text:
Ruth Roman

Ruth Roman (born Norma Roman; December 22, 1922 – September 9, 1999) was an American actress of film, stage, and television.

After playing stage roles on the East Coast, Roman moved to Hollywood to pursue a career in films. She appeared in several uncredited bit parts before she was cast as the leading lady in the Western Harmony Trail (1944) and in the title role in the serial film Jungle Queen (1945), her first credited film performances.

Roman first starred in the title role of Belle Starr's Daughter (1948). She achieved her first notable success with a role in The Window (1949) and a year later was nominated for the Golden Globe Award for New Star of the Year – Actress for her performance in Champion (1949). In the early 1950s, she was under contract to Warner Bros., where she starred in a variety of films, including the Alfred Hitchcock thriller Strangers on a Train (1951).

In the mid-1950s, after leaving Warner Bros., Roman continued to star in films and also began playing guest roles for television series. She also worked abroad and made films in England, Italy, and Spain. She was also a passenger aboard the SS Andrea Doria when it collided with another ship and sank in 1956. In 1959, she won the Sarah Siddons Award for her work in the play Two for the Seesaw. Her numerous television appearances earned her a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Early life and stage experience
Norma Roman was born in Lynn, Massachusetts, to Lithuanian Jewish parents, Mary Pauline (née Gold) and Abraham "Anthony" Roman. She was renamed "Ruth" when a fortune teller told her mother that "Norma" was an unlucky name. Her mother was a dancer, and her father a barker in a carnival sideshow that they owned at Revere Beach, Massachusetts. She had two older sisters, Ann and Eve. Her father died when Ruth was eight, and her mother sold the sideshow. Later, she attended the William Blackstone School and Girls' High School in Boston. She then pursued her desire to become an actress by enrolling in the prestigious Bishop Lee Dramatic School in Boston. After further enhancing her skills performing with the New England Repertory Company and the Elizabeth Peabody Players, Roman moved to New York City, where she hoped to find success on Broadway. Instead, she worked as a cigarette girl, a hat check girl, and a model to make a living and save money.

Career
Roman moved to Hollywood, where she obtained bit parts in several films such as Stage Door Canteen (1943), Ladies Courageous (1944), Since You Went Away (1944), Song of Nevada (1944), and Storm Over Lisbon (1944). She had a featured role in Harmony Trail (1944), but continued to be mostly unbilled in films such as She Gets Her Man (1945).

Roman was cast in the title role in the 13-episode serial Jungle Queen (1945). Her roles, though, remained small in such films as See My Lawyer (1945), The Affairs of Susan (1945), You Came Along (1945), Incendiary Blonde (1945), Gilda (1946), Without Reservations (1946), A Night in Casablanca (1946), and The Big Clock (1948). While waiting for an opportunity in movies, Roman wrote short stories based on her experiences living in a theatrical boarding house. She sold two of them: The House of the Seven Garbos and The Whip Song.

Roman's career began to improve in the late 1940s when she was cast in a featured role in the 1948 release Good Sam. The next year, she was chosen for the title role in Belle Starr's Daughter, as a killer in the thriller The Window, and as the wife of the central character in Champion, starring Kirk Douglas.

Warner Bros.
In recognition of Roman's rising status as an actress, Warner Bros. signed her to a long-term contract in 1949, casting her first as a supporting player for Bette Davis in Beyond the Forest and then for Milton Berle and Virginia Mayo in Always Leave Them Laughing. The studio in 1950 cast her as the female lead in Barricade with Dane Clark and Colt .45 with Randolph Scott.

Warners gave her a starring role in Three Secrets (1950) with Eleanor Parker and Patricia Neal. She played a distraught mother waiting to learn whether or not her child survived an airplane crash. This was followed by Dallas (1950), where she was Gary Cooper's leading lady. The May 1, 1950, issue of Life magazine featured Roman in a cover story "The Rapid Rise of Ruth Roman". Roman got top billing in Lightning Strikes Twice (1951), directed by King Vidor with Richard Todd. She was Farley Granger's love interest in Strangers on a Train (1951), directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Roman was top-billed as well in the 1951 thriller Tomorrow Is Another Day, co-starring Steve Cochran. That year, she was also one of many Warners stars in Starlift, the studio's musical tribute to United States military personnel fighting in the Korean War.

She was loaned to MGM for Invitation (1952), then co-starred with Errol Flynn in Mara Maru (1952). She went back to MGM to play Glenn Ford's love interest in Young Man with Ideas (1952) and was reunited with Cooper in Blowing Wild (1953), only this time she was billed beneath Barbara Stanwyck.

Post-Warners
Roman went to Universal to play Van Heflin's love interest in Tanganyika (1954). At Universal she was a love interest to James Stewart in the Anthony Mann-directed Western The Far Country (1955) and at Republic was top billed in The Shanghai Story (1954) with Edmond O'Brien.

Roman did Down Three Dark Streets (1954) with Broderick Crawford, and started appearing on TV in shows like Lux Video Theatre, The Red Skelton Hour, Producers' Showcase, Climax!, General Electric Theatre, Celebrity Playhouse, The Ford Television Theatre and Jane Wyman Presents The Fireside Theatre.

Roman had a good part in England in Joe MacBeth (1955) playing Lady MacBeth, and she was with Van Johnson in The Bottom of the Bottle (1956) and Mayo in Great Day in the Morning (1956).

Roman appeared in the Western Rebel in Town (1956) and was top-billed in 5 Steps to Danger (1957). She was in Bitter Victory (1957) and went to Italy to star in Desert Desperados (1959).

Continuing work in theatre
In 1959, Roman won the Sarah Siddons Award for her work in Chicago theatre. She was selected from among 47 nominees based on her performance in Two for the Seesaw.

Back in Hollywood, she played Paul Anka's mother in Look in Any Window (1961).

Television
Roman worked regularly in films well up to the late 1950s. Then she began making appearances on television shows. These included recurring roles in NBC's 1965–1966 The Long, Hot Summer, and toward the end of her career, recurring roles in the 1986 season of Knots Landing and several episodes of Murder, She Wrote, both on CBS.

She guest-starred in NBC's Bonanza and Sam Benedict, ABC's The Bing Crosby Show sitcom and its circus drama The Greatest Show on Earth starring Jack Palance, as well as Burke's Law starring Gene Barry and I Spy featuring Robert Culp and Bill Cosby. She also appeared as a fiery redhead in an episode of Gunsmoke.

She appeared in the early 1960s in the medical dramas The Eleventh Hour and Breaking Point. She starred in a season 3 episode of Mission: Impossible (1968) titled "The Elixir" as Riva Santel as well as a Season 2 episode of Naked City. Many other series featured guest appearances by Roman, including Route 66, The Untouchables (1959 TV series), Mannix, Cannon (TV series), Marcus Welby, M.D., The Mod Squad, The FBI, Tarzan, and The Outer Limits - episode Moonstone - 1964

In 1971 Roman appeared as Marjorie Worth on "The Men from Shiloh" (rebranded name for the TV Western The Virginian) in the episode titled "The Angus Killer."

In 1960, Roman was honoured with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 6672 Hollywood Boulevard for her contribution to television.

Personal life

Roman was married four times. She had one son, Richard Roman Hall on November 12, 1952,  with husband Mortimer Hall, son of publisher Dorothy Schiff.

She married Hall on December 17, 1950. In 1956, she sued him for divorce, and the divorce decree became final on April 15, 1957.

Roman was a Democrat who supported Adlai Stevenson's campaign during the 1952 presidential election.

SS Andrea Doria sinking
In July 1956, Roman was just finishing a trip to Europe with her three-year-old son Richard. At the port of Cannes they boarded the Italian passenger liner SS Andrea Doria as first-class passengers for their return passage to the United States. On the night of July 25, the vessel collided with the Swedish passenger liner MS Stockholm.

Roman was in the Belvedere Lounge when the collision happened and immediately took off her high heels and scrambled back to her cabin barefoot to retrieve her sleeping son. Several hours later, they were both evacuated with the other passengers from the sinking liner. Richard was lowered first into a waiting lifeboat, but before she could follow, the lifeboat departed. Ruth stepped into the next boat and was eventually rescued along with 750 other survivors from the Andrea Doria by the French passenger liner SS Île de France. Richard was rescued by the Stockholm and was reunited with his mother in New York.

Death
Roman died at the age of 76 in her sleep of natural causes at her beachfront villa on Crescent Bay in Laguna Beach, California, on September 9, 1999.

Partial filmography

 * Stage Door Canteen (1943) - Girl (uncredited)
 * Ladies Courageous (1944) - WAF (uncredited)
 * Since You Went Away (1944) - Envious Girl in Train Station (uncredited)
 * Song of Nevada (1944) - Dancer (uncredited)
 * Storm Over Lisbon (1944) - Checkroom Girl (uncredited)
 * Harmony Trail (1944) - Ann Martin
 * She Gets Her Man (1945) - Glamour Girl (uncredited)
 * Jungle Queen (1945, serial) - Lothel - Jungle Queen
 * See My Lawyer (1945) - Mud Girl (uncredited)
 * The Affairs of Susan (1945) - Girl at Bright Dollar (uncredited)
 * You Came Along (1945) - Gloria Revere (uncredited)
 * Incendiary Blonde (1945) - Chorine (uncredited)
 * Gilda (1946) - Girl (uncredited)
 * Without Reservations (1946) - Girl in Negligee (uncredited)
 * A Night in Casablanca (1946) - Harem Girl (uncredited)
 * The Big Clock (1948) - Secretary at Meeting (uncredited)
 * Good Sam (1948) - Ruthie
 * Belle Starr's Daughter (1948) - Cimarron Rose
 * Champion (1949) - Emma
 * The Window (1949) - Mrs. Jean Kellerson
 * Beyond the Forest (1949) - Carol Lawson
 * Always Leave Them Laughing (1949) - Fay Washburn
 * Barricade (1950) - Judith Burns
 * Colt .45 (1950) - Beth Donovan
 * Three Secrets (1950) - Ann Lawrence
 * Dallas (1950) - Tonia Robles
 * Lightning Strikes Twice (1951) - Shelley Carnes
 * Strangers on a Train (1951) - Anne Morton
 * Tomorrow Is Another Day (1951) - Catherine 'Cay' Higgins
 * Starlift (1951) - Ruth Roman
 * Invitation (1952) - Maud Redwick
 * Mara Maru (1952) - Stella Callahan
 * Young Man With Ideas (1952) - Julie Webster
 * Blowing Wild (1953) - Sal Donnelly
 * Tanganyika (1954) - Peggy Marion
 * The Far Country (1954) - Ronda Castle
 * The Shanghai Story (1954) - Rita King
 * Down Three Dark Streets (1954) - Kate Martell
 * Joe MacBeth (1955) - Lily MacBeth
 * The Bottom of the Bottle (1956) - Nora Martin
 * Great Day in the Morning (1956) - Boston Grant
 * Rebel in Town (1956) - Nora Willoughby
 * 5 Steps to Danger (1957) - Ann Nicholson
 * Amère victoire (UK title: Bitter Victory) (1957) - Jane Brand
 * Desert Desperadoes (1959) - The Woman
 * Look in Any Window (1961) - Jackie Fowler
 * Milagro a los cobardes (1962) - Rubén's mother
 * The Alfred Hitchcock Hour (1963) (Season 1 Episode 16: "What Really Happened") - Adelaide 'Addie' Strain
 * Love Has Many Faces (1965) - Margot Eliot
 * The Baby (1973) - Mrs. Wadsworth
 * The Killing Kind (1973) - Rhea Benson
 * Impulse (1974) - Julia Marstow
 * Knife for the Ladies (1974) - Elizabeth
 * Day of the Animals (1977) - Shirley Goodwyn
 * The Sacketts (1979) - Rosie
 * Echoes (1982) - Michael's Mother

Awards and nomination

 * 1950 Golden Globe Award for New Star of the Year - Actress for Champion (nominee)
 * 1959 Sarah Siddons Award for Two for the Seesaw (winner)
 * 1960 Star for Television on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (winner)

title: Ruth Roman


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (User:Instantnood | talk | contributions)
 * Superseded by Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.

Statement of the dispute
''Instantnood will not follow concensus. He repeatedly uses edit and revert wars to push his POV edits. When he does not get his way he puts in the pseudo-protected tag twoversions but fails to discuss the matter to resolution.''

Description
''First, I believe that Instantnood genuinely wants to contribute. He has made several substantial contributions which help the project. However, he is pushing a POV across any page that has anything to do with the status of China, it's SARs (Hong Kong, Macao), and the independence of Taiwan. This cannot continue.

He has been battling across any number of pages since arriving in December of 2004 as anon.
 * Hong Kong
 * Victoria City
 * Cathay Pacific destinations
 * List of city listings by country
 * List of cities in China

Many have given up making changes to any article he contributes to because he will revert them later, this goes beyond the three revert rule, in some cases he has gone back ten times. He does not follow concensus about fact, even when the fact has been confirmed by the source country. (See Talk:Hong Kong where email from a government representative confirms Hong Kong has no designated capitol city, but Instantnood still reverts the Hong Kong article to include Victoria City as the capitol.) He even deletes NPOV statements added to be conciliatory to him. He abuses the pseudo-protected tag twoversions. As of a few days ago 50% of the usage of that template were his entries. In some cases he does not point twoversions to edits that are actually different. Twoversions should be temporary. In some cases he makes no attempt to discuss the matter at all. In most he becomes pedantic, circular, but mostly pig-headed. It is impossible to actually have a discussion on the merits with him.

This list is incomplete. Instantnood is all over Wikipedia changing templates and making global renames to enforce his POV. I cannot follow all of it.''

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * 1. Hong Kong and victoria City. Dispute: Hong Kong has no capitol city and has not since government re-organization and passage of the Basic Law in 1991. Confirmed by the HK government, Instantnood has changed the HK article at least six times to proclaim victoria City the capitol and the VC article a huge number of time as well.
 * 2. Various List of... articles. Dispute: Edit wars on the appearance of bullet items in lists that don't conform to his POV. I don't actually see consistency in what he wants here, but in various lists always breaks out Hong Kong and Macau as seperate entities from China. The semantic contortion of "Mainland China" is a treatment as if HK and Macao are equal to the PRC. List of cities in China, List of city listings by country, Cathay Pacific destinations
 * 3. Taiwan articles. Dispute: Naming convention. I don't edit Taiwan articles but Instantnood is "single-handedly trying a frontal assault on the templates and categories" Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Economy_of_Taiwan_.26rarr.3B_Economy_of_the_Republic_of_China
 * 4. Heated discussions at WP:TFD, and WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria. I wouldn't go so far as to call his behaviour deliberately disruptive, but he has a definite bee in his bonnet about Taiwan/RoC and it makes reaching a consensus impossible. He seems to be genuinely trying to help, but he's going about it in a very annoying way. All attempts at reaching a compromise (such as on the two pages mentioned) are met with InstandNood hardly budging (if at all) from his position.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Revert Wars, way past 3RR
 * Edit wars
 * Wiki Etiquette
 * Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
 * NPOV
 * Doesn't respect concensus

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * The talk pages of any of the above show people discussing with him. Most of his discussion just becomes pigheaded and circular, he is willing to argue nothing for pages if it leaves his edits in place. The appearance of continued discussion does not mean concensus has not been reached and disputes should end.
 * The user talk page of user:Huaiwei is another great example of trying to discuss with him and getting nowhere.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Please notify the user, via his talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised. (sign with ~ )
 * 1) SchmuckyTheCat 15:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Huaiwei 15:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) ExplorerCDT 17:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Only so many times I can bear getting frustrated at his inability to accept rational arguments and proof.  Called him a f*****g annoying gnat out of such frustration, and I apologize for reducing my frustration to vulgarity).
 * 4) jguk 22:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) I would add that I very much hope Instantnood continues to contribute usefully to Wikipedia, but the constant attempts to change Taiwanese articles to ROC articles, despite there clearly being no consensus to do so, are wearing thin. I hope he stops this behaviour and concentrates on improving articles about Chinese affairs generally, which clearly interest him.

Other users who endorse this summary
If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. (sign with ~ )

 * 1) Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 16:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Huaiwei's response
I am beginning to see a real need to make formal comments with regards to the above member. It is becoming apparant, that this page's existance has not seen him making any efforts to basically be a positive contributor as what others have called for, and he has continued, or even worsened, the very behavior we have singled out for criticism here, ever since.

My views on him can be quite lengthy, so I decided to break it into parts, on a case by case basis as and when I see it is reaching intolerable levels.

The Lack of Accountability
Particularly in a page in which I was actualy tracking for quite some time long before this comment request appeared, I have already seen evidences of behavior which is far from being as open, honest, and accountable as we would have liked to see in all our edits, and even more when it is pertaining "sensitive" topics which has clearly seen diversive opinions. Any responsible user of this site should have known, that when a topic comes under so much scrutinity, surely edits and changes related to this has to be handled with care, and has to be as accountable as possible.

The page in question is List of countries that only border one other country. In the ensuing debates on-going in the disussion page, I reproduce my observations in the history of that page's development. Further discourse over his conduct has already started there, but subsequent developments may occur here or there (or even both), depending on how things flow later.

Source: Talk:List_of_countries_that_only_border_one_other_country

Check it out for a "different" side of the above user's behavior. Actions speaks louder than words. I will be adding more cases as time progresses.--Huaiwei 12:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vote garnering habits, and the abuse of the voting process
Instantnood is well acquited to the WP:VFD and WP:CFD sections, as well as being a major participant in just about any voting process he happens to come across, including his passionate participations in convention pages. But when participating in such activities, it is noted, that he has a habit of "Vote garnering", or as some wikipedians call it, "Ballot-stuffing". At present, there is no clear rule against this, but the ethical implications is obvious. Refer, for example, to the comments made in responce to Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion.

Here, is it becoming obvious that Instantnood is gulty of what they have feared: an abuse of the voting process by calling for as many votes as possible in his favour from people he hopes are like-minded. Interestingly, his overtures sometimes backfire. :D In addition, I noticed he also has a habit of writing individually to people who vote against his favour to influence their votes privately.

Some examples of vote garnering include:

To User:BlankVerse To User:Electionworld To User:Felix Wan To User:Jiang To User:Juntung To User:Mababa To User:Mel Etitis To: User:Penwhale To User:Ran To User:Umofomia
 * User_talk:BlankVerse
 * User_talk:BlankVerse
 * User_talk:Electionworld
 * User_talk:Felix_Wan
 * User_talk:Felix_Wan
 * User_talk:Jiang
 * User_talk:Juntung
 * User_talk:Juntung (this one backfired!)
 * User_talk:Mababa
 * User_talk:Mababa
 * User_talk:Mel_Etitis
 * User_talk:Penwhale
 * User_talk:Penwhale
 * User_talk:Ran
 * User_talk:Ran
 * User_talk:Umofomia

Possible instances of "covert" influencing of vote:

To User talk:Kbdank71 To User:Jiang To User talk:Zzyzx11
 * User_talk:Kbdank71
 * User_talk:Jiang
 * User_talk:Zzyzx11 (influence?)

Ethical? Well...it is up to personal opinions, I suppose, but I hardly find the above "coincidental" or "reconciliary".--Huaiwei 08:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Response has been added by Instantnood at the sections below.

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Mailer diablo's view
Instantnood is a genuine contributor towards Wikipedia, especially towards Hong Kong-related articles and continues to do so. One of his impressive efforts is to set up the Hong Kong wikipedians' notice board to collobrate with other Hong Kong contributors. I do, though, find to some extend that he has some bias aganist the PRC. This is not unusual in Hong Kong; ask anyone on the street on HK and you can expect negative comments towards Teng Chee Hwa and PRC. He should, though try to take note of such bias and avoid it when editing articles in future. The addition of {twoversions} tags doesn't seem appropriate to me either, at least because it gives me an impression that there is some major changes between two versions. For the Victoria City and capital of HK dispute, it is more of a factual dispute - I think we can trust what the official authority has spoken as legitimate.

However, other Wikipedians should not declare a instant victory over Instantnood and start marking SAR or PRC on every single Hong Kong term in articles on Wikipedia. Hong Kong is part of China, and is a SAR. Whether we inlcude or exclude SAR from Hong Kong in articles, it's not going to change this fact, but I feel that as much as possible we should avoid politics in articles if there is no need to to avoid any future conflict. For the naming convection in articles, if Hong Kong is referred to as a city under non-political context, there is no requirement to include the SAR (which currently is for Cathay Pacific destinations) Even Cathay Pacific and HSBC's  websites don't include the SAR. If HK is referred to as a country or region, or when politics are involved, then only the SAR or PRC should be included to reflect that sovereignty under People's Republic of China.

- Mailer Diablo 20:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I added SAR to the Cathay Pacific to compromise with Instantnood, as he wanted to break it out entirely from the PRC. His justification being that HK has seperate immigration controls.  Whether SAR is important or not depends on context, agreed.  I'm no PRC flunky.  I just got tired of my minor edits to the main HK article getting lost in his revert war and started being more involved. People involved in Taiwan related articles are more upset but they have not made an appearance here.  SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Note that this is only for Hong Kong related articles only, I have not taken a look at his involvement with the ROC/Taiwan articles. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) I support the following statement in particular: "Instantnood is a genuine contributor towards Wikipedia, especially towards Hong Kong-related articles and continues to do so" and Instantnood's efforts concerning the ROC vs. Taiwan dispute. It is what is being interpreted as our naming conventions, not Instantnood, that is the problem. 172 21:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Mailer diablo's remarks generally, except for saying Instantnood was biased, and politics have to be avoided. - Privacy 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep's view
My view relates to item 3 of "Evidence of disputed behavior". I have commented on Instantnood's requests at Requested moves and have read several exchanges involving Instantnood and others who are active on WP:RM. I have not examined the other items listed under "Evidence" above. I consider myself an outside party to this debate, since I have not made any contentious edits to any China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong related articles.

Regarding the specific allegations of policy violations brought forth against Instantnood, I don't see how any of them apply to item 3 of "Evidence". In particular:
 * 1) Revert wars and/or edit wars — As far as I can tell, WP:RM has not been the victim of revert/edit wars on any of the topic Instantnood has been involved with.  The most recent 1000 edits do not include any explicit reverts by or of Instantnood. The only recent revert war occurred between User:ExplorerCDT and User:Violetriga and is related to a different topic.
 * 2) Wiki etiquette — There have indeed been violations of Wiki etiquette, but not by Instantnood. On the contrary, Instantnood has been on the receiving end of personal attacks: according to the almost-current revision, User:ExplorerCDT has called Instantnood a "gnat" twice, accused him of lying, and compared him to Joseph Goebbels. Instantnood's responses have never stooped to this level.
 * 3) Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point — An allegation to this effect was made by User:jguk, but I fail to see how listing an article on WP:RM for everyone to comment on is disruptive behavior.
 * 4) Not adhering to NPOV — No evidence, and also not applicable to WP:RM, since it's not in the article namespace.
 * 5) Failure to respect consensus — The whole point of WP:RM is to gauge and/or establish consensus. For the specific moves that Instantnood requested, they are governed by Naming conventions (Chinese), which were established by consensus. The point of WP:RM is to determine if and how these naming conventions are applicable. Some editors apparently disagree with the purpose of WP:RM and instead chose to debate the merits of the naming conventions.

In fact, the whole dispute about the Taiwan-related articles seems to be a content dispute, rather than a dispute about the behavior of Instantnood. At the heart of this debate are two seemingly conflicting pieces of policy:
 * Naming_conventions
 * Naming conventions (Chinese)

My own view is that the latter naming conventions are more specific and should apply in this case. The China-related naming conventions are the product of community consensus and suggest that the phrase "Republic of China" be used, especially in political contexts and/or when it is more specific than the vague term "Taiwan". People may not agree with Instantnood that "Republic of China" is always more appropriate in all of the proposed moves, but that sort of debate is precisely what WP:RM is for. However, User:ExplorerCDT, User:jguk, and others have taken this debate in a different direction, partly out of self-professed ignorance and/or without being aware of Naming conventions (Chinese). There is nothing wrong with ignorance and being unaware of conventions per se, but the attitude displayed by these users is somewhat cause for concern. In particular, starting a debate about the appropriateness of the naming conventions is not productive on a page like WP:RM. Such a debate should take place on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) instead. That said, this is an understandable mistake, which we collectively seem to be doomed to make over and over again on all voting pages.

In conclusion, regarding the requested moves of Taiwan-related articles, it is my view that Instantnood's behavior has been well within the bounds established by the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. The same cannot be said about other editors, notably User:ExplorerCDT who has engaged in personal attacks against Instantnood, which are especially troubling because of his persistent and repeated name calling. I am glad that ExplorerCDT has acknowledged above that this was inappropriate, but I think there is some evidence of a general pattern.

To summarize: The present aspect of the debate should be treated and resolved as a content dispute, not as a complaint against Instantnood. --MarkSweep 00:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Mark, did you look at any of the articles dealing with Hong Kong or is your statement solely about the interacton regarding Taiwan? SchmuckyTheCat 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, this is solely about the proposed moves of Taiwan-related articles, as discussed on WP:RM and the talk pages of some of the parties involved. I have no specific knowledge of Instantnood's activities pertaining to Hong Kong. --MarkSweep 02:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) (See also my comments below.) —Lowellian (talk) 02:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) (Also see my comments below)  Blank Verse  ∅  08:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) WP:NPA - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) - Privacy 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) - john k 15:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) (Also see my comments below.) — Penwhale 13:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree. I think this user should be commended for not responding in kind to the personal attacks against him. Those personal attacks were not warranted and they simply must stop. Jonathunder 23:00, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * 9) - KittySaturn 03:04, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * 10) A.D.H. (t&m) 07:41, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC) (I meant to endorse this summary long ago.)
 * 11) Grue 17:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) - Felix Wan 02:35, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Jiang's view
I have been in much conflict with Instantnood, but I believe Instantnood has acted in good faith and is a genuine contributor who suffers from misguided enthusiasm. I concur mostly with MarkSweep with regard to Instantnood's listing of Taiwan/ROC-related articles on WP:RM. Though I have voted against most of Instantnood's proposed moves, I believe jguk and ExplorerCDT's complaints should not be over this single user, who has acted in good faith in order to enforce the guidelines, but against the guidelines themselves. Jguk and others have been convincingly told at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) that their mass media devoloped vision of the Taiwan-China conflict cannot be suitably reproduced in an encyclopedia that adheres to accuracy and npov. Instead, they have ignored the fact they have been out-argued (and have therefore failed to change the policy) by taking "oppose" votes at WP:RM, either by users like myself who object on different grounds or other users who are ignorant of the rules, as evidence of Instantnood's bad conduct. Instantnood has been trying to enforce the rules: they should either show the rules dont apply or work to change the rules; they have failed to do either.

However, I believe it would better serve his cause if Instantnood were less combative and aggressive in his editing. I personally think sticking all those articles at WP:RM was a very bad idea and he would have better chance trying to convince us on the individual talk pages where we dont have the mass majority of people voting without a total understanding of the complexities of the issue. Instantnood is not entirely innocent here. I think the edit war and wikiquette charges apply. (I don't see a problem with NPOV or disrupting wikipedia to make a point though) I have most recently been in an edit war with him at Science and technology in China where he kept trying to split the article despite a lack of consensus both at WP:RM and the talk page to do what he proposed. Instanthood just needs to cool down and take this all less seriously. People are resistant to change and trying to push all these things at once will end up counter-productive.--Jiang 02:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) MarkSweep 02:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) (See also my comments below.) —Lowellian (talk) 02:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) (Also see my comments below)  Blank Verse  ∅  08:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) except misguided enthusiasm, edit war and etiquette charges. - Privacy 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lowellian's view
I have not followed the Hong Kong disputes, so I cannot comment on them. However, with regard to the moves relating to ROC/PRC/China/Taiwan listed on WP:RM, I concur wholeheartedly with User:MarkSweep's comments. Despite the fact that I have voted against nearly all of User:Instantnood's requested moves, nevertheless, he certainly has the right to request such moves; indeed, he is following Wikipedia policy by listing the requests rather than making the controversial moves himself unilaterally without first seeking the opinion of the community (also, by making the requests on WP:RM, move wars are thereby avoided). Furthermore, throughout the discussion of these requested moves, Instantnood has repeatedly been personally attacked by User:ExplorerCDT but has kept his cool and avoided retaliation with abusive comments.

However, Instantnood should also be aware that having made a large number of requests on WP:RM relating to ROC/PRC/China/Taiwan, nearly all of which have been overwhelmingly voted down, he might be well-advised in desisting from listing further such requests relating to renaming of ROC/PRC/China/Taiwan articles, since they will likely also be voted down overwhelmingly. —Lowellian (talk) 02:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Jiang 03:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) (Also see my comments below)  Blank Verse  ∅  08:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) MarkSweep 09:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) - Privacy 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 00:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BlankVerse's view
I have not looked at, so I can not comment on, the disputes over Hong Kong and Victoria City. I would, however, like to comment on WP:RM, WP:TFD, and WikiProject Stub sorting.

I think that in the middle of some fairly heated comments and taunts at WP:RM, User:Instantnood remained fairly calm. For example, User:ExplorerCDT twice compared him to Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. Here are some more ExplorerCDT quotes: " Instantnood, stop speaking out of your ass. (XXX of/in Macao ? XXX of/in Macau), "Do you feel some inexorable need to waste our time with such indolent nonsense?" and "Why don't you stop this horseshit and take the damned initiative?", "Just like User:Instantnood = Jackass and = someone interrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but User:Instantnood ? some nice guy who avoids getting on peoples nerves with his inane bullshit." (Science and technology in China ? Science and technology in mainland China}, " Instantnood, the Red Chinese" (Politics of Taiwan ? Politics of the Republic of China).

I also took a look at WP:TFD. It is interesting that on that page, although there was some vigorous debate by parties on both sides, there was none of the name-calling that I saw at WP:RM and Instantnood showed that he was willing to work towards a compromise. [All except, amazingly enough, from a member of the Arbitration Committee: "Your ridiculous nationalist POV-warring has even less place in Wikipedia's editorial space than in Wikipedia's article space. VOte to rename to Gdanszkig-stug" and "Oppose. Nationalist POV-warring idiocy". (User:David Gerard)]

Also, looking at WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, there certainly has been some long discussions, but it never got heated, and again Instantnood has shown a willingness to compromise.

My personal opinion is that the changes that Instantnood proposed fit with the suggestions at Naming conventions (Chinese), which, because they are the most accurate descriptions are the most appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is obvious, however, that there is some strong and very vocal opposition. Still, Instantnood should not have been subjected to the abuse that I've seen just for vigorously arguing his points. Blank Verse  ∅ 08:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[Also note that User:ExplorerCDT has already been the subject of two RfC's: #1 #2. "You are all fucking assholes. Ban me. Go right the fuck ahead. All I have to do is get a new IP, and a new logon. I felt sorry for you humourless authoritarian fucks...for a nanosecond. Then I realized your bitching and self-righteousness comes from not getting laid. So fuck you, you damn nazis. You are all pathetic." *ExplorerCDT 05:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) "This will be my last edit. Delete my account." *ExplorerCDT 14:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) from RfC #2's Talk page. He has also been warned about making personal attacks (see User talk:ExplorerCDT).] Blank Verse  ∅  21:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) WP:NPA. Mailer Diablo 08:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) MarkSweep 09:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) - Privacy 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 00:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) <span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">A.D.H. (t&m) 07:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Grue 17:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pratyeka's View
I don't have time to properly read through pages of history, however.

1. Hong Kong and victoria City. Clearly, if the above summary is correct, Instantnood should desist from arguing that HK has a capital city, as it does not. Appearently it would be correct to state that in the past under XX law or XX system of governance it had one. This should please all parties. Verdict: Guilty! (if summary accurate).

2 & 3. Various List of... articles, Taiwan articles. Lists of X in China might justifiably have Taiwan, HK and Macau as seperate bullet points from standard mainland provinces as they have a different status. This would be on a list by list basis. For example, there's little point in differentiating HK, Macau or Taiwan from the mainland in most 'List of xxx in China' articles. For purposes of clarity I think some of the 'xxx in China' articles should be renamed anyway, and recently voted in support of one of Instantnood's suggestions. Why? 'Internet censorship in China' is clearly a mainland (PRC) Summary: I believe that in some cases Instantnoods suggestions are just and valid - and anyway, placing one's suggestions on 'requests for xxx' is not 'singlehandedly launching a frontal assault' but rather standard wikipedia editing procedure. Verdict: Not guilty!

4. Heated discussions are not a crime. Verdict: Not guilty!

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) the summary was not accurate, and I don't think it's a problem to differentiate Hong Kong and Macao from the mainland on lists. - Privacy 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Privacy's view
It was me who took Instantnood into the dispute with Huaiwei on topics related to Hong Kong. I have trouble spending huge amount of time on Wikipedia and to watch around, and I did not know the discussion has gone like in this way. I have not read the page of requested moves in details, and therefore the following comment are not based on the disputes over there.

An average resident from Hong Kong who has studied some ABC local history can tell the capital of the Hong Kong is Victoria City, and roughly the limits of it (of course not as precise and detailed as the law). Everyone knows well the statuses of Hong Kong and Macao, and will probably be surprised to notice that they are not listed separately from mainland China, unless the lists are restricted only to sovereign states. Nearly all creditable lists and websites deal with Hong Kong and Macao as countries, as they do for all other colonies, dependent territories and places that are de facto independent. Just to see the websites of HSBC, Singapore Airlines, Citigroup, McDonald's, Esprit, etc. can tell. Any comparisons of population, GDP, literacy rates, etc. among countries have separated entries for mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao. And actually, Naming conventions (Chinese) already stated how mainland China can be used to differentiate Hong Kong and Macao from the rest of the PRC. They are quasi states as same as many other dependent territories that have almost all government structures, but are not fully sovereigned.

Rather than saying Instantnood has violated the guidelines, I would say it was Huaiwei who failed to respect the facts, and has made revert wars and more than three reversions inevitable. And it was nice that Instantnood stayed cool while Huaiwei gone impatient. His retreat and willingness to bring it to discussions was a good attitude. SchmuckyTheCat, who joined the discussion very recently, demonstrated similar behaviour of Huaiwei. Acts of Huaiwei looked more like provocative to Hong Kong-related topics, and that is not uncommon among Singaporeans on things about Hong Kong, for the two places have long been rivals. From what I heard from people from Hong Kong, some of them also have an impression that Singaporeans are generally simple-minded and loyal to authorities, and consider these as a result of draconic rule by a dominant party. From the lengthy discussion at Talk:Hong Kong and User talk:Huaiwei, I found Huaiwei sticking to his own perceptions all the way through (for instance, what makes a city), and refusing to accept any arguments countered to his points of view, that made any consensus never possible.

Instantnood is genuinely a contributor to Wikipedia, and I do hope the assault here will not affect his enthusiasm. - Privacy 14:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Isnt Privacy the same person as Instantnood?--Huaiwei 15:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that Privacy is a sockpuppet of Instantnood. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt so too, but when Instantnood was revealed to be a sockpuppet of Anon, and when Anon, in his previous attempts to get things done his way by putting in muliple votes from different IPs, I have hardly any trust left in deciding just who is who. In fact, I didnt even suspect Instantnood was indeed Anon after more then a month until this page appeared!--Huaiwei 17:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Still, let's assume good faith and give the benefit of the doubt. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright then. :D--Huaiwei 14:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. - Privacy 15:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that Singapore contributors are generally provocative towards HK-related articles, I was able to colloborate and work with Hong-Kong contributors to raise MTR to featured article status. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am indeed surprised he should come to this assumption about Singaporean contributors. Even I myself started a page on Hong Kong's port, and I dont know if you can find anything demeaning in what I wrote there?--Huaiwei 17:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Observation by Ceyockey (Courtland)
Consider the following regarding the Hong Kong article and the matter of the "Victoria City is not the capital" complaint. On Feb 14, 2004, Instantnood committed a change to the Hong Kong article with the notation "information about 1906 tsunami hidden". In fact, Instantnood did hide this information, but also assigned Victoria City as the Capital in the InfoBox. In my opinion, this is an example of subterfuge, an attempt to make a change in such a way that it would not be as readily detected. This of course does not address why Instantnood felt it necessary to hide the information about the typhoon, but that is another matter altogether.

For the example I have noted here, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&diff=10547455&oldid=10258941.

Courtland 14:57, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Mababa's view
My experience of interacting Instantnood is based on Instantnood's repetitive request for move vote and VfD on Taiwan related articles and templates. I have no doubt that Instantnood is a true Wikipedian. However, I am not certain the underlying reason make him has to be so focused on Taiwan's articles. It is true that the Chinese naming convention dictates the political NPOV policy covering the related articles. However, certain unwritten ambiguity which allows the existance of articles not seemingly conform to the convention verbatimly as long as the article itself is neutral. (Such as political divisions of China, or the politics of China) How the policy should be enforced also might varies a bit depends on how individual interpret it. Further, as MarkSweep said, the voting system itself is another form to gauge the opinion/consensus on how the NPOV policy should apply. With the failure of geting consensus, Instantnood should seek for discussion, not looking for more debates. During the discussion, many people pointed out that Taiwan is a name more representitive to the government on the island than the name ROC. Some people also pointed out the difference between ROC and Taiwan. Question is which one should we adhere or perhaps there is a way to compromise but still keep the article itself neutral. I personally belive that we should use a name that is more popular to facilitate information search/distribution on this encyclopedia. The NPOV would be kept as the infomation written in the article. It would be totally useless if people can not found the information they want and have the article burried in millions of articles. Same thing was done to many XXX of China articles and so far this ambiguity on the interpretation of the NPOV policy works well and fine.

Instantnood initially tried to enforce the policy verbatimly without factoring in the ambiguity that had been working well. There is nothing wrong with enforcing a policy. He brought the request into vote and thus did not make controversial move, nice. However, he have this invincible enthusiasm targeting on Taiwan related articles and make massive requests to move articles dedicated to Taiwan. I am not certain if he did the similar thing to articles for China in such a large scale. After a the failure to gather consensus on the move on Taiwan's article, he make 9 more requests for move regardless of the objections from other Wikipedians. I think this is extrordinary. I do not understand the underlying reason for him to be so focused on Taiwan's articles. He made similiar moves on the categories of Taiwan-templates, which is fine, if it ends with a neutral point. However, I believe that the final proposal would end up in another non-neutral POV, as opposed to the current "sort-of neutral" status. I thought about the possibility that Instantnood targeted on Taiwan/ROC/China/PRC topics in order to reshuffle the current categorizing system and creat a new system separate HK from PRC as his ulterior motive; however, I would rather belive that he is acting in good faith and does not have secondary gain for him to engage such massive disputes.

In my opinion, Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to make a point may or may not apply since Instantnood does not have any obvious point beside the current policy to show us. "NPOV" does not apply, in my opinion, since what he wants to enforce is the consensus, but he interpreted in his own way. "Doesn't respect concensus", I am not sure what it is. All I can say is that he should stop all the proposal based on similar reason after the initial proposals are voted down. He should be well advise to seek discussion on the interpretation of the policy. Overall, I felt that Taiwan-articles were presecuted without obvious reason. Instantnood is probably not even a devoted Chinese nationalism believer, unless Instantnood has some untold reason to motivate him. I am extremely puzzled and some of my planed edits were stalled in this process.

I would highly suggest Instantnood to be more focused on HK related topics where he would share a better understanding on the policy between the contributers there and to work on the topics which his true enthusiasm lies in. Helping out enforcing policy is great, but finding out a compromise between contributers would help smoothenig and shortening the length of disputes. I think an advanced communication skill is crucial for everyone (including myself) participated in the disputes so far. People should be more suspectible to other people's opinion and not to act out subborness any debate.

Lastly, I have no comment on the word of choice during disputes. I did not recollect any unsuitable wording in the process of discussion as other opinions given earlier. Perhaps people has different threshold and preference in their communication skill. This would affect the perception for different people. Mababa 08:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Penwhale's View
EDIT: Note that I have not and will not comment on articles 1, 2, and 4. The following is regarding the Naming Convention.

I'm originally from Taiwan-- one of the reason that I thought I should comment regarding the arguments.

After reading through large amount of proposals that Instanthood brought up, as well as the arguments brought forth by others, it seems that the main reason for people to Rfc him was the fact that he was trying to correct a "taken for granted" usage of the word Taiwan.

What is Taiwan? From my point, it's just an island. It is NO LONGER A PROVINCE as of 2002 and therefore CANNOT include the islands under RoC control. A lot of the arguments on WP:RM and WP:CFD are raised because that readers do not have sufficient knowledge of what is the current status of the political entity.

Taiwan is an island. It has its own history. RoC, however, has only existed since 1912. So, in a way, they are separate items. (And PRC didn't exist until 1949!) I personally do not think Instanthood is wrong in suggesting some of the block moves, but that there are particular artilcles in those block moves that would better off be split. Still, this is not grounds to exile him.

I am willing to help to make sure that some of the items, which should be renamed/moved, moved, if not just for clarity and the "polically correct" view.

This is one particular example of users not willing to accept a different kind of ideas, and I truly feel sorry for Instanthood for having to endure attacks. Penwhale 13:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Burgundavia's View
I ended up involved not with this particular dispute, but with another section of Chinese (of all types and governments) airports. I had originally categorized them as PRC and ROC. There was an attempted Cfd on the PRC article, which failed. What happened then is that new articles were added to the mainland China category, and not the PRC category. I did not vote in the deletion pool, which can be seen archived at Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China. After I removed the articles from the mainland China category and adding them to the PRC category, I ran across this edit and this edit. To me, adding those commented out categories amounts to Editing to make a point. They don't serve any purpose, as it just as easy to change the existing category when or if needed, add another few bytes to each page download, and seem to be there to make a political point.

As I have stated previously, I don't really care how the China policy shakes out, and I don't mind helping out when it does, but until then, the status quo should be kept, as it is so controversial.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Precisely. And while he demands that we keep to the status quo, he thinks he has the liberty to create more controversial categories, make plenty of articles to populate controversial categories, as well as make plenty of edits to strengthen his views.--Huaiwei 07:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response from Instantnood
First I have to thank everyone who has joined this discussion, no matter you agree with my acts or not. I am glad that everybody has said what came up in your mind, without hestitant.

The disputes leading to this request for comment were over Victoria City, listing of Hong Kong and Macao, and the choice between ROC and Taiwan in titles. The first involves factual information, and the latter two are around a set of naming conventions.

As I have mentioned many times elsewhere, Victoria City is the de facto capital of Hong Kong since it was made a crown colony. The colonial government, and its successor the government of the special administrative region, have never publicly and officialy proclaimed that Victoria City ceased to exist, and ceased to be the capital. One may argue Victoria City is no longer a city on its own right, but the more important is that Hong Kong has never had any official or legal definition for city. The government today is still headquartered within the legal boundary of the Victoria City, and most departments have their head offices within it too.

SchmuckyTheCat said Victoria City ceased to be the capital in early 1990s, when the Basic Law was formulated. This is not true, and I have elaborated at Talk:Hong Kong. She/he also cited an e-mail reply from the government to prove that the government has no capital. Nonetheless she/he (until now) failed to provide a hyperlink or an e-mail address of the department or agencies that she/he made the enquiry. She/he said a consensus had already been reached to remove Victoria City from the article. The so-called consensus was in fact reached between she/he and Huaiwei, another user who also support removing it. There was an earlier discussion in mid-December among two or three anonymous contributors, and no consensus was reached.

Ceyockey (Courtland) said in his observation that it was a subterfuge that I added Victoria City back while I am taking away reference to the 1906 Tsunami at the same time. The fact was that Victoria City was being removed unilaterally by an anonymous user (without any discussion) less than 10 hours before my edit (with the edit summary about the tsunami). It was natural to add it back when making other edits, for Victoria City as the capital is never a matter of dispute to me.

The dispute over how Hong Kong and Macao should be listed was in fact a long battle at Huaiwei's discussion page. I do have an impression that Huaiwei does not understand much about the statuses of Hong Kong and Macao after the transfers of sovereignty, and has tried to undermine or downplay their independent characters by considering them ordinary part of the PRC.

Privacy pointed out on her/his view above that Hong Kong and Macao posess many characters of countries, and are dealt with as they are countries by many people, organisations and MNCs. The fact is except from national defence and diplomatic relations, the two special administrative regions are functioning as countries, with their own governments, currencies, passports, customs, immigration, judiciaries, and their own delegations to many international organisations. Naming conventions (Chinese) has already stated how, when and where the term "mainland China" can be used to refer to the territories of the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded.

I don't think Huaiwei wants to provoke anything, but throughout the long conflict he was unfriendly, and has never had the intention to agree on any of my arguments. There were two or three times that he simply quitted a discussion, leaving the dispute unsettled, and continued to enforce his point of view on other articles.

The discussion over the choice of "Taiwan" or "ROC" over titles, as many have suggested, was a result of ignorance (though this word is too strong) and failing to udnerstand the complexity of the issue. I underestimated it, and thought I could convince people who opposed it by letting them know more. I guess I was wrong. Using "Taiwan" in place of "ROC" has already been so deep-rooted that virtually everybody has taken it for granted, without challenging its accuracy. In fact Wikipedia has provided lots of valuable information if one is interested to know more about the issue, and I have listed out some articles and sections that might be useful.

My position is simple. Whenever the scope of the content of an article, a template or a category is about the entire territories under ROC's control, i.e. Quemoy and Matsu included or applicable to, or involves the national government, "ROC" should be used, instead of "Taiwan". The use of "Taiwan" is restricted to matters that involve the island of Taiwan or the province of Taiwan, i.e. Taiwan, Pescadores, Orchid Island, Green Island, etc. included, and Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas, Taiping, etc. excluded. The same scope of content rule applies to "China"/"PRC"/"mainland China".

I don't care anybody's agenda, no matter my actions are in effect help it or stall it. I don't mean to be annoying. We all have to stick to the established convetions, or propose to change it. I am neutral on Taiwan independence or (re)unification/incorporation, and my position is based on the status quo. (I am neutral on whether to support or oppose the status quo too. I just consider the status quo would be the best way to present.) I consider what I suggested in the previous paragraph the most, though not perfectly, NPOV option.

I am looking forward to having it settled as soon as possible at WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria and Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).

I believe politeness is very important in a serious discussion, and it is meaningless to be emotional or impatience on the webspace. No one would actually understand how are you feeling like. I guess I could tolerate some of the attacks, as long as they did not affect reaching a final solution. However I did find ExplorerCDT citing wrong facts, such as the naming conventions that I quoted from was edited back and forth for many times, or stating something without any evidence, like the PRC government made the world to swallow one of the two spellings of Macao/Macau. I guess that's not acceptable to anybody in an discussion on Wikipedia.

Once I again my vote of thanks to all of you who have joined this discussion. — Instantnood 20:53 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

<font size=-1>to endorse →
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~):

Huaiwei's response
It has to be reminded again, that this page exists not because of factual disagreements. It didnt exist because you found fault in other people's reasoning, you considered their understanding of topics inadequate, or if they were discovered to quote erroneous information.

Rather it is to do with HOW you go about conducting yourself in this site, especially when disagreements occur, and when it can be reasonably suspected that you are aware of the possibility for disputes, and yet consciously fail to gain concensus first. Whether you are indeed gulty of this, as well as other charges as laid out above, should have been the main issue for discussion here. It is not an avenue for you or anyone else to repeat factual/content debates. As a matter of fact, I actually agree with you (generally) over the whole Taiwan vs ROC issue, and I also agree that there was nothing wrong at all in initiating discussions over these potentially sensitive topics before making amendments, something some of the above seems to show opposition towards?

So what is the real "problem" here which deserves this page to appear? SchmuckyTheCat has only given a glimse of the whole issue on this page. I have yet to actually write my entire thesis on what I feel is inappriopriate conduct on your part. I just need to find a good timeslot when I have enough mental energy to do so...something I hardly find pleasant to do so, and something I have never expected myself to do in this site.--Huaiwei 21:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess I have to let readers to know about the basics about what's going on, when I have to make a response to the accusations. I didn't mean to go into deep details of the content/factual debates. Rather, I responded to the accusations, for instance, not following the (so-called) consensus. — Instantnood 19:30 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat's response
I don't know enough to comment on the Taiwan/ROC status. I brought it up because it seemed like others were having the same issues under Taiwan that I was having under Hong Kong.

Victoria City as capitol of HK: Concensus under [Talk:Hong_Kong] among several users (everyone but you) was that Hong Kong had no designated capitol. I confirmed this with the Hong Government itself, who stated that HK does not have a capitol. Your entire argument on this is that it once WAS the capitol, so it still must be. You are asking for [Negative proof]. Everyone but you that comments on the HK pages agree that it is not the capitol, yet you repeatedly reverted any changes to the [Hong Kong] page you disagreed with on this issue. This is THE single issue that brought me to use the RfC process.

Other issues with Hong Kong: HK is not an independent country even though many people treat it as such. In any article that follows a political organization HK MUST be organized under it's parent nation, the PRC. It is appropriate to special case HK, but it is not equal to it's parent. Your agressiveness on this was to revert any change when HK was appropriately placed under the PRC - or to use the twoversions tag and ignore discussion on the issue. The list of roads by country article was probably the most obvious here, you actually placed Hong Kong in alphabetical order, rather than the other subtletly of making repeated entries for China - PRC, China - HK, China - ROC, etc.

Ad nauseum is not a discussion. On every talk page where there is dispute with you this is your modus. Rephrase the same statements over and over. This is not evidence that there isn't consensus, it's simply you pushing on. Rather than blame Huaiwei for leaving the discussion, I think he was more than patient discussing it with you until there was nothing more to discuss.

'''You've clearly been involved in edit/revert wars over the HK issues against concensus on those pages. That has to stop.'''

I do think you make positive contributions! Before the disputes with you I recognized you added things to my edits, and you are certainly very productive. SchmuckyTheCat 04:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Both Huaiwei and Instantnood are positive contributors who even stay up at late at night doing edits! From Talk:Singapore I thought it would be good if both can Assume good faith of each other's intentions, and eventually be able to even work together to make the Wiki a better one! :) - Mailer Diablo 07:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * STC: In a sense, it is never correct to state China - RoC because that this name implies either a) Mainland China controls the RoC government, or b) China=RoC, which isn't true. About the HK argument, the current infobox in Talk:Hong Kong is somewhat agreeable, because it notes the fact that it was never officially designated while at the same time being de facto. Penwhale 15:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * again, I don't care enough about Taiwan. but this, which Instandnood likes, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_city_listings_by_country&oldid=10641398 appears to directly contradict that.  ON HK, the infobox with a note isn't correct.  It delegates the truth (there is no capitol) to a footnote while elevating something that is AT BEST informal into the front and center view. The best way to handle it is as it reads now - a few sentences explaining the historical role of the location and explanation for the concentration of government offices. SchmuckyTheCat 17:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (response to SchmuckyTheCat) Huaiwei is right. Here is not the right venue to carry on the factual dispute. It is your POV that Hong Kong has no capital. You failed to tell the details of the e-mail, the so-called official evidence. The consensus was only one between two people, Huaiwei and you. The situation wasn't like "everyone but you (me) that Hong Kong has not capital". The real side of the fact is there was another discussion over it in an earlier discussion in mid-December, which no consensus was reached. All these did not justify staging this RfC against me, for I did not follow the consensus.
 * To have Hong Kong and Macao excluded from mainland China on lists is not my own POV. It involves the naming conventions, and frankly speaking, of course unavoidably, my intepretation of the conventions. We should have proceeded to the discussion page when the page was reverted, but you didn't. There wouldn't be a revert war if there were only me, and I was forced to join a war that you staged, to enforce the conventions. — Instantnood 19:48 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
 * It is the POV of the government of Hong Kong that it has not capitol. Myself, Huaiwei, wshun, jiang, and several anons have concensus here.  The only still arguing about it is you. SchmuckyTheCat 22:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't until now showed us the further details of the e-mail. Jiang didn't join this discussion. And there was no consensus among the anonymous contributors (here). And please, here's not the place to continue the discussion. If you want to continue on it let's go back to Talk:Hong Kong and the other discussion pages. — Instantnood 15:34 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)
 * I came to most of those AFTER you had already been in revert wars and used the twoversions tag to enforce your POV. Please don't blame me.  List of cities by country, for instance, has you reverting four times, then using the twoversions tag, before I went there.  Don't try and hide behind naming conventions. You're as active there as anywhere. If an entry, like a list, is organized politically then HK belongs under the PRC.  period. SchmuckyTheCat 22:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The reversions were made to Huaiwei edits, before you joined. — Instantnood 15:34 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)
 * (response to Mailer diablo) Haha that's very true. — Instantnood 19:48 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
 * (response to Penwhale) You are right. Victoria City was the de facto capital, and the government has never officially and publicly said it's no longer to be. And here's my preference over the listing of Taiwan on this article. — Instantnood 19:48 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, STC, if you can provide an actual governemntal press release info, we wouldn't be here arguing. :/ Penwhale 10:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to prove a negative assertion, a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The statement from the HK government that there is no capitol pretty much trumps any evidence provided thus far to the contrary. SchmuckyTheCat 18:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (response to SchmuckyTheCat at 18:53, 7 Mar) We are not asking you to prove a negative assertion. The common ground that all we shared is that Victoria City was the capital of the crown colony. You claimed that it ceased to be in 1990 (when the Basic Law was formulated). Yet you produced no evidence of the change in 1990. I have already proved that this claim was invalid. — Instantnood 15:34 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)
 * The current government says there is no capitol.16:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) (added by SchmuckyTheCat)
 * The current government says there is no capitol.16:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) (added by SchmuckyTheCat)

You guys are still spending all your time arguing over facts. I makes me wonder then. If Instantnood's factual assertion was indeed notable, then why does he need to engage in endless disputes and roundabout arguments just to proof a simple point? For example, if he disputes the contents of that email, or even its existance, then why cant he email the hk government himself? That is the BEHAVIOR which I find hardly condusive for resolutions to occur in wikipedia. Trying to engage in lengthy disputes which causes his opponents to finally give up not because of facts, but because of just how tiring it is talking to him over for extended periods over and over, and therefore taking the opportunity to declare "victory" in the dispute and thereby making more edits in other pages in his favour, is what I find inappriopriate behavior.--Huaiwei 05:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * yes. and it's not the facts that brought about my attempt at an RfC, it was the revert warring and process abuse he engages in whenever anyone disagrees with his facts. SchmuckyTheCat 14:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (response to Huaiwei) If it is she/he who sent the government and receive the reply, why cannot she/he produce the detail and the proof of the e-mail? And even if this e-mail does exist, it cannot support her/his claim that the Victoria City ceased to be the capital in 1990. She/he simply avoided telling readers all about these. Is it a way of reaching consensus? — Instantnood 23:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * blah blah blah, around and around we go, back to where we started. this has been answered repeatedly. SchmuckyTheCat 00:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So instantnood, you are not sending the email because of the above "contraints" you are facing as discribed above? Your argumentative principles outweighs the desire to reach consensus and the quest for knowledge?--Huaiwei 05:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It was SchmuckyTheCat who tried to use it as a proof. She/he should have produced the evidence of its validity. I do not have the responsibility to prove it for her/him if she/he fails to do so. The responsibility of failing to reach a consensus is on the side of the one who failed to make the proof a valid one. — Instantnood 07:46, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I POSTED THE EMAIL WITH A PARTIAL HEADER. Go to www.info.gov.hk, hit "contact us" and ask away. How hard is this for you? Tht is entirely valid.  The only thing I've hidden is the specific name and email address of myself and the sender. I am posting more about this factual dispute under Victoria City, because I asked them again and they responded EVEN MORE CONVINCINGLY. SchmuckyTheCat 08:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What I requested was a hyperlink or an e-mail address. I didn't not say it was unreal or invalid. I had no information to tell. Back to the basic, could you tell the e-mail address of the sender? (Please reply at either your or my discussion page. Here is not the place to continue.) — Instantnood 09:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny. After so long, and then we finally discovers what he really wants. Just goes to show just how effective talking to him is.--Huaiwei 10:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's more funny to have discovered that Huaiwei did not follow the discussion, but jumped to his conclusion. See my words at 21:03 Mar 3 and 09:05 Mar 4 (and this one (23:04 Mar 1) as well). It took more than a week for him to figure out something already stated explicitly. — Instantnood 10:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as funny to notice those lines gets losts in the lenghty debates he prefers to engage in subsequently? ;)--Huaiwei 10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Refdoc's response
Looking at the above lengthy exchange between Huaiwei, SchmuckytheCat and Instantnood I am reminded of a set of 3RR violations some weeks ago by both Instantnood and Huaiwei on several Hongkong related matters. At the time I blocked both and afterwards advised them to have a wikibreak and drink some cool beer. My suggestion remains. There is little substance in the RfC or otherwise, any serious RfC should investigate the behaviour of all three editors in this matter as all three are far too intense in their pursuits here on Wikipedia.

There is good reason for all three editors to take a lengthy voluntary break from editing.

Refdoc 21:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. That's what I want to. But seems it's not possible. — Instantnood 09:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite on the contrary, it is possible. I took some time off a few weeks ago, and when I came back, I notice someone has apparantly taken my absence to his advantage. When the cat is away, the mouse came out to play I suppose. Its quite sick to think that I am almost forced to visit this site regularly just to ensure that this person does not go round misleading, seducing, and sweet-talking others, often then not to subsequently invoke changes in his favour, over and above all the little "minor edits" he makes across the site.--Huaiwei 10:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * People can think independently, and couldn't be easily misled. I don't think sweet-talking would help if I am wrong. — Instantnood 11:35, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * For the sake of wikipedia, I certainly hope so. And come to think of it, is the above an endorsement of your sweet-talking habits? NVM. You do not have to answer this qn.--Huaiwei 12:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Kingston Advice"

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Carrp | Talk 18:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Kingston Advice"
Another not terribly notable Clash song. While the Clash has quite a few songs that I reckon are worthy of articles, few of them are off Sandinista! (great album though it is), yet there seems to be a drive to get an article for every song on that album. This one is just a really bad, incorrect article anyway. The single sentence synopsis seems to be taken from just 2 lines in the song. Delete this. Maybe someday someone will write a good article on White Man in Hammersmith Palais. Not holding my breath though. Oh, and the quotes don't belong either. -R. fiend 15:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * While I'm all for keeping albums, I'd prefer not to keep songs unless they're really really notable on their own (meme-level). As such, delete. Radiant! 19:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per my previous votes on these album tracks. Megan1967 03:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Any reason not to merge this? I agree that it shouldn't exist independent of the album. —Korath (Talk) 08:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean other than the fact it's factually incorrect? -R. fiend 16:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm. A point.  I missed the "incorrect" in your original post, sorry. (Delete.) —Korath (Talk) 17:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, then merge/redirect. Kappa 11:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) no vote Kappa 00:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Kosmos (rocket family)

The Kosmos (also spelled Cosmos, Russian: Ко́смос) rockets were a series of Soviet and subsequently Russian rockets, derived from the R-12 and R-14 missiles,    the best known of which is the Kosmos-3M, which has made over 440 launches. The Kosmos family contained a number of rockets, both carrier rockets and sounding rockets, for orbital and sub-orbital spaceflight respectively. The first variant, the Kosmos-2I, first flew on 27 October 1961. Over 700 Kosmos rockets have been launched overall.

Kosmos
Kosmos (GRAU Index: 63S1, also known as Cosmos), was the name of a Soviet space rocket model active between 1961 and 1967. Kosmos was developed from the R-12 medium-range missile. It was launched a total of 38 times, with twelve failures.

Kosmos-1
The Kosmos-1 (GRAU Index: 65S3, also known as Cosmos-1) was derived from the R-14 missile and used between 1964 and 1965, being quickly replaced by the Kosmos-3. Eight Kosmos-1 were flown, all launched from Site 41/15 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome.

Initial development was authorised in October 1961, leading to a maiden flight on 18 August 1964, carrying three Strela satellites. Strela-1 satellites were flown on seven flights, three on each of the first four and five on the next three. The eighth and final flight carried one. All flights were successful except the second.

Kosmos-2M
The Kosmos-2M (GRAU Index: 63S1M, also known as Cosmos-2M) rocket was the prototype preceding the Kosmos-2I rocket. It launched the Kosmos 106 and Kosmos 97 satellites, from Area 86 at Kapustin Yar.

Kosmos-2I
Kosmos-2I (GRAU Index: 11K63, also known as Cosmos-2I or Kosmos-2 ), derived from the R-12 missile, was used to orbit satellites between 1961 and 1977. It was superseded by the R-14 derived Kosmos-3 and Kosmos-3M.

Kosmos-3
The Kosmos-3 (GRAU Index: 11K65, also known as Cosmos-3), derived from the R-14 missile, was used to orbit satellites between 1966 and 1968, being quickly replaced by the modernised Kosmos-3M. Six were flown, four as orbital carrier rockets, and two on sub-orbital flights. All launches occurred from Site 41/15 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome.

The Kosmos-3 made its maiden flight on 16 November 1966, carrying a Strela-2 satellite. Strela-2 satellites were flown on four flights, two of which failed. Two further, sub-orbital launches were conducted with VKZ payloads, both of which were successful.

Kosmos-3M
The Kosmos-3M was a liquid-fueled two-stage launch vehicle, first launched in 1967 and with over 420 successful launches to its name. The Kosmos-3M used UDMH fuel and AK27I oxidizer (red fuming nitric acid) to lift roughly 1400 kg of payload into orbit. It differed from the earlier Kosmos-3 in its finer control of the second-stage burn, allowing operators to tune the thrust and even channel it through nozzles that helped orient the rocket for the launching of multiple satellites at one time. PO Polyot manufactured these launch vehicles in the Russian city of Omsk for decades. It was originally scheduled to be retired from service in 2011; however, in April 2010 the Commander of the Russian Space Forces confirmed that it would be retired by the end of 2010. One further launch, with Kanopus-ST, was planned; however, this was cancelled in late 2012 as the launch vehicle had exceeded its design life while in storage ahead of the launch.

Kosmos-3MR
The Kosmos-3MR rocket (GRAU Index: 65MP, also known as Cosmos-3MR), was an adaptation of the Kosmos-3MR rocket intended for suborbital and a single orbital launch for BOR-4 and BOR-5 subscale tests of Spiral and Buran crewed spaceplanes.

title: Kosmos (rocket family)


text:
Talk:Michael Thompson (Canadian politician)

from Vfd
On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. There was no consensus. See Votes for deletion/Michael Thompson for a record of the discussion.

Disambiguation
Currently over at the horn (instrument) page under notable horn players a european horn player, Micheal Thompson, is linked here. This page should be turned into a disambiguation. If no one objects I'll take care of it later. Horndude77 00:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Outside of the election results, the body of this article is substantially unsourced. Content under "Political Career'that can't be verified by a reliable source is open to challenge and deletion as per WP:BLP.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  22:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

POV
The Political Career section is mostly uncensored and contains language that is not neutral. I have added a POV tag.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Michael Thompson (Canadian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311003514/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124230476900_119639676/?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124230476900_119639676/?hub=TopStories

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


text:
Armanen runes

Armanen runes (or Armanen Futharkh) are 18 pseudo-runes, inspired by the historic Younger Futhark runes, invented by Austrian mysticist and Germanic revivalist Guido von List during a state of temporary blindness in 1902, and described in his Das Geheimnis der Runen ("The Secret of the Runes"), published as a periodical article in 1906, and as a standalone publication in 1908. The name seeks to associate the runes with the postulated Armanen, whom von List saw as ancient Aryan priest-kings. The runes continue in use today in esotericism and in Germanic neopaganism.

Publication
Von List claimed the pseudo-runes were revealed to him while in an 11-month state of temporary blindness after a cataract operation on both eyes in 1902. This vision in 1902 allegedly opened what List referred to as his "inner eye", via which the "Secret of the Runes" was revealed to him. List stated that his Armanen Futharkh were encrypted in the Rúnatal of the Poetic Edda (stanzas 138 to 165 of the Hávamál), with stanzas 147 through 165, where Odin enumerates eighteen wisdoms (with 164 being an interpolation), interpreted as being the "song of the 18 runes". List and many of his followers believed his runes to represent the "primal runes" upon which all historical rune rows were based. The book was dedicated to his good friend Friedrich Wannieck and in the introduction, before his discussion of the runes, there is a copy of a correspondence between Wannieck and List. Das Geheimnis der Runen was published in Leipzig and Vienna in 1908 by the Guido-von-List-Gesellschaft (Gross-Lichterfelde). It was also known as GLB 1 of the Guido-List-Bücherei (GLB) series.

The book was also published as a periodical article as "Das Geheimnis der Runen", "Neue Metaphysische Rundschau" [9] 13 (1906), 23-4, 75-87, 104-26.

An English language translation of the book was published in 1988 by Stephen E. Flowers.

List of runes

List's row is based on the Younger Futhark, with the names and sound values mostly close to the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc. The two final runes, Eh and Gibor, added to the Younger Futhark inventory, are taken from Anglo-Saxon Eoh and Gyfu. Apart from the two additional runes, and a displacement of the Man rune from 13th to 15th place, the sequence is identical to that of the Younger Futhark.

List noted in his book, The Secret of the Runes, that the "runic futharkh (= runic ABC) consisted of sixteen symbols in ancient times." He also referred to the Armanen runes as the 'Armanen Futharkh' of which Stephen E. Flowers notes in his 1988 English translation of Lists 1907/08 'Das Geheimnis der Runen', that "The designation 'futharkh' is based on the first seven runes, namely F U T A R K H (or H) it is for this reason that the proper name is not futhark—as it is generally and incorrectly written—but rather 'futarkh', with the 'h' at the end."

The first sixteen of von List's runes correspond to the sixteen Younger Futharkh runes, with slight modifications in names (and partly mirrored shapes). The two additional runes are loosely inspired by the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc.

Gibor rune
There is no historical runic equivalent to the 18th rune, the "gibor rune" (the name may be based on the Anglo-Saxon Gyfu rune).

Its shape is similar to that of the Wolfsangel symbol, which sometimes leads to the mistaken conclusion that the Wolfsangel is linked to the ancient runic alphabet.

List associated his Gibor rune with the final stanza of the Rúnatal (stanza 165 of the Hávamál, trans. H. A. Bellows):
 * An eighteenth I know, / that ne'er will I tell
 * To maiden or wife of man, [lacuna]
 * The best is what none / but one's self doth know

Connection to völkisch ideology
List's book is seminal to later currents of Germanic mysticism and Nazi occultism. The Armanen runes were employed for magical purposes in works by authors such as Friedrich Bernhard Marby and Siegfried Adolf Kummer, and after World War II in a reformed "pansophical" system by Karl Spiesberger. More recently, Stephen Flowers, Adolf Schleipfer, Larry E. Camp and others also build on List's system. The book also remains popular in German Neo-Nazism, with a reprint published by Adolf Schleipfer of the "Armanen-Orden".

During the 19th century, interest in the runic alphabets (such as the academic discipline of runology) was revived in Germany by the völkisch movement, which promoted interest in Germanic folklore and language in a reaction against the rapid modernisation of the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm I. The collapse of Wilhelmine Germany at the end of the First World War led to an upsurge of interest in völkisch ideology, which rejected liberalism, democracy, socialism and industrial capitalism—all traits reflected in the political system of Weimar Germany—as "un-German" and inspired by subversive Jewish influences.

By the end of the war (1918) there were about seventy-five völkisch groups in Germany, promoting a variety of pseudo-historical, mystical, racial and anti-semitic views. This had a major influence on the embryonic Nazi Party; Hitler wrote in his 1925 book Mein Kampf that "the basic ideas of the National Socialist movement are völkisch and the völkisch ideas are National Socialist."

List's work led to the adoption of his "Armanen runes" by the Völkisch movement, which had already adopted the swastika as a symbol of Germanic antiquity, and from there List's runes became an integral part of German and Austrian nationalistic socialist symbology. Heinrich Himmler, who led the SS from 1929 to 1945, was one of many leading Nazi figures associated with the Thule Society völkisch group, and his interest in Germanic mysticism led him to adopt a variety of List's runes for the SS. Some had already been adopted by members of the SS and its predecessor organisations but Himmler systematised their use throughout the SS. By 1945 the SS used the swastika and the Sonnenrad. Until 1939, members of the Allgemeine SS were given training in runic symbolism on joining the organisation.

Runic signs were used from the 1920s to 1945 on SS flags, uniforms and other items as symbols of various aspects of Nazi ideology and Germanic mysticism. They also represented virtues seen as desirable in SS members, and were based on The Runes order designed by Karl Maria Wiligut which he loosely based on the historical runic alphabets.

Use in contemporary esotericism

After World War II, Karl Spiesberger reformed the system, removing the racist aspects of the Listian, Marbyan and Kummerian rune work and placing the whole system in a "pansophical", or eclectic, context. In recent times Karl Hans Welz, Stephen E. Flowers, A. D. Mercer, and Larry E. Camp and  have all furthered the effort to remove any racist connotations previously espoused by pre-war Armanen rune masters.

In German-speaking countries, the Armanen Runes have been influential among rune-occultists. According to Stephen E. Flowers they are better known even than the historical Elder Futhark:

"The personal force of List and that of his extensive and influential Armanen Orden was able to shape the runic theories of German magicians...from that time to the present day. [...] the Armanen system of runes...by 1955 had become almost 'traditional' in German circles"

The Armanen runes also have a significant impact in English language occultist literature.

title: Armanen runes


text:
Factor V

Coagulation factor V (Factor V), also less commonly known as proaccelerin or labile factor, is a protein involved in coagulation, encoded, in humans, by F5 gene. In contrast to most other coagulation factors, it is not enzymatically active but functions as a cofactor. Factor V deficiency leads to predisposition for hemorrhage, while some mutations (most notably factor V Leiden) predispose for thrombosis.

Genetics
The gene for factor V is located on the first chromosome (1q24). It is genomically related to the family of multicopper oxidases, and is homologous to coagulation factor VIII. The gene spans 70 kb, consists of 25 exons, and the resulting protein has a relative molecular mass of approximately 330kDa.

Structure
Factor V protein consists of six domains: A1-A2-B-A3-C1-C2.

The A domains are homologous to the A domains of the copper-binding protein ceruloplasmin, and form a triangular as in that protein. A copper ion is bound in the A1-A3 interface, and A3 interacts with the plasma.

The C domains belong to the phospholipid-binding discoidin domain family (unrelated to C2 domain), and the C2 domain mediates membrane binding. The B domain C-terminus acts as a cofactor for the anticoagulant protein C activation by protein S.

Activation of factor V to factor Va is done by cleavage and release of the B domain, after which the protein no longer assists in activating protein C. The protein is now divided to a heavy chain, consisting of the A1-A2 domains, and a light chain, consisting of the A3-C1-C2 domains. Both form non-covalently a complex in a calcium-dependent manner. This complex is the pro-coagulant factor Va.

Physiology
Factor V is produced by megakaryocytes, which produce platelets and platelet-derived factor V, and hepatocytes, which produce plasma-derived factor V. The molecule circulates in plasma as a single-chain molecule with a plasma half-life of 12–36 hours.

Factor V is able to bind to activated platelets and is activated by thrombin. On activation, factor V is spliced in two chains (heavy and light chain with molecular masses of 110000 and 73000, respectively) which are noncovalently bound to each other by calcium. The thereby activated factor V (now called FVa) is a cofactor of the prothrombinase complex: The activated factor X (FXa) enzyme requires calcium and activated factor V (FVa) to convert prothrombin to thrombin on the cell surface membrane.

Factor Va is degraded by activated protein C, one of the principal physiological inhibitors of coagulