text:
Talk:Backup

3O
Now you've actually started talking to each other, can we remove the article from the 3O page? Or do you still need help? Satyris410 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No, don't remove it—because Pi314m hasn't started talking to me (other than one comment accepting my apology for a snarky erroneous criticism that I have now removed from the first sentence that started the section above). Last night I made the latest of several comments (starting 31 May UTC) on Pi314m's personal Talk page, "a set of comments intended to convince you that your trying to "help out" with the "Backup" article is not in fact helpful, because you didn't ask anybody on the Talk page what would be helpful." Pi314m hasn't yet made any reply to those comments either.

I can think of only two possible reasons:

The first is that Pi314m's religious sensibilities were immediately offended because I used the phrase "up his tuchus" in the first comment of the section above. Since I only used the phrase to catch his attention—I'm usually very careful not to use offensive language, I'd be happy to apologize for using it.

But I think the real reason is that Pi314m does have a "my way or the highway, even if I don't understand what I'm editing and violate WP rules" approach. Read the preceding sections on his personal Talk page, and then sample his recent contributions. If there's any indication of his interacting with other WP editors, I didn't see it.

Satyris410, given what I've just said will I need to need to repost the article on the 3O page in two days? I'd really like to handle this problem through a 3O, but if necessary I'll proceed to an RfC—because I consider this problem to be very serious for the article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If I do have to repost the article on the 3O page, or proceed to an RfC, I think I'd have to use the word "vandalism" that is a WP-fraught synonym for substantial deletion of useful text. I don't want to do that, because of the future consequences for Pi314m as a WP editor if I can justify it—which IMHO I can. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So, it seems there are several issues here. First, it may do well to lower the temperature a bit. I think both of you are acting in good faith, and just disagree. It's a lot easier to talk to one another, instead of past one another, if you start with that view, rather than the view that the person who disagrees is malicious. I don't believe either of you are acting maliciously. That aside, it is permitted to move, merge, or redirect an article, and it is just as permissible to reverse such an action if you disagree with it. If it comes to that point, discuss the issue, and if need be involve other editors; a request for comment can be placed to bring in some fresh eyes. The prior continuous data protection was rather thin on sourcing, so it may not hurt for that information to be here for a while. If more sources come about later, and the section grows too large and unwieldy to fit here, it can always be split again at that point. Also, there seems to be some substantial disagreement over whether certain sources are or are not reliable. The best thing to do with that is to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard; some of our best at analyzing sources watch and participate there, so you should get some good advice there on the reliability of the sources you're proposing to use. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Last night I looked at what Pi314m did to the "Outsourcing" article from January to May 2019, and IMHO I've discovered both the motivation and the main technique for what he does with existing articles. His motivation is "my redefinition of the article's subject or the highway". His technique is merging related articles into the article he has chosen to redefine, and then deleting any part of the merged-in article that doesn't fit his definition of the merged-into article's subject.

Let's first see what happened in January 2019 after Pi314m merged the "Insourcing" article—without any discussion on "Talk:Insourcing" (hatnote—what hatnote?)—into "Outsourcing". He then expanded the "Insourcing" sub-section on that subject from 0.25 screen-pages to 0.75 screen pages—mostly referenced by magazine articles, but cut the "Standpoint of government" section from 2 screen-pages to 1 screen page—with cites of a 2006 semi-academic article by Richard Baldwin cut from 6 to 1. Pi314m commented "This article is not meant [my emphasis] to be at the PhD level, nor is it meant [my emphasis] to be about unemployment. Now the word unemployment only appears five times, two from a NYTimes financial writer."; that's what I mean by redefinition of an article's subject.

In February 2019 Pi314m deleted a paragraph beginning "Further, the label outsourcing has been found to be used for too many different kinds of exchanges often in confusing ways." from the "Insourcing" sub-section, moving it into the article A. Aneesh about the author of its main reference. Sorry, the fact that the "outsourcing-based market model fails to explain why these [global software] development projects are jointly developed, and not simply bought and sold in the marketplace" contradicts Pi314m's redefinition of the article's subject to fit the outsourcing-based market model.

In March and April 2019 Pi314m merged "Engineering process outsourcing", "Business process outsourcing", "Information technology outsourcing", and "Farmshoring"—all done without any discussion on their Talk pages—into the "Outsourcing" article. In all three cases he soon deleted all or most of the merged-in articles' text.

In March and April 2019 Pi314m also merged "Regional insourcing", "Homeshoring", "Personal offshoring", and "Nearshoring" into the "Outsourcing" article. However in these cases he seems to have kept at least the key definitions from the merged-in articles, so maybe the merging-in of those articles—which again was done without any discussion on their Talk pages—didn't actually delete much text.

The overall picture that emerges is of Pi314m deciding without any discussion to consolidate a whole series of related articles into a single article that conforms to his concept of the subject matter. He can technologically get away with this flouting of Wikipedia rules, apparently because because he is doing a copy-paste of the merged-in article's text followed by replacing that text with a redirect to the moved-to article. The only reason I caught Pi314m is because he did copy-pastes between a sub-section of the "Enterprise client-server backup" section and preceding sections of the same Backup article. As is his custom, he did not discuss these "merges" on that article's Talk page; if he had, I would have carefully explained (as I now have on Pi314m's personal Talk page as well as in the section above this) that application feature descriptions in the last section of that article may seem like duplicates of the same-named feature descriptions in preceding sections of the article—but they're not.

IMHO the underlying problem is that—as I've shown in the preceding paragraphs—Pi314m believes that Wikipedia gives him the right to be the sole decider of the subject and contents of an article, even when it's partly about subject matter of which he knows nothing. That would explain why he has not responded to my subject-related comments in the Talk page section above, and why he reverted my 26 May edits that put back the two feature-description paragraphs he had deleted from the "Performance" subsection of the "Enterprise client-server backup" section; he considers that I have no right to second-guess his decisions. It's debatable whether a 3O will be sufficient to change Pi314m's belief; I now think that it will require an RfC at the least. But good luck as we follow the prescribed process, Seraphimblade! DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 * In regard to the next-to-last paragraph of my 06:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC) comment, I later found from this section on his personal Talk page that Pi314m was cautioned in January 2017 by Diannaa not to do "cut_and_paste moves". That caution didn't stop him; it's what he's continued to do both on the "Outsourcing" article and the "Backup" article.  I wouldn't be surprised if Pi314m likes the idea that, as Diannaa said, "it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution."  In any case, it didn't stop him from doing another "cut_and paste_move" almost exactly a year later.  In that January 2018 case Matthiaspaul said on P314m's personal Talk page "As I told you already, don't carry out such edits without prior discussion or against consensus, as you did twice already. If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led [sic] to a block [my emphasis]."  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

_un-discussed_ text-destroying "merging-in", both of other articles and of paragraphs within this article, by Pi314m
Should be permitted to, without prior or subsequent discussion, merge other articles into this one,  merge paragraphs from the rear "Enterprise client-server backup" section of this article into preceding sections—and then immediately delete most of the text from what has been merged-in?

What Pi314m initially did to this article—without discussion—from 21 May through 27 May is described at the beginning of the preceding "Rewrite ..." section of the article's Talk page: merging another article, cutting much of what was merged in, and then immediately reverting my edits responding to that merging-in. What he also did to the article's pre-existing text during that same time period is also described in that the preceding "Rewrite ..."section of the article's Talk page: essentially destroying two paragraphs in the article's "Enterprise client-server backup" section by trying to merge them—grossly-simplified—into one of the article's preceding sections that deals with personal backup applications. In this section of Pi314m's personal Talk page, I supplemented an invitation to him to discuss the change on the article's Talk page with an explanation of the two-audience-level structure of this article; Pi314m never gave any indication that he had read any of what I had written there.

In addition Pi314m merged-in a second article, except that after that merge-in he deleted all but the lead two sentences of the merged-in article. That, as I pointed out to him—also in this section of Pi314m's personal Talk page—is something he is not entitled to do under rule 4 of the Wikipedia Deletion policy, because IMHO that article had "relevant or encyclopedic content" that had nothing to do with the "Backup" article. I have preserved the deleted content of that article (preceded by the content of the two "Enterprise client-server backup" paragraphs before Pi314m grossly simplified them while "internally merging" them) in the preceding "Rewrite ..."section of the article's Talk page.

Pi314m has a distinct fondness for "cut-and-paste moves" that he calls "mergers", which he does without community consensus—frequently starting in January. He did one in January 2017,and was rebuked for it by. He did another one in January 2018, and was warned about it by —who said "If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led to a block." On the Talk page for that second article, Matthiaspaul said "No, this is not how it works! It is good that you are trying to be constructive, but your edits are not. You are already edit-warring over it and if you continue to try to force your undiscussed changes into the articles, this may led [sic] to a block. [new paragraph] Such changes require prior discussion and won't be carried out unless the outcome of such a discussion (after a reasonable amount of time for other editors to see, think about it and react - typically months) would be consensus for a merge." Pi314m quoted part of that on his personal Talk page, saying "I too can and hopefully will learn from what you said on the article talk page". However starting in January 2019 he did another series of "cut-and-paste moves" without community consensus, which nobody caught him doing—so I have described them starting in the 9th paragraph of the preceding "3O" section of this article's Talk page.

The preceding "3O" section of this article's Talk page was named "3O" by because it was supposed to be where some third editor — eventually—would provide his/her Third Opinion. However Pi314m never responded on the preceding "Rewrite ..."section of the article's Talk page, which was the section I had listed in my request for a Third Opinion, other than to graciously thank me for my apology for a later-removed bit of (as I later found out, unjustified) snark I had put into the first sentence of that section.

The title of this section is Request for comment on _un-discussed_ text-destroying "merging-in", both of other articles_and of paragraphs within this article, by Pi314m. Sorry I didn't know I'd have to repeat it myself in this section.

DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC process is not to be used for discussing the conduct of another user, see WP:RFC. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I should delete the fourth paragraph, the one beginning "Pi314m has a distinct fondness for "cut-and-paste moves" that he calls "mergers", ..." from the comment beginning this section? My purpose in filing this RfC is to stop Pi314m's oversimplifications of the "Backup" article, since it is clear—despite my explanation on his personal Talk page—that he doesn't understand that the "Enterprise client-server backup" section is written for a different audience than the preceding sections of this article.  One solution (which reinstates something I thought of doing in September 2017) would be to create a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article.  But the problem is that Pi314m, as shown in the fourth paragraph of this section, has an obsession with merging smaller articles into larger articles that have a related subject.  So if I created that separate article, it is highly likely that I'd be back in the same situation a week from now—after Pi314m merged the new separate article back into the "Backup" article and over-simplified its merged-in contents.  So this RfC inescapably deals with Pi314m's conduct, because what he's done to the "Backup" article is the continuation of a behavioral pattern that has lasted for at least two years with other articles.  What Wikipedia process other than an RfC would you suggest I use, and wouldn't that—at least until we've tried an RfC—be overkill?  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you hold an RfC it should be purely about the content of the article, and the statement should be neutral and brief; but as it stands, it's neither brief nor neutral. In fact Pi314m is mentoned no fewer than twelve times before my post - and that's not counting your reply to me. RfC is not for discussing user conduct, for which other avenues are available. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 * In the cold light of mid-day, you're right about both the neutrality and the briefness; I thought only the initial pragraph had to be neutral and brief. I'll prepare another RfC based on most of the content of this earlier section of the article Talk page, omitting anything having to do with the body of the "former "Information Repository" article that Pi314m deleted when he "merged" that article into this one.  As for that deletion, I'll make it plus at least a couple of the content-deleting "mergers" into Outsourcing—which I mentioned in a paragraph in the preceding "3O" setion of this Talk page—the subject of several Administrators' Noticeboard complaints.  These, especially the "Information Repository" deletion—of content unrelated to "Backup", IMHO really amount to vandalism a WP-fraught synonym for substantial deletion of useful text.  As I pointed out in the fourth paragraph of this section, Pi314m was previously warned about that in 2017 and 2018—so the consequences for him this time may be severe.  I was trying to avoid that, but—as I said in a non-neutral quote of myself I immediately deleted from this section (which I can put back in now that you've removed the template)—IMHO the underlying problem is that Pi314m believes that Wikipedia gives him the right to be the sole decider of the subject and contents of an article, even when it's partly about subject matter of which he knows nothing.  The fact that he essentially never responded on the preceding "Rewrite ..."section of the article's Talk page, which was the section I had listed in my request for a Third Opinion, reinforces my reluctant acceptance that the severe consequences may be necessary.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

== Request for comment on whether "Enterprise client-server backup" should be split from "Backup" into a stand-alone article, and if so how to protect it from "simplifying" re-merger ==
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Enterprise client-server backup" section at the end of the article be separated from the "Backup" article into a stand-alone article? If so, how would I protect that separate" article from an instant "simplifying" re-merger into "Backup"? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey
*No split necessary for any section per WP:CONSPLIT and could be considered a redundant WP:CFORK. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it unnecessary to take away such a section from backup. The article is pretty well-built with it. I have no doubt that it COULD make a stand-alone article but IMHO I see no significant reason to make this split especially if it were to be merged again. I would revise my !vote if Pi314m were to make a statement denying that he would re-merge the article in the future without reaching consensus in this talk page. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Split Since User:Pi314m is clearly not trying to split in bad faith and believes that a working 'History' of the topic is achievable I do think we should go through with a split. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Maybe? - I don't see a WP:CONSPLIT rationale, but if Enterprise client-server backup meets WP:GNG it could reasonably be spun out into a seperate article. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Split; reluctantly, see Discussion for my reason. In the 06:51, 22 May 2019 version—before the specific other editor started vandalizing it performing a WP-fraught synonym for substantial deletion of useful text—there were 24 second-party references (as opposed to cites of the refs) out of 54 for that section (the other 30 refs were first-party from backup application developers).  Therefore it could stand alone, although there would need to be many links from it to the "Backup" article and vice-versa.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 *  Agree . Split - hands off, while the author of the (new) Enterprise article obtains the courtesy and full opportunity that comes with "In use"/Under construction" (honoring it, whether or not it's physically there). Shortly thereafter, With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no "urge to merge."  As for the present Backup'' article, I'd also be hands-off for a while, to facilitate his work. Is this the statement you're seeking? Pi314m (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Mainly between 2007 and 2011, the first 7 screen-pages of the "Backup" article evolved as a comprehensive summary of what every computer-using person should know about backing up his/her data. In November 2017 I moved the description of certain backup features from another article to a new 2-screen-page "Enterprise client-server backup" section at the end of the article. The lead of that section clearly says it is about "a class of software applications that back up data from a variety of client computers centrally to one or more server computers, with the particular needs of enterprises in mind." The section goes on to describe special features typically incorporated in that class of applications, with an explanation of the enterprise need for each feature. Should that end section be separated from the "Backup" article into a stand-alone article?

There is evidence that having a single article with sections aimed at audiences with different levels of IT knowledge is confusing for some readers. On 26 May 2019 another editor deleted these two paragraphs from the "Performance" sub-section of the "Enterprise client-server backup" section. He then inserted greatly simplified descriptions of the same features into the "Backup types" sub-section and "Manipulation of data and dataset optimization" section of personal backup sections of the article, evidently to fit those features into his own knowledge of the backup process. Unfortunately his knowledge, because of his evident unfamiliarity with enterprise IT much beyond the early 1990s, does not encompass the application features described in "Enterprise client-server backup"—all of which were developed sometime after 2005 as a result of advances in hardware and operating systems. The fact that his personal backup level of knowledge will be shared by many Wikipedia readers argues for splitting the "Enterprise client-server backup" section off into a separate article, with sufficient two-way linking to guide interested readers to the enterprise features while explaining those features as sophisticated extensions of their simpler roots.

Unfortunately that particular other editor has a distinct fondness for "cut-and-paste moves" that he calls "mergers", which he does—frequently starting in the month of January—without community consensus. He did one in January 2017, and was rebuked for it by. He did another one in January 2018, and was warned about it by —who said "If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led to a block." On the Talk page for that second article, Matthiaspaul said "No, this is not how it works! It is good that you are trying to be constructive, but your edits are not. You are already edit-warring over it and if you continue to try to force your undiscussed changes into the articles, this may led [sic] to a block. [new paragraph] Such changes require prior discussion and won't be carried out unless the outcome of such a discussion (after a reasonable amount of time for other editors to see, think about it and react - typically months) would be consensus for a merge." The other editor quoted part of that on his personal Talk page, saying "I too can and hopefully will learn from what you said on the article talk page". However starting in January 2019 he did another series of 9 "cut-and-paste moves" without community consensus into the "Outsourcing" article, which nobody caught him doing; I have described them starting in the 9th paragraph of the "3O" section of this article's Talk page. Starting in late May 2019 that other editor editor without community consensus did "cut-and-paste moves" of two other articles into the "Backup" article, after the second of which he deleted the entire contents of the merged-in article except for the two-sentence lead—because the body of that second article (which I've copied here) discussed an application not directly related to backup.

NikkeKatski [Elite] suggested above "If we gain consensus for the obviously superior your version of the article then any attempts to revert it can probably be considered edit warring (if it wasn't considered that already) and would be more easily punishable." The problem with that approach is that, based on his history I've noted in the preceding paragraph, this particular other editor will do a "cut-and-paste move" of a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article back into the "Backup" article almost instantly. So there would be no time to gain any community consensus—edit war (which I'd rather avoid) or no edit war. In any case this particular other editor editor doesn't pay any attention to any other editor; he refused to respond to either me or Seraphimblade in the Third Opinion section of this Talk  page. So how would I protect a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article from an instant "simplifying" re-merger? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham I don't see any reason to remove that section per WP:CONSPLIT and one could argue that it would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Also potentially you could purposely start an RfC asking "should we split" (RfC doesnt always have to be worded in your favor, but your !vote would be in your favor) and if we get enough involved wikipedians to participate in the RfC any attempt to go against consensus directly could justify punishment especially considering past behavior. Theres always the chance that wikipedians may agree with the split but hey if that happens then just let it be for the time being. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 * In case you haven't noticed,, this section of the article Talk page in fact starts such an RfC—my third attempt to produce one that's reasonably neutral and doesn't mention the "handle" of the particular other editor. As I said two paragraphs above this, "let it be for the time being" would mean that other editor would instantly "merge" a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article back into the "Backup" article.  And, as I didn't repeat there but said in the fourth through sixth paragraphs of this section of the Talk page, once he "merged" the separate article back in he would instantly delete any text that didn't agree with his own level of IT knowledge.  So, unless some editor contributes to this RfC a brilliant suggestion on how to prevent the particular other editor from "doing his thing", I'm going to have to go to the Administrators' Noticeboard tomorrow with a request that the particular other editor be banned—either totally or from editing particular articles.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 * You do have a good case to take to the noticeboard and it would probably fix the problem alone even if they decide not to ban him as in my experience they usually end up with something like "no, but if he persists..." And as for RfCs your last three seemed more like lengthy discussions rather than the traditional RfCs i've encountered where the format is something more like..

 * Request for Comments on Deleting fortnite article

 * (RfC template)

 * Fortnite is just a bad game and isnt WP:NOTABLE anymore -PUBGFAN123 (The proposed change)

 * (!votes below)

 * no its still a worldwide phenomenon -Jonesy

 * yes per WP:BADGAME -EpicGames

 * Close RfC this request is dumb. -NikkeKatski

 * Discussion

 * where actual discussions happen and we more thoroughly explain our !votes. And an RfC AFAIK doesn't have to go this way but this is usually how people reach consensus on a matter. the proposed change also is usually neutral (completely) and merely states the proposed change where as your case can be entirely confined in the designated discussion section. -Nikke

 * dude why are you talking to yourself, also fortnite is bad per WP:GRAPHICS. -TotallyDovidLol

 * ok im done with this reenactment. I'm probably spending too much time doing this when its most likely unnecessary. But taking it to the noticeboards is a better idea like you stated because it can prevent all future/similar actions too. I think you should go forward with that first. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've now copied the edited-out portions of the "Continuous data processing" article into an earlier section of this Talk page. The editing-out is what happened immediately after the first of the particular other editor's "cut-and-paste moves" of two other articles into the "Backup" article; I only alluded to that move in the last sentence of the third paragraph of this "Discussion" sub-section. If you compare what was edited-out to this sub-section of the article, you'll realize that the particular other editor's level of IT knowledge has left him unable to deal with the idea that all "CDP" personal backup applications are in fact "near-CDP". A "near-CDP" backup application in fact does un-scripted incremental backups once every 10 minutes to once an hour, which is sufficient for a personal user but not for an enterprise administrator (think about the consequences if the backup administrators at Target had only been able to restore cash-register transactions to 10 minutes before their nationwide system failure a couple of days ago). The SNIA's "every write" definition quoted here effectively means that a "true-CDP" backup application must be tied into a virtual machine, an approach currently available in several applications which only became available at great expense 10 years after the particular other editor's presumed departure from enterprise IT. FYI, I've done the copying merely as additional evidence for the Administrative Noticeboard; I thought you other editors might be interested in reading it. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It helps both from a WP:AN perspective and an article upkeep perspective ;p --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Echoing some of User:Elitematterman's thoughts, I'm not seeing the WP:CONSPLIT rationale for splitting. Can the nominator in two sentences or less, explain why he thinks the article should be split? That explanation shouldn't be "b/c I don't like the editor who merged the topics". NickCT (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pi314m: Could you participate in the RfC if you intend to split any part of this article? If not please reveal whether or not you do intend to split content. Thanks~ (Also re-ping of .. incase he's still interested.) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There really is enough material "out there" on Enterprise (backup) to justify a standalone article, especially if a history section is given its due. Pi314m (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Bit confused. DovidBenAvraham said you were merging these articles. Your comment suggests they should be separate. You feel as though these topics should be separate articles? NickCT (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you were confused as I was under the same assumption for a time during his first two attempts at RfC. What Dovid is trying to claim is that Pi314m has a tendency to split sections from articles without consensus and then re-merge them while simplifying the section. His problem (which i would want to avoid too) is that he does not wish for said section to be simplified as it tarnishes the article. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for that explanation. These two seem like a few too many chips went into the cookie.
 * - If we split this section out, can you state simply that you do not plan to merge it later? NickCT (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to revise my !vote to be more neutral if he were to agree to not merge it later without consensus in this talk page. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I reluctantly think the article must be split, so that via the Administrator Noticeboard I can get the particular other editor (I'm not going to mention his "handle", but it begins with the letter 'P' and he's commented above) banned from editing the split "Enterprise client-server backup" article. Given what the particular other editor did to the "Outsourcing" article after promising not to do such things—all described in the third paragraph of this "Discussion" section—I consider his promise to temporarily act as if such a ban were in effect on a par with the promises of Old Golden Boy.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 * You've misunderstood what I have been saying about the habits of the particular other editor. He doesn't split related articles; instead he finds other articles which he considers related to one article, and merges-in the other articles—discarding without community consensus any text that he considers unrelated to or in conflict with the article he's merged them into.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That explains a couple things i've seen, but I still would only allow this if the standalone article wouldn't get merged into anything else (what else would it be merged into anyways other than backup lol). Also for future reference we should usually abide to results in WP:AN down to the letter. If they asked you to stop referring to the "handle" (big If) we usually don't try to hint at it. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 * All the particular other editor is promising in the "Survey" sub-section is "Agree. Split - hands off, while the author of the (new) Enterprise article obtains the courtesy and full opportunity that comes with 'In use'/'Under construction' .... Shortly thereafter, With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no 'urge to merge.'".  That's a promise worthy of Old Golden Boy, because it'll take me at most one day to establish the links to the "Backup" article—at which point the "under construction" conceptual sign would have to come off because the section as of 12:02, 20 May 2019 would be fine as a separate article!  My counter-proposal is that the particular other editor shall be banned from editing the split-off article unless and until he finds an RS for a "History" section.  He's unlikely to find that RS because, as I explained in the second paragraph of my 04:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC) comment on his personal Talk page, "There followed an epic-but-friendly three month battle with editor JohnInDC, during which I found terminology for the equivalent features in two competing enterprise client-server backup applications—and was therefore able to make the new section reasonably application-independent by adding references to those equivalent features."  Of the 5 applications currently referenced in the "Enterprise client-server backup", 4 have WP articles with a "History" section—but each of those sections is couched in the terminology of its subject application.  BTW nobody identifiable as an administrator asked me not to use the particular other editor's "handle"; I just thought it not using it would seem more NPOV.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Can we quit the talk of banning all together? It's challenging WP:CIVILITY. It looks like the other editor mostly agrees with your position at this point. Just do the split that you want to do. If there's another errant merger attempt, call NikkeKatski [Elite] and I back here, and we'll take care of it. Simple. No need to bicker. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Echoing NickCT but also Right now Pi314m is our friend. We should be accepting his help as much as we can and if any issue should come up we can deal with it when we cross that bridge. For now we should work on contributing to an encyclopedia. These principles such as WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:NPOV are the foundation of wikipedia. Yes we will have to deal with a couple bad eggs but there's a reason many admins are so reluctant to take harsh action. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I think you editors (are you administrators?) should do a close re-read of the fourth paragraph here. The particular other editor promised on his personal Talk page in January 2018 "... at the end of this discussion (typically after several months), there will be consensus for a merge, we can carry it out. Otherwise, the articles stay separate", and then did 9 such un-discussed merge-ins to another article exactly a year later—followed in May 2019 by the two he did into the "Backup" article. I find WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH rather difficult to follow in his case.  Besides, if you look at his 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) comment in the Survey sub-section, he says "With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no 'urge to merge.' As for the present Backup article, I'd also be hands-off for a while, to facilitate his work."  That amounts to the particular other editor's saying "If you allow me to mess up both the split-off article and the "Backup" article, then maybe I won't feel the urge to re-merge them again."  Good faith or not, I simply don't feel he has complete control of his editing impulses; that's why I prefer to go to the Administrators' Noticeboard for at least a selective ban rather than humor him until January 2020 has passed—and IMHO so should you.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If this were to happen again we are all on top of this already. You, me, and NickCT are all here and I'm pretty sure we have it under control. Any attempt at a re-merger can and Will be opposed by one or all of us. Such action after all this would also hasten decision making when brought up to WP:AN. It may go un-discussed but it won't go unnoticed. Also this split can and will be carried out however it does not need to stay split. If the splitoff article is unsatisfactory we can discuss restoring backup to its former glory (without simplification). If it really is bad faith then I can wait. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Acceptable with an additional condition that the particular other editor will have to agree to, which is that I'll recreate the "Continuous data protection" and "Information Repository" articles exactly as they were before he deleted them—and he'll have to agree not to edit them (unless he can add RS'ed "History" sections, which is unlikely). Let me add that I have no connection with SoleraTec, which is still marketing a  "federated information repository" application—as is IBM from what I can tell.  I'll bet that the particular other editor won't agree to that condition, because IMHO one of his guiding principles is "if I can't understand this article, then no other readers should be allowed to see it on Wikipedia" (see for example his ""This article is not meant [my emphasis] to be at the PhD level ...." comment about the "Outsourcing" article I've recounted here).  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should start working on a draft and potentially recruit people to help you. Mainly focusing on the history of the enterprise section. And IMO Dovid's requests seem 'reasonable' if you ignore the context. You could probably pull it off. Just avoid being too primary source heavy on everything you work on. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I've just discovered a further complication with implementing this additional condition. On 22 May, when the specific other editor started his merge-ins to the "Backup" article, he also did something rather sneaky to the "Data repository" article.  Although the lead sentence of that article says "A data library, data archive, or data repository is a collection of numeric and/or geospatial data sets for secondary use in research", the editor inserted an "Information repository" sub-section.  That sub-section simply lists three uses of the term "information repository" for "sets" of data that is neither numeric or geospatial in New York Times articles, two referencing IBM and Microsoft applications in 1989 and 2003 and one referencing the Mount Vernon NY Public Library in 1996.  I can move these back to the re-established "Information Repository" article, but my inclination is simply to delete at least the Mount Vernon one from where it is now as now as sheer obfuscatory cruft.  FYI the "Backup" article originally used the term "data repository", but—as noted here on this Talk page on 16:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)—I had to change that term to "information repository" because in 2017 Jacob Voss made the former term a synonym for "data library".  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)"

 * I recreated the "Continuous data protection" and "Information Repository" articles exactly as they were before the particular other editor deleted them. I was able to recover the revision history for "Information Repository", because User:Christian75 had edited-in  and  after the original re-direct.  However I was unable to recover the revision history for "Continuous data protection", even though I reverted my recreation after the fact and put in the templates.  I moved the specific other editor's sneaky additional section and sub-section in the "Data repository" article back to the re-established "Information Repository" article, including the one referencing the Mount Vernon NY Public Library.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I created the "Enterprise client-server backup" article from the section of the "Backup" article as of 20 May, and updated it with two later enhancements. Still to come: (1) Update any links from "Enterprise client-server backup" to "Backup". (2) Update any links from "Backup" to "Enterprise client-server backup".  (3) Create new mentions with links from "Enterprise client-server backup" to "Backup". (4) Create new mentions with links from "Backup" to "Enterprise client-server backup". DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I rewrote the "Continuous data protection" sub-section of the "Backup" article using the particular other editor's references, but showing them distinguishing between true CDP and near-CDP per the second through fifth paragraphs here. I left out the ref by Bobby Crouch, which is a pure marketing blurb from a company that pleaded guilty to bribery.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I rewrote the "Automated data grooming" paragraph of the "Backup" article, restricting the capability to that found in personal backup applications. The particular other editor's references were all to EMC Retrospect Windows 7.5, which was the first version of that application with enterprise client-server features.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I clarified the difference between creating a synthetic full backup for a single archive file and creating a second archive file from a first. This eliminated the need for the separate "Synthetic full backup" sub-sub-section within the "Incremental" sub-section of the "Backup" article that the particular other editor had moved from the "Enterprise client-server backup" section.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I deleted the "Enterprise client-server backup" section, since it is now a separate article. As they say at Hogwarts, "Mischief managed".  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I reverted the "Information repository models" sub-section lead—with clarified wording—and sub-sub-section structure to what they were as of 12:02, 20 May 2019, re-inserted the "Unstructured" method in "Backup methods", and replaced the Biersdorfer NYTimes ref in "Remote backup service" with a re-cite of the Forbes ref. IMHO what the particular other editor had done was mostly out of his zeal to merge-in the "Information repository" article—which I have now re-established per my 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC) comment, for whatever peculiar reasons.  We may not like "Unstructured" as a repository organization method, but it is in fact what a lot of users of "personal" backup applications start out doing.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 * The article split has already produced one unfortunate consequence, and IMHO may in future produce another. The first unfortunate consequence is that the combined average weekday pageviews of the split articles (eyeballed by me as 570 +15 = 585) have decreased from the average weekday pageviews of the un-split article exactly a year ago (eyeballed by me as 670) by about 13%. If the particular other editor were editing a periodical for a publishing company, and made changes to the periodical's content that decreased the average readership by 13%, I think he would shortly be out of a job.  The second unfortunate consequence may result from my having kept the full "Continuous data protection" sub-subsection that he introduced, only rewording it and quoting the particular other editor's own references.  In doing that I have taken pains to preserve the distinction between "true CDP" and "near-CDP" that is in the references when they are read in full.  IMHO we shouldn't describe "true CDP" in the "Backup" article, only mention it with a link to a description in the "Enterprise client-server backup" article.  That is because, as part of the split, I added a sentence to the first paragraph of the lead "This article focuses on features found even in personal backup applications, as opposed to features found only in enterprise client-server backup applications."  As my improved version of the sub-subsection states—conclusively referenced, "true CDP backup must in practice be run in conjunction with a virtual machine—which may rule it out for ordinary personal backup applications."  An unfortunate consequence would result if the particular other editor then took offense at my having deleted part of his treasured sub-subsection from the "Backup" article, and pulled the kind of shenanigans he did when he did a "same-article-merge-in" of two paragraphs in the "Performance" subsection of the "Backup" article into earlier sections—with very-inaccurate simplifications—in late May 2019.  Are you trusting enough to think his "With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no 'urge to merge'" end-of-the-preceding-Survey-section pledge would deter the particular other editor from doing that?  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Started dealing with the second unfortunate consequence by adding several "Backing up interactive applications via true Continuous Data Protection" paragraphs to the new "Enterprise client-server backup" article. These paragraphs are excerpted from the particular other editor's "Backup" sub-subsection—as improved by me, but omit any substantial mention of "near-CDP" backup.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Continued dealing with the second unfortunate consequence by enhancing "Continuous Data Protection" article with text and references previously added by me to Backup sub-subsection. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Finished dealing with the second unfortunate consequence by changing sub-subsection name from "CDP" to "Near-CDP", moving it under "Incremental" because that's what it's a variety of, and getting rid of all discussion of true CDP except explanation of why this is near-CDP. The particular other editor wants easier-to-understand, so that's what this is.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Those who haven't (including Pi314m) should cast !votes under survey section if they have come to a conclusion as to what their opinion on the matter is. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Simplifying lead's readability for average encyclopedia reader, taking out value judgments and advice
I put in a request for advice from, who put in the tag. She replied on her Talk page "my opinion would be that it currently comes across as more of a "how to" rather than an encyclopedia article", and was kind enough to go so far as to make a first-pass revision to the article. I like what she's done, although may not. My only revisions so far are—in the article lead—to add back the Note and Kissell ref on "archive file"—because that term needs definition for its use in the rest of the article, to add back the specification that backed-up data must already be in secondary storage—to prevent a repeat of the Rmokadem maneuver, and to add back a link to the "Enterprise client-server backup" article—per the outcome of the RfC. I won't go into the reasons for these add-backs, because they were discussed ad nauseam—as linked to—on this Talk page when I originally added them to the article months ago. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

After simplifications to "Near-CDP", clarified what it can and can't do for complex files and applications. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

In going over article after my latest edits, discovered an old Tom's Hardware article is no longer accessible directly and has been removed from the Wayback Machine. This is a disturbing trend I already encountered for another publication ref'd in the Continuous Data Protection article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

has now made more changes that in general make the article easier to understand. What she has edited out is mostly text that was added from 2004-2011, or by Pi314m back in May 2019. However there are a couple of exceptions to this, which I'll have to remedy one way or another. One exception is that, by deleting "True" as the first word of the "Near-CDP" sub-section, she concealed a distinction I was at pains to make between true CDP—a feature which is very expensive but vital for high-intensity interactive applications—and near-CDP—a feature which at most is adequate for low-intensity interactive applications (as I stated in part of the "Live data" sub-section text she deleted). The other exception is that the text she deleted included old mentions of enterprise client-server backup features, but also links I had added. Once I originally established "Enterprise client-server backup" as the last section of the "Backup" article in late 2017, those old mentions no longer needed to be there. However I'm worried about pageviews statistics showing fewer people than I think should be are looking at that section since it was split off into a separate article. I've therefore used those mentions to put in appropriate links to the split-off article, but she has now deleted several of those links—leaving no place to put them back in. I'll discuss these problems on the article Talk page, as I think she has suggested; other editors may have suggestions. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I took a shot at remedying the exceptions. I added maybe 10 screen lines, without disturbing the beauty of u|Melcous's editing.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Somehow, in all these years, nobody ever put into the article any mention of the versioning backup feature—other than a mention of a versioning filesystem—that even most personal backup applications have! Motivated at least in part by Pi314m's "internal merge" of "automated data grooming", I have now put in the proper mention—and its justification of a user-initiated backup and restore objective. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments, I don't pretend to have expert knowledge on this subject, but in terms of making it readable and accessible, I don't think the use of italics for emphasis is often helpful ((see MOS:ITALICS) and so would suggest rewriting sentences where this has been done to avoid this. I also think the repeated links to the same page (Enterprise client server backup) add to the clutter and confusion and think in many cases this content could be left out rather than needing to be mentioned here. Melcous (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 * If is concerned about the use of italics in my 09:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC) comment above, I did so because I thought the italicized words needed emphasis—and I still think so.  OTOH I don't use italics very often in actual articles.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I belatedly realized that what is concerned about is my use of True as the first word in the "Near-CDP" sub-subsection of the article.  If she reads the "Continuous vs near_continuous" section of the "Continuous Data Protection" article, she will realize that what the original author and I have had to deal with is the perversion of a term for an IT feature to refer to a different feature.  The only way I can think of to specify that "CDP" is being used in its original meaning is to prefix its use with true.  I could instead use underlining, but I know that's not allowed in articles.  If she can think of another easy-to-understand way to specify that "CDP" is being used in its original meaning, I'd love to hear it.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I think has been led astray by her web browser as to "the repeated links to the same page (Enterprise client server backup)".  Those links are mostly links to sections within that article, which—because I hadn't converted paragraphs within those section into sub-sections—I had to supplement with names of paragraphs to clue the reader as to which specific paragraph to read.  I have now converted those paragraphs to sub-sections, and revised the links within the "Backup" article to point directly to those sub-sections.  (Note that I haven't used any italics within this comment, even though IMHO some emphases would have made it easier to read.)  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Backup


text:
Talk:Emil Artin

Untitled
I basically disapprove of too much of this categorising of mathematicians by nationality. In Artin's case, I don't see how he is 'German'. Austrian or even American, yes. I suggest simply not trying to add nationality in the many cases where national identification is problematic.

Charles Matthews 09:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have been looking into this some more. For the moment I'll add to the nationalities, as a solution. Charles Matthews 10:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's far more sensible (better?) to categorise mathematicians by field and period, as far as I can see. However, if you don't give him any nationality then it means he is inaccessible from e.g. "Austrian people" which also seems wrong? VivaEmilyDavies 23:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is badly written. It seems to focus more on Artin's wife Natascha, rather than on Artin himself.

Wikipedia has an obsession with Jews. Why is it that one should care about Natascha in the first place and secondly, how does it matter what her nationality was. 71.132.139.87 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange sentence
"Artin himself was not Jewish, but was dismissed from his university position in 1937" what that means?? I cannot find any relationship between two part of sentence. --- ALM 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * That is a strange sentence. I thought he was dismissed because he had a Jewish grandfather or something like that.  This should be explained rather than left in such a confused state. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He was dismissed because he was married to a jewish woman. --SiriusSeverus (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Category?
Does the following category fit? Category:University of Hamburg faculty Michael Hardy (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rating
This is the best biography I've yet read on Wikipedia: why is it rated Start-Class? --Pawyilee (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree to this judgement on the article. I like especially that it refers to Artin's sense of elegance, which he was able to inherit to his whole school of scolars, which by the way is fully appreciated by the French school of Nicolas Bourbaki (this french school should be never forgotten, since its sense for elegance parallels at least that of the american universities). Except for Ernst Witt, a deep mathematician with tremendous results, but a lousy teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.155.70 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I opened this talk page (an action I rarely undertake) so that I could comment that the author writes exceptionally well. It was a joy to read this biography. Thank you. Gaussgauss (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Surely you should say a bit more about the nature and importance of his mathematical work, and cut back on the entertaining gossip. He was, after all, a professional mathematician (including knot theory) not just some celebrity famous for being famous. --Ken Perko [lbrtpl@gmail.com] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.11.209 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Austrian-Armenian mathematician
What does this expression mean? --Max Shakhray (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Parents
What are the sources for this section? --Max Shakhray (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Braun
There are articles on Miss Hel Braun in the German and Portuguese wikipedias, but not in the English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.69.250 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emil Artin. 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/20121124044728/http://reporter.am/index.cfm?objectid=59BE5ED5-E7DA-11E0-8E3F0003FF3452C2 to http://reporter.am/index.cfm?objectid=59BE5ED5-E7DA-11E0-8E3F0003FF3452C2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150310024937/http://www.princeton.edu/~mudd/finding_aids/mathoral/pmcxrota.htm to https://www.princeton.edu/~mudd/finding_aids/mathoral/pmcxrota.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Reifezeugnis vs Abitur in the Early education section
"Reifezeugnis (diploma—not to be confused with the Abitur)" Could someone explain what might be confused here? Sources I read say these two words refer to the same thing. Gwideman (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Emil Artin


text:
Talk:Dutch Schultz

Famous last words
I'd come across the famous a boy has never wept...nor dashed a thousand kin--though not from Burroughs, whom I don't take seriously. I felt they were worth adding, but also a sample of the other rubbish he talked. --GwydionM 18:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The link to the last words is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.243.2 (talk • contribs)

 * For some reason the article says 'a boy has never wept, nor dashed a thousand kim' which didn't make much sense to me... I'll change it. VenomousConcept (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back. Please don't "correct" direct quotes without verifying that your "correction" matches the original text. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No citation
There's no citation to his birthplace. This article generally has a lot of flaws and a lack of citation too. It seems pretty common in these mobster articles. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Edit needed regarding Dewey assassination plot
The article currently says, "While some Commission members, including Albert Anastasia and Jacob Shapiro, supported Schultz's proposal, the majority were against it on the basis that the full weight of the authorities would come down on them if they were to murder Dewey, and they voted unanimously against the proposal." First, it says that some Commission members supported it. Then it says that they were all unanimous in their opposition to it. Which is it? 12.155.58.181 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Born 1902 or 1901?
This edit changed 1902 to 1901, but without an edit summary or any citation. Which year is correct and why? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=flegenheimer&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=109456786&df=all&

Find a Grave says he was born 1895 24.184.171.144 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dutch Schultz's Judaism
It is a defining characteristic of him throughout his life as one of the more famous members of the Jewish Mafia at a time when they existed independently, or Italian gangs worked alongside or among significant Jewish figures within their associated ranks. These people would always be identified as Jewish Gangsters. In the contemporary press and in the reams and reams of literature after the fact, still published today. That he converted to Roman Catholicism at his deathbed is a mere footnote. This is ignoring the issue of Jewishness as an ethnicity as well as a religion. Even if he were a famous Baptist gangster who converted to RC at death, his lede should still say he was Baptist, no? There already is enough ink given to his trivial death-bed conversion, but he was raised Jewish, he was perceived as Jewish, and he identified as Jewish. The fact that this IP editor thinks this is a problem speaks about their NPOV or anti-Semitic issues. To wit, same IP has made edits to downsize the Jewishness of Arnold Rothstein as well. The fact this IP user has now started posting on my Talk Page accusing me of having a Pro-Jewish POV is not only humorous, but also indicative of the type of "Jews control all media" paranoia which lends credence to the idea of dismissing this IP editor's edits entirely. JesseRafe (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "To be honest with you, you want Dutch Schultz to be Jewish because you are probably Jewish, to be honest with you. If you were not Jewish, you really don't care if Dutch Schultz was Jewish. The reason is you are afraid that Jews are abandoning the Jews and becoming Christian. Here is a number of problems with the article. I'm ok of Schultz's Jewishness, but inserting Jewish-German Jewish, Romanian Jewish. The problem with Jewish editors is this:

- They always emphasize being "Jew" and "Jewish"

- They never say "Jewish-German" instead like "German-Jewish" because the most important thing is being "Jewish" and make sure the word "Jewish" is the last word on the articles and categories.

- They never want to identify Jews into one country like Germany, so they always say "German-Jewish," "Ukrainian-Jewish", "Romanian-Jewish" because identifying Jews into like Ukraine would make them more Ukrainian because they might absorb. Right? Is that correct?

You are Jewish friend, and you are working from a pro-Jewish point of view, and I'm just countering that. You are POV editor. Don't act like you are innocent. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

 * This clear bigotry unambiguously stated I am taking as license to revert all edits by this user, irrespective of 3RR until an admin can finally do something. JesseRafe (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You will be reported to Wikpedia admins and have your account blocked and don't use sockpuppetry. I'm not being bigoted, I'm stating the truth, which you don't like. You don't have any license, don't think you have license to begin with? What license? You are reverting stuff. I'm not reverting anything.

 * Work with the editor and get 50%. You can't get 100% and the other one gets 0%. Work with it, edit it a little bit and move on. You are being absolutist right now. I'm open to some change.

4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this and don't have the time to review it in detail, but am going to take it to WP:ANI for review. Both of you should please consider this a notification accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Note discussion on WP:ANI and a second topic below WP:ANI Jim1138 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dutch Schultz. 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/20061209095930/http://www.killthedutchman.net:80/chapter_XX.htm to http://www.killthedutchman.net/chapter_XX.htm

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) 01:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Murder Weapons
It always is said that the two pistols used were a .38 revolver and a 45 automatic. I found this pic of the supposed weapons, which show a Colt New Service and a S&W .44 special or model of 1917. Not the three expended shotgun shells. Don't know if the photo is not just from another gangland killing and was mismatched with the schultz murder, but I think it might be legit looking at the collection it is with plus it shows two handguns with shot shells which matches the killings, AND I always thought it would be difficult using rust coated bullets in a semi auto, and naturally one would use them in a revolver so that the chance of jamming decreases. Just my two cents. -Anonymous 15:36 03 April 2017

Image is halfway down the page, labeled as weapons used to shot Schultz and his associates. http://www.deathhousebarber.com/photo_gallery/Mobsters_and_Molls.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.89.86 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This would be "original research" as one editor's anonymous opinion of what a weapon looks like doesn't count as a source. If someone wrote a published material that stated this, it would be includable here. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch Schultz. 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/20080511000430/http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/schultz/1935_7.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/schultz/1935_7.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dutch Schultz


text:
User:EDR

ACC.

title: User:EDR


text:
Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Baroness Butler-Sloss

Ann Elizabeth Oldfield Butler-Sloss, Baroness Butler-Sloss, GBE, PC (née Havers; born 10 August 1933) is a retired English judge. She was the first female Lord Justice of Appeal and was the highest-ranking female judge in the United Kingdom until 2004, when Baroness Hale was appointed to the House of Lords. Until June 2007, she chaired the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed. She stood down from that task with effect from that date, and the inquest was conducted by Lord Justice Scott Baker.

Early life
Ann Elizabeth Oldfield Butler-Sloss was born on 10 August 1933 to Sir Cecil Havers, a judge, and Enid Flo Havers (née Snelling). She was sister to The Lord Havers, a Conservative Lord Chancellor, and is aunt to his sons, the actor Nigel Havers and the barrister Philip Havers. She was educated at Broomfield House School in Kew, in West London, and Wycombe Abbey School, an all-girls independent boarding school in High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire. This was followed by a year at the University of Lausanne. She passed the bar without a university degree.

She stood as the Conservative candidate for Vauxhall in the 1958 London County Council election, and the equivalent constituency in the 1959 general election, where she won 38% of the vote, but was defeated by the Labour MP George Strauss.

Legal career
She was called to the Bar from the Inner Temple in February 1955. In 1958, she married Joseph Butler-Sloss. She was appointed a Registrar at the Principal Registry of the Family Division in 1970. In 1979, she became the fourth woman to be appointed a High Court judge, after Elizabeth Lane, Rose Heilbron, and Margaret Booth. As were all previous female High Court judges, she was assigned to the Family Division. As per tradition, she was also made a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE).

In 1988, she became the first woman appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal (judge of the Court of Appeal), having chaired the Cleveland child abuse inquiry in the previous year. In 1999, she became President of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, the first woman to hold this position and the highest-ranking woman judge in the United Kingdom until Brenda Hale became the first female Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, in January 2004. She was known officially as "Lord Justice Butler-Sloss" until Bingham MR issued a practice direction in 1994 to refer to her informally as "Lady Justice Butler-Sloss"; the official title in s2(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was amended by the Courts Act 2003.

She was advanced to the rank of Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE) in the 2005 New Year Honours. On 12 January 2005, it was announced that she was retiring, being replaced as President of the Family Division by Sir Mark Potter, then a Lord Justice of Appeal.

On 4 August 2006, she was appointed to the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved for a period of five years.

On 7 September 2006, she was appointed as Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household and Assistant Deputy Coroner for Surrey for the purpose of hearing the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. On 2 March 2007, she was appointed as Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London for the purpose of transferring the jurisdiction of the inquest to Inner West London so that the proceedings may sit in the Royal Courts of Justice. On 24 April 2007, she announced she was stepping down in June 2007, saying she lacked the experience required to deal with an inquest with a jury. The role of coroner for the inquests was transferred to Lord Justice Scott Baker. This had been preceded by the overturning by the High Court of her earlier decision to hold the inquest without a jury.

On 8 July 2014, it was announced that Baroness Butler-Sloss would chair the forthcoming large-scale inquiry into cases of child sex abuse in previous decades. She stood down on 14 July after mounting pressure from victims' groups and MPs over her suitability regarding the fact that her brother was the Attorney General at the time of some of the abuses in question and her perceived unwillingness to include mention of former Anglican bishop Peter Ball.

House of Lords
On 3 May 2006, it was announced by the House of Lords Appointments Commission that she would be one of seven new life peers – so-called "people's peers". She was created Baroness Butler-Sloss, of Marsh Green in the County of Devon, on 13 June 2006. She sits in the House of Lords as a crossbencher. She made her maiden speech on 21 November 2006 during the Debate on the Address on that year's Queen's Speech.

Lady Butler-Sloss has been active in the House of Lords, and served as a member of a number of committees. She was formerly a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee (2007–2012). She has been a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, a Joint committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, since 2010 and has served as its chair since June 2020. She has been a member of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, a select committee of the House of Lords since January 2023.

Other work
She became Chancellor of the University of the West of England in 1993, and an honorary fellow of St Hilda's College, Oxford, Peterhouse, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, King's College London, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. She sits on the Selection Panel for King's Counsel. In December 2004 she was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Laws from the University of Bath, and in June 2005 she was awarded an honorary degree from the Open University as Doctor of the University. She was Chairman of the Security Commission prior to its abolition in 2010.

Personal life
She and her husband, Joseph William Alexander Butler-Sloss, have three children:
 * Hon. Frances Ann Josephine Butler-Sloss (now Richmond) (b. 13 October 1959)
 * Hon. Robert Joseph Neville Galmoye Butler-Sloss (b. 15 July 1962); married Hon. Sarah Jane Sainsbury, daughter of Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, President of Sainsbury's
 * Hon. William Edmund Minchin Patchell Butler-Sloss (b. 21 September 1967, d. 13 March 2018); married Victoria Harwood, a voice actress and author. William died of stomach cancer in 2018 at the age of 50. He was survived by two children and his widow.

Baroness Butler-Sloss is a church-going Anglican. In 2002, she chaired the Crown Appointments Committee charged with the selection of a new Archbishop of Canterbury. She was Chairman of the Advisory Council of St Paul's Cathedral from 2000 to 2009 and currently serves as Chair for the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life. , she lives in East Devon.

Notable judgments

 * Joyce v Sengupta and Another: CA 31 Jul [1992] – Newspaper can be sued for malicious falsehood
 * Re T (Consent to Medical Treatment)(Adult Patient) [1993] Fam. 95
 * Re W, Re A, Re B (Change of Name) [1999 EWCA Civ 2030]
 * Re J (Specific Issue Orders: Child's Religious Upbringing and Circumcision) [2000] 1 FLR 571 CA
 * An NHS Trust A v M and An NHS Trust B v H [2001] Fam 348
 * Re B (Consent to Treatment: Capacity) [2002] EWHC 429

Arms
Baroness Butler-Sloss' arms are a version of the arms borne by her brother, Michael Havers, Baron Havers.


text:
Noël Corbu

Noël Corbu (27 April 1912 – 20 May 1968) is best known as a former restaurateur in the Southern French village of Rennes-le-Château who, between 1955 and 1962 circulated the story that the 19th-century French priest Bérenger Saunière discovered the treasure of Blanche of Castile. Corbu changed his story about Saunière in 1962 (see below).

Early life
Born on 27 April 1912 in the 7th arrondissement of Paris to Désiré-Victor-Henri Corbu and Marguerite-Marie Corbu ( Rousseau), the granddaughter of François-de-Sales-Narcisse Rousseau (1810-1866), an attorney based in Clamecy, Nièvre who, in the aftermath of the French coup d'état of 1851, had been forced to flee into exile into Belgium to escape deportation to Cayenne. Corbu had an elder brother, ten years his senior named Charles-Pierre Corbu, an airline pilot employed by the Société Générale des Transports Aériens, who died alongside his mechanic, during a test flight of a commercial aircraft carrying no passengers at Le Bourget Airport, on 10 December 1927. The young Noël Corbu lived in Morocco due to his father being an attaché at the Embassy there, before obtaining the degree of Doctor of Science in Paris. While living in Perpignan, Corbu met his future wife, Henriette Coll, ten years his senior and a native of the town who was then living at 16, rue J. Tastu, where she ran her business of selling poultry, eggs and cheese. The couple married on 21 January 1935. In the following years, Corbu set up a pasta factory which he named les pâtes Claire after his eldest child, his daughter Claire, situated at route d'Elne, Perpignan. By the end of 1942, Perpignan became occupied by German troops.

Rennes-le-Château
It was soon afterwards that Corbu decided to send his two children, his daughter Claire and her younger brother, to a more remote and less accessible place, to the village of Bugarach. Corbu published his detective novel, Le Mort cambrioleur ("The Burglar Dead") in 1943.

Through the intermediary of his children's school teacher (once Marie Dénarnaud's lodger), Corbu found out that Marie Dénarnaud was selling her estate in Rennes-le-Château. After two years of hesitation, Marie Dénarnaud finally agreed to sell her property en viager to the Corbus and by her Holographic will dated 22 July 1946, she named Corbu and his wife her sole legatees. Marie Dénarnaud could not afford to keep up her estate, which was in need of repairs and she had run into serious debts (that were settled by Noël Corbu upon purchase). The property comprised the Villa Bethania, the Tour Magdala, an Orangery, and the Belvedere that connects the Tour Magdala to the Orangery.

In 1950 Corbu returned to Morocco hoping to set up a sugar refinery, without success.

When Marie Dénarnaud died in 1953, Corbu inherited her archives relating to Bérenger Saunière. During Easter 1955 Corbu turned the Villa Bethania into a Hotel (called L'hôtel de la Tour) and opened a restaurant located underneath the belvedere that connects the Tour Magdala to the Orangery (Corbu installed the windows). Later during the 1990s, the Villa Bethania was turned into a hotel again.

In January 1956, the local newspaper La Dépêche du Midi serialised an interview with Corbu in who claimed that Father Saunière discovered the treasure of Blanche of Castile, and which 'according to the archives' consisted of 28,500,000 gold pieces. This was the treasure of the French crown assembled by Blanche de Castile to pay the ransom of Saint Louis, a prisoner of the Saracens, the surplus of which she had hidden at Rennes-le-Château. Saunière had only found one part of it, so it was necessary to continue his investigations. Corbu also claimed Saunière had in 1892 discovered "parchments" whilst renovating his church "written in a mixture of French and Latin, which at first glance could be discerned passages from the Gospels". It has been noted by critics however that Saunière began renovating his church in 1886, not 1892, and that "there was no evidence that these parchments had ever existed". Corbu claimed that Marie Dénarnaud would confide a secret to him before she died, saying "Pray do not worry yourself, Monsieur Corbu. You shall have more money than you will be able to spend!"

Corbu provided a tape-recording of his story for his guests, a transcript of which was deposited in the Archives de l'Aude, Carcassonne on 14 June 1962 by Maurice Tous of Alet-les-Bains.

Corbu's story inspired author Robert Charroux to develop an active interest and in 1958, with his wife Yvette and other members of The Treasure Seekers' Club (that he founded in 1951), scanned the village of Rennes-le-Château and its church dedicated to Saint Mary Magdalene for treasure using a metal detector. The dowsing-by-pendulum enthusiast and hypnotist Rolland Domergue, with medium Germaine Goyard, joined Corbu in 1958 to look for the treasure, and thus began the extensive accumulation of pilgrimages to the site by many various people from all over France, that on 28 July 1965 forced the local Municipal council to introduce a local By-law prohibiting excavations in the village.

In April 1961, the French Television Channel RTF made a documentary directed by Marina Grey entitled La Roue Tourne ("The Wheel Turns"), that cast Noël Corbu as Father Saunière.

Corbu then changed his story about Saunière on an interview for the France Inter radio programme to Robert Charroux in 1962, dropping all references to Blanche of Castile and claiming that Saunière's alleged treasure discovery relied upon two alleged inscriptions discovered in 1928: one on a gravestone in the cemetery  and another on a stone found on farmland property close to Rennes-le-Château (Corbu alleged both "artifacts" were discovered by a retired amateur archaeologist, Ernest Cros, who died in 1946). In the revised edition of his book Treasures of the World published during the 1970s (not translated into English), Robert Charroux added the material given in the 1962 radio interview, but also retained parts of the original chapter on Rennes-le-Château that mentioned Blanche of Castile.

These references to inscriptions by Corbu inspired two documents of unknown provenance called ''Recherches de Mons. L'Ingenieur en chef Ernest Cros; entreprises dans la Haute Vallée de l'Aude, surtout durant les années 1920 à 1943'', commonly called "The Cros Report" (one of them is said to have originated on Corbu's typewriter, the other is attributed to René Chesa).

Priory of Sion hoax
Noël Corbu's account of the discovery of the parchments by Father Saunière was later quoted in the document Un Trésor Mérovingien à Rennes-le-Château (1966) attributed to "Antoine L'Ermite", that for "stylistic reasons suggest that this was written by Pierre Plantard and/or Philippe de Chérisey". Philippe de Chérisey confessed to having forged the famous parchments that appeared in Gérard de Sède’s 1967 book, L'Or de Rennes (as well as faking "The Cros Report") in his manuscript "Stone and Paper". The text of the document attributed to "Antoine L'Ermite" was modelled on Charroux's account found in his book, Trésors du Monde, where he extensively quoted Noël Corbu.

Heritage, tourism and archaeology
Noël Corbu sold the Saunière estate in 1964 to Henri Buthion (1924–2002) and moved to the Château of Saint-Félix-Lauragais which he recently acquired. On 20 May 1968, on his way to Fanjeaux from Montpellier, Corbu's car, a Renault 16 was hit by a truck who had failed to yield the right-of-way. Corbu who was not in the driving seat and not wearing his seat belt, was killed instantly, the driver suffered only minor injuries. Corbu was interred in a burial vault alongside his wife (who died in 1966) in the cemetery of Rennes-le-Château. The estate has been the property of the local Municipal council since 2000.

Noël Corbu's daughter Claire Corbu with her husband Antoine Captier (whose grandfather was the carillonneur of the church of Rennes-le-Château, when Bérenger Saunière was the local priest), first published their book L'Héritage de l’Abbé Saunière in 1985, reproducing a selection of archives relating to Bérenger Saunière, and in May 1989 opened the Saunière Museum in the village of Rennes-le-Château as part of the Association Terre de Rhedae, also part of the local Municipal council. When the Saunière Museum re-opened on 1 March 2009, the story of Bérenger Saunière and the history of Rennes-le-Château was presented in four different languages. The museum was re-opened and re-furbished more recently in 2016 and called Le Musée Domaine de l'Abbé Saunière.

While the local Municipal council superficially accepts the legend of the treasure of Rennes-le-Château because it acts as a tourist magnet attracting substantial financial revenue (for example, endorsing DVDs that publicise the legend), the legend is not treated seriously by French archaeology (itself part of the French Ministry of Culture). For example, when the then village mayor gave the go-ahead to excavate the Tour Magdala in 2003 he was subsequently threatened with legal action by the local body of Direction régionale des affaires culturelles (or DRAC) for doing so without gaining prior official permission and therefore breaching the French Code du patrimoine.

Published works

 * Le Mort cambrioleur (1943), Imprimerie du Midi, 14 rue de la loge, Perpignan. Facsimile reprint, Paris: Les Éditions de l'Oeil du Sphinx, 2005. ISBN 9782914405287.

title: Noël Corbu


text:
Talk:Pinnekjøtt

I think Wikipedia's policy is to have article titles only use the standard 26 letters of the English alphabet. Probably this article should be moved to "Pinnekjott." Or at the least, Pinnekjott should be made to point here. --Carl 09:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I made a redirect at Pinnekjott, pointing here. MasterDirk 18:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Prep
Hi, I streamlined the text on preparation a bit, but also clarified that smoking takes place after, not before curing, as this was unclear in the text, and that steaming over a birch twig grid is the standard method of preparation. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pinnekjøtt


text:
London Outer Orbital Path

The London Outer Orbital Path — more usually the "London LOOP" — is a 150-mile (242 km) signed walk along public footpaths, and through parks, woods and fields around the edge of Outer London, England, described as "the M25 for walkers". The walk begins at Erith on the south bank of the River Thames and passes clockwise through Crayford, Petts Wood, Coulsdon, Banstead, Ewell, Kingston upon Thames, Uxbridge, Elstree, Cockfosters, Chingford, Chigwell, Grange Hill and Upminster Bridge before ending at Purfleet, almost directly across the Thames from its starting point. Between these settlements the route passes through green buffers and some of the highest points in Greater London.

History
The walk was first proposed at a meeting between The Ramblers and the Countryside Commission in 1990. It was given an official launch at the House of Lords in 1993. The first section was opened on 3 May 1996, with a ceremony on Farthing Downs, Coulsdon. Other sections followed at the rate of two or three per year as signs were installed and leaflets for individual sections published, the route becoming fully walkable in 2001. Following the election of Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London, the London Loop became one of his key routes, along with its sister route, the Capital Ring.

Route

The route is divided into 24 sections in three groups: the "blue" group in South London, the "green" group in north-west London, and the "yellow" group in north-east London. The sections vary in length, from 3.8 mi section 14 to 10 mi section 16. Some sections start and/or end directly at public transport stops. However most sections have a further waymarked 'LOOP Link' to from their start and/or end to the nearest train or underground station. Additionally, there are waymarked 'LOOP Links' to train station midway along some sections. All these links are listed in the table below.

South London (sections 1–8)
The Loop officially begins by the River Thames in Erith. Points of interest in these sections south of the Thames include: Hall Place, the memorial to William Willett (advocate of summer time), the Wilberforce Oak, Shirley Windmill, Happy Valley, Farthing Downs, the Mayfield Lavender Farm and the Coronation Stone in Kingston.

North-west London (sections 9–16)
Having crossed the Thames at Kingston Bridge the Loop continues north of the river. Points of interest in these sections include: Bushy Park, the Shot Tower by the River Crane, the Grand Union Canal, the ancient woodland of Park Wood, Grim's Dyke and a cottage where David Livingstone once lived.

North-east London (sections 17–24)
Commencing at Cockfosters, the final third of the Loop heads south to its end at the Thames in Purfleet. Points of interest in these sections include: the New River, Forty Hall, Gilwell Park, Queen Elizabeth's Hunting Lodge in Epping Forest, the Wellingtonia Avenue in Havering Country Park, the valley of the River Ingrebourne, the Upminster Windmill, Hornchurch Country Park, the Concrete Barges by the Thames at Rainham and the RSPB Centre by the marshes at Purfleet.

Signposts, waymarks and information boards direct the walker along the route. In countryside locations the waymarks consist mostly of a simple white disc mounted on a wooden post, with a directional arrow and flying kestrel logo in blue and text in green. However, local authorities are responsible for funding these signs, so the quality varies from one borough to the next, with some sections not signed at all. The 54-mile blue route from Erith to Kingston is maintained by the Downlands Countryside Management Project, a joint initiative by several councils, and is complete with signs and information boards, in addition to maps available from Tourist Information Centres.

There is no way to cross the river between Purfleet and Erith to complete the loop, although there was once a ferry to Erith which was mainly used by pilgrims on their way to Canterbury. In 2011 a proposal for a ferry to link the ends, and to link to riverbuses upstream at Woolwich, was shortlisted in the RIBA Forgotten Spaces competition.

The full route is also mapped on OpenStreetMap and available on the Go Jauntly app, in partnership with Transport for London.

title: London Outer Orbital Path


text:
Sid Sings

Sid Sings is the first released solo live album by English punk rock musician Sid Vicious. It was released posthumously in 1979 and entered the British album charts on 15 December where it peaked at number 30.

The album features the two singles "My Way" and "Something Else". These songs also appeared in the film and album The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle along with "C'mon Everybody", which did not appear on this album. Most of the album features cover songs whilst only one original by Vicious is featured on the album, that being "Belsen Was a Gas", originally a Sex Pistols song that Vicious regularly performed and the only known Sex Pistols song that has a solo version done by him.

Overview
The album is thin on liner notes; there are no musicians' credits or recording info, and the production credit goes to "The Engineer," John "Boogie" Tiberi.

The bulk of the album comes from lo-fi recordings of performances at Max's Kansas City in New York on 28, 29 and 30 September 1978.

The version of the Johnny Thunders song "Born to Lose" on this album reportedly comes from a Sex Pistols concert at Huddersfield, on 25 December 1977. During the children's matinee performed during the day, lead singer Johnny Rotten stepped off stage to act as Father Christmas, while the remaining trio played a set, including among other songs "Born to Lose" and "Chinese Rocks".

Despite having an audio fidelity not much better than the rest of the album, "My Way" comes from a studio session in Paris with French session musicians. The remixed version that was released as a single and on The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle features a different vocal take, an overdubbed guitar solo from Steve Jones and strings, arranged by Simon Jeffes. But on the video version of the song it features Vicious' vocals on Sid Sings but an instrumental version from The Great Rock and Roll Swindle. There is also another demo version available from the album Too Fast To Live, which is entitled "My Way (Take 3)".

Mick Jones from The Clash was long rumored to play on the album. His two sets with Vicious have now been released on CD in the double album Sid Lives, released by Jungle Records.

The album was not designed by Jamie Reid, the Sex Pistols' art designer, but he created the guitar swastika that appeared on the labels of the original UK pressings (though the German pressing had a blank spot instead due to the swastika's illegality in that country).

Track listing
All tracks are live, with the exception of "My Way".

 * Side one

 * 1) "Born to Lose" (Johnny Thunders)
 * 2) "I Wanna Be Your Dog" (Iggy Pop, Ron Asheton)
 * 3) "Take a Chance On Me" (Jerry Nolan, Walter Lure)
 * 4) "(I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone" (Tommy Boyce, Bobby Hart)
 * 5) "My Way" (Paul Anka, Claude François, Jacques Revaux) (alternate version without strings)

 * Side two

 * 1) "Belsen Was a Gas" (Johnny Rotten, Paul Cook, Sid Vicious, Steve Jones)
 * 2) "Something Else" (Sharon Sheeley, Eddie Cochran)
 * 3) "Chatterbox" (Johnny Thunders)
 * 4) "Search And Destroy" (Iggy Pop, James Williamson)
 * 5) "Chinese Rocks" (Dee Dee Ramone, Richard Hell)
 * 6) "My Way (I Killed The Cat)" (shorter live version Of "My Way")

Tracks 2, 3, 10, 11 – 1st set, Max's Kansas City, New York City, September 29, 1978

Tracks 4, 6, 8, 9 – 1st set, Max's Kansas City, New York City, September 28, 1978

Track 7 – 1st set, Max's Kansas City, New York City, September 30, 1978

Track 5 - Studio de la Grande Armee, Paris, April 10, 1978

There are talking bits edited in from both the 28th and 29th sets, including quite a few from the second set of the 28th, although no music is included from that set. This helps at least make sense out of the fact that the LP's inner sleeve shows a copy of Boogie's notes from the second set of the 28th used during compiling the LP.

Personnel

 * Sid Vicious – lead vocals; bass on "Born to Lose"
 * Paul Cook – drums on "Born to Lose"
 * Steve Jones – guitar, backing vocals on "Born to Lose"
 * Arthur Kane – bass
 * Mick Jones - guitar
 * Steve Dior – guitar
 * Jerry Nolan – drums
 * Claude Engel – guitar on "My Way"
 * Sauveur Mallia – bass on "My Way"
 * Pierre-Alain Dahan – drums on "My Way"
 * Technical
 * Chris Jenkins - engineer
 * Manu Guiot - engineer on "My Way"
 * Jamie Reid - design

title: Sid Sings


text:
La Dépêche du Midi

La Dépêche, formally La Dépêche du Midi, is a regional daily newspaper published in Toulouse in Southwestern France with seventeen editions for different areas of the Midi-Pyrénées region. The main local editions are for Toulouse, Ariège, Aude, Aveyron, Haute-Garonne, Gers, Lot, Lot-et-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrénées, Tarn and Tarn-et-Garonne.

History and profile
The newspaper first appeared on 2 October 1870 when it was called La Dépêche de Toulouse. Publication was prompted by workers at the Sirven print works in Toulouse, which established the paper's left-leaning politics. It was at La Dépêche that the Socialist politician Jean Jaurès wrote his first articles. The paper also published the articles by Georges Clemenceau. In the big issue of the day, the Dreyfus affair, the paper first insisted Alfred Dreyfus had given army secrets to the Germans but then came out in his support.

The paper fell under German control after the occupation of 1940. Like other newspapers that had collaborated during the war, La Dépêche de Toulouse was closed by the postwar government in 1944. It reappeared under its current name in 1947. Like its predecessor La Dépêche du Midi has a leftist stance.

The newspaper is part of Groupe La Dépêche du Midi. The combined circulation for the 17 regional dailies under La Dépêche du Midi was 200,000 copies in 2006.

title: La Dépêche du Midi