." or the caption under the first image "He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore." Also, we have no references (only external links). None of the images has source information, and the Williams and Nietzsche pictures are probably copyrighted (because of the addition to the Nietzsche picture). Support. Jeronimo 12:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * To address the objections:
 * (1) I re-wrote the lead again, getting rid of "arguably the most erudite of his age" and used "arguably the most influential of his age," which I believe no moral philosopher would argue with. It's hard to find a quote for this, because it's taken as read by people who've written about him. (It's like trying to find a quote saying Einstein was clever.) Some philosophers would say he was THE most influential; others would say he was ONE of the most influential. No one would say he was not one of the most influential.
 * Found a quote from The Times to use instead.
 * (2) Maurreen, I think I dealt with all your points. Used "rejected" instead of "abhorred." It was the Second World War. Explained congratulatory first. Fixed the typos. Someone else added the categories and missing comma in the date. Got rid of deep sun tan and baggy white suits, and that he was attractive. Got rid of "enormous influence of his approach," as I couldn't find a specific quote for it. Added a quote about his being a feminist.
 * (3) Mark and Jeronimo, I think this version is less Mills and Boon-eque.
 * (4) Jeronimo, I don't know what you mean by references. I've supplied a fairly comprehensive bibliography. Do you mean actual footnotes throughout the text? Footnote are not normally used in philosophy entries in encyclopedias so far as I know. It would take me weeks to footnote everything in this article. I have a copy of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy here (calls itself a dictionary, but is what we normally think of an encyclopedia), and there are no footnotes in entries, though they do supply a bibliography. Where I quote someone, however, I do supply a reference.
 * References added
 * (5) Jeronimo, the Williams photograph has been released for public use; and the copyright on the Kant and Nietzsche photographs has expired. Because you mentioned being concerned about the writing on the Nietzsche photo, I used instead the photo of him from his own Wikipedia entry, which has no writing on it.
 * Copyright information added to image pages
 * (6) Also, some of you didn't like the large photograph of Williams. Someone else reduced it, so it's now quite a bit smaller.
 * (7) Mgm, you said it contains POV language but you don't know enough to fix it. I've taken out some of the POV language. If you still have concerns, do you have specific objections that I can address?

Thank you, everyone, for the input, which is much appreciated. Slim 19:30, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

To address the most recent objections:
 * Object (again, same general idea as before). Some of the writing is still too gushing, particularly the paragraph that starts When he left for America; assuming there's a source for this material, quoting the source would be fine.  Also, I don't know what His time as a fighter pilot did not harm his image with members of the opposite sex means: is the suggestion that he pulled Shirley Williams because he was in the RAF? Mark1 08:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Mark, yes, I was saying that his time as a fighter pilot served him well with women, as American philosopher Martha Nussbaum and several others have noted, but I've deleted it, rather than sourcing it, as it's probably unencyclopedic. The thing about Williams is that, perhaps unusually for an academic, he was extremely attractive to many women: physically, intellectually and politically. It's something that is noted by almost all women who have written about him. When women found out he had also been a fighter pilot, it was like the icing on the cake. I've also deleted that he was charismatic and energetic; that he spent a lot of his time at garden parties looking just over people's shoulders to see if there was anyone more stimulating around; and that his evening lectures often found him surrounded by undergraduates sitting at his feet. I believe/hope that gets rid of all the unencylopedic observations. Slim 02:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Mark, on second thoughts, I've deleted the whole "When he left for America" paragraph.

 * done Object. 1) Please format the external links used as references according to the guidelines at Cite sources. You created the references section, is it fair to say you have consulted all of those for material in the article?  Also, I've never seen inline citations use the title of the work, only the primary author's last name. Is using the work standard? Is the bibliography section simply a list of his works? It might help to make it clearer to state that explicitly.  It appears you have done great work referencing the article, thank you, keep doing that. 2) The lead section is too long.  It should be 4 paragraphs max, and no one or two sentence paragraphs. - Taxman 20:54, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Taxman, yes I did consult everything in the "references" section for material in the article. I will make the citations consistent so that only the name of the work is cited if it's by Williams; otherwise I will list only author's name. The reason I did it that way is that I haven't worked out how to provide footnotes (as links) in Wikipedia articles. The thing about Cite sources is that it suggests following the American Psychological Association style. I don't know why that style would be chosen over any other academic one. Yes, the bibliography is a list of his works: I have made that clearer by calling it "List of works by Bernard Williams". I have also reduced the lead section to four paragraphs, by merging the short ones. Slim 02:38, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The only thing I referred you to Cite sources for is for the external links. Those currently have no proper formatting except a description of the link. Also, still many one and two sentence paragraphs throughout and one in the intro.  I'm not sure why that is so prevalent in Wikipedia, but in any graded paper, it would be considered a serious deficit, so it certainly doesn't qualify as great writing. - Taxman 15:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Where the inline refs are to works by Williams himself, it is indeed standard to cite only the titles inline. Where they're to other writers, it should be the author's last name. (In other words, common sense is the overriding principle.) These inline refs are overloaded, they have too much info. They should always be as simple as is consistent with being unambiguous. Therefore, please trim off the publication info, which is conveniently available in the references + bibliography sections at the foot of the page. Format refs like this: (Moral Luck) for a work by Williams, (Foot) for a work by Philippa Foot (assuming there is only one). Put in page numbers if desired, also on a common sense principle (=are they useful?).--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have cited the work by title and date when it is Williams, and by author's surname and date when it is someone else; and I got rid of the extra publication info. Slim 03:26, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, fine. I've mentioned a couple of formatting details on your Talk page.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*There's a POV issue in the final paragraph, with the claim that nobody else discussed self-interest in moral philosophy honestly since Aristotle, which needs to be either reworded (a lot) or sourced in a neutral way, not given as opinion. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I'll support this excellent article as soon as that's taken care of.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Mark1 06:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've changed that to a role neglected by Western philosophy since Aristotle. Mark1 03:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mark, but I have doubts, I think the problem may be bigger. Surely the role of self-interest does come prominently into moral philosophy in the Western tradition ever since Aristotle? It seems to me that the burden of Slim's discussion in the article has been that it's new, or unusual, that Williams gives self-interest a positive role. (In moral action, not just the kind of societal automatic positive role that self-interest has in Mandeville, or else it wouldn't be very new.) I assumed that the phrase "not honestly explored since Aristotle" referred back to this negative/positive distinction, and also took sides, claiming that Williams is honest about self-interest while his predecessors weren't. It's only the POV taking sides that I want out of there, not the distinction itself. Only the bath water, not the baby. Taking it out orphans the reference to Christianity, too. Unless I've misunderstood, always a possibility. Perhaps Slim could weigh in?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Heroic work by SlimVirgin to address all outstanding objections. Jayjg 18:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Bishonen, you're right that I was trying to convey that few philosophers before Williams had explored the positive aspect of self-interest in moral action. Perhaps I should re-write it to say "positive role of . . " and then say "thoroughly explored" instead of honestly. Slim 23:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to: "By illuminating the positive and, Williams argued, vital role of self-interest in moral action, a role largely neglected by Western philosophy since Aristotle . . . " Does that do it? Bishonen, I like your latest merging of paragraphs, except the one where he's quoted on the brain drain, which I'd like have as a stand-alone.
 * Thank you to everyone for all the effort you're putting into this article. You've definitely improved it. Slim 23:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, I've formatted the links the way I understood the Wikipedia page to recommend. Thanks for sending that to me. Let me know if I've done them correctly. I included the date I retrieved the webpage only on two occasions: one for what appears to be a personal webpage, as it may not be stable; and secondly, for an undated Williams article on the Royal Institute of Philosophy's site. Otherwise, they are stable websites (newspapers and magazines) and the articles are dated, so I didn't bother there with the dates I retrieved them. Bishonen and Mark, I've deleted the "vital" role of self-interest in the last paragraph, as it was too wordy, so it now reads: "By illuminating the positive role of self-interest in moral action, a role largely neglected by Western philosophy since Aristotle . . . " Bishonen, I split the first paragraph into two again, as I felt it looked and read better as two. Let me know if these changes are okay. Slim 08:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, that still amounts to claiming that self-interest does play a positive role in moral action, and BW illuminates it while the other guys neglect it. How would you feel about something like "By giving self-interest a vital positive role in moral action, a role largely denied by Western philosophy since" etc? There has to be more elegant phrasing out there, but you probably see what I mean.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishånen (tåk)]] 16:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I wonder whether that's getting too bogged down. You could also argue that "by giving self-interest a positive role . . ." is POV, and really it should be "in attempting to give . . " I'll have another look at it, but I'm inclined to leave it as it is. Also, no moral philosopher (that I can think of) would argue that self-interest doesn't play a positive role to some degree. Williams illuminated that role, expanded on it, didn't shirk from its consequences etc. That is the difference between him and other moral philosophers. Slim 16:29, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Bishonen, I couldn't think of how to re-word it accurately without opening a can of worms, so I added "what he saw as the positive role of". The sentence now reads: "By illuminating what he saw as the positive role of self-interest in moral action, a role largely neglected by Western philosophy since Aristotle, at least in part because of the influence of Christianity, there is no doubt that Bernard Williams became one of the leading English-language philosophers of his time." What do you think?  Slim 18:50, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * It's fine, NPOV-wise, so I consider my objection fixed. Seems to me Christianity comes as a bit of a surprise (and weighs down the sentence) here at the conclusion, not having gotten a look in before, but I'm not objecting on the basis of a detail like that. Great article, support.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Bishonen. I agree with you about the Christianity part weighing down the sentence. I may get rid of it. Slim 21:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I did get rid of it, Bishonen. Slim 04:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Copying the following from users' talk pages:

A comment also: the sentence "The utilitarian philosopher's main rival is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant." is not entirely clear and seems a pretty heavy POV unless cited to a specific source. Also, is that meant to be in the caption or as a part of the next paragraph in that section? Currently it is neither. - Taxman 03:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi again Taxman. The sentence "The utilitarian philosopher's main rival is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant" is the introductory sentence (a one-sentence paragraph) of the Kant section. I don't believe it's POV. There are basically two views regarding how to judge the moral value of an act: (1) utilitarian, which means consequentialist i.e. you judge the value of an act according to its consequences and (2) deontological, which means you judge the value of an act in some way intrinsically. See Deontology. A deontologist would say (broadly speaking) that, if an act X is good, then it continues to be good even if it produces dreadful consequences. The most important and influential deontologist is Kant. I'm fairly certain no moral philosopher would dispute that. Slim 04:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * It is a POV because it is an opinion. It does not matter that almost no moral philosopher would dispute it, that is beside the point.  It is not a fact, partly just because 'main rival' is an ambiguous term.  But you could easily make it NPOV in this case, by citing the comment to a source or a source that backs up your claim that "no moral philosopher would dispute" it.  For ex, saying MSU is the main rival of UofM is an opinion, but mentioning Lloyd Carr, coach of UofM said the same thing is a fact, if he did say it. Please review the NPOV policy and think about what is opinion and what is fact.  Just because many or even every person asked believes one thing is so, does not make it so. - Taxman 04:21, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Taxman, you are driving a hard bargain. :-)   Saying Kant is the utilitarian's main rival is like saying Oxford is Cambridge's main rival. It's a true proposition. I will try to find a quote. Regarding your fact/opinion distinction, in some cases, everyone's saying X does make X true e.g. the example above: if everyone believes Oxford is Cambridge's main rival, then it is true that Oxford is Cambridge's main rival, because their status and relationship is based upon the beliefs of others regarding that status and relationship. Similarly, if all moral philosophers believe Kant is the main rival to utilitarianism, then he is, as a matter of definition. But I take your point nonetheless.
 * Yes, your other changes were fine, thank you. Slim 04:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * I found a quote in the Boston Review obit from Martha Nussbaum, who is a philosopher. She calls Kantianism and utilitarianism "those two dominant theories."
 * So that sentence now reads: "The main rival of utiilitarianism is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Williams' work throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Morality: An Introduction to Ethics in 1972; Problems of the Self in 1973; Utilitarianism: For and Against with J.J.C. Smart, also in 1973; Moral Luck in 1981; Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy in 1985) outlined the basis of his attacks on the twin pillars of utilitarianism and Kantianism. "As a group these works denounced the trivial and evasive way," wrote Martha Nussbaum, "in which moral philosophy was being practiced in England under the aegis of those two dominant theories." Slim 05:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Taxman, I don't agree with your recent changes, and I'm beginning to lose track of what it is you want. (1) The list of 70s and 80s books was part of the text, not an inline reference, so it's not appropriate to create a footnote, (2) It was discussed above that I'd be using inline references rather than footnotes, so it seems odd now to create just the one solitary footnote, (3) It's not appropriate to say "Nussbaum, 2003" about a newspaper article, because that implies it's an academic book or paper. Why not just leave the reference so the reader can click on it? (4) Why have the Williams texts as a footnote but not the Nussbaum text? You are introducing inconsistencies, in my view. (5) Please don't lengthen any of the paragraphs any further. We obviously disagree about whether short or long paragraphs are better, but I feel Bishonen has edited it well, and I re-split only two of the paragraphs in the interests of clarity, emphasis and convention. Slim 15:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doctor Who

Doctor Who
Not exactly a self-nomination, though I've been one of a regular group of people who have done extensive work on the Doctor Who set of pages over the last half year or so. -khaosworks 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are anons allowed to nominate? If so, then I'm putting this marvellously comprehensive article forward. --195.11.216.59 17:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well I've suggested that Khaosworks pushes for this to be a FAC, and I think it should be too. Support. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: could perhaps do with some more references - there must be more available violet/riga (t) 23:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Reply: I could put in more references, but none that directly contributed to the information above. The bulk of the references are in the sub-page History of Doctor Who. -khaosworks 03:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of the fansites in the external links section need to be cleaned out, but the article seems otherwise well-researched, comprehensive and understandable, even to a non-fan like me. Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, gives a great overview of the program without ever sinking to the level of fan trivia. Support for sure. Shane King 03:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Minor object. The "Viewership" section needs a copyedit, and the removal of some convoluted/injokey material. It'd be nice to see it get a good copyedit all over - it's not quite brilliant prose, although it is nearly there. Ambi 08:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've attempted a once over copyedit. If you could point to something specific that should be changed, that'd be great. -khaosworks 12:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's fine work, I'm happy to support. Everyking 10:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice article. Support. -- Arwel 14:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - Chrism 12:38, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Wonderfully thorough. —αγδεε (τ) 09:00, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * Support --ZayZayEM 04:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Sunda teal

The Sunda teal (Anas gibberifrons), also known as the Bebek cokelat or Itik benjut, is a dabbling duck found in open wetlands in Indonesia. The species formerly included the Andaman teal Anas albogularis and the grey teal, Anas gracilis as subspecies, but is currently considered monotypic.

A molecular phylogentic study published in 2009 that compared mitochondrial DNA sequences from ducks, geese and swans in the family Anatidae found that the Sunda teal is a sister species of the chestnut teal (Anas castanea) native to Australia.

This is a mottled brown duck with white and green flashes on its wings. The male and female Sunda teal share the same colouration, in contrast to the related chestnut teal, whose male and female are strikingly different. The nominate Sunda teal has almost identical colouration to the female chestnut teal and can only be distinguished by its lighter coloured neck, paler face and especially the bulging forehead. The Andaman teal has a variable amount of white on the forehead and around the eyes. The Rennell Island teal looked like a smaller version of the nominate subspecies, with a stubbier bill. Juveniles are paler than adults, especially on the head.

The Sunda teal nests near its favoured freshwater lakes and marshes, usually on the ground, but also in tree holes or rabbit burrows.

This is a vocal duck, especially at night. The male gives a soft peep, and the female has a loud quack.

title: Sunda teal


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1

Television
I think this article is very in-depth. It includes a comprehensive history of the medium, technical details, and how broadcast practices vary from country to country. Denelson83 03:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Object. In short: this article is a mess. It should be decided what is to be told in this article, and in what structure. Some technical details are in the history section, or in the tv set section and vice versa. In detail: 1) No lead section. 2) The top image is horrible and unnecessary. It should be very easy to make picture of your own tv and put it there. 3) The history section is good, but could use a copyedit. Still, it has little recent history (widescreen, digital). These are mentioned in the "New developments" section, which should be integrated. There is also a US/UK bias in here, and there are no pictures of old tv's. 4) The technology section is vague and incomplete. It does not at all become clear how televisions work, and we only learn some stuff about the screen dimensions. I would expect a far more extensive explanation here, with a least a diagram to illustrate. 5) "Tv standards" is not a section. 6) The article also writes a bit about television programmes, but I think these would fit better in a separate article. The current "section" (3 sentences) on advertising is pathetic, and while there is a long section on networks this is insuffiencent and should be at television network or so. 7) The rest of the article is lists - which should be moved to other articles - or single section paragraphs - which should be expanded to full sections, or embedded in other sections. 8) There are no references, although there are many links and further reading.  Jeronimo 07:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. What he said, especially about the pictures. Generally this article feels like it was written by a whole bunch of people over a long period of time. Which I'm sure it has, but it shouldn't be so obvious, especially if it wants to be a featured article. Also, the section on video connections should be removed wholesale, or perhaps put in a seperate article. Oh, yeah, the section on harmful effects needs much better references than a few online news sources, I'm talking journal articles or reputable books. Also I don't think I'd support an article on TV unless it either talked in a fair bit of detail about TV's influence on culture and society or did so briefly with a link to a full article. Psychobabble 08:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I have similar concerns. I think this is a good basis for a featured article but needs more work. Perhaps Peer review is a better place to go with this one? I went out and found a decent PD image of television watching to replace that diagrammatic monstrosity, so that's fixed (and somebody else added a couple others lower down), but it still needs reorganization, major infills, and some polishing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The article is unbalanced and incomplete. Television is an industry, a social phenomenon and a technology. These aspects need to be separated in a disambiguation page, so that each can be treated fairly so as not to drown out the others. The subject is vast and one article can not do it justice. And right now the social aspects are a mere footnote to a long and in places quite technical piece. Haiduc 05:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object The article is not structured for the layman, providing many technical terms the average person may not know, thus detracting from one's ability to understand and fully comprehend it. Michael 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Umm... I may well object too, but I think this nomination expired about a year and half ago... Just saying... Mad Jack 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, I see. Michael 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's like going to a cemetery and wishing the people buried there would die Mad Jack 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Michael 05:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)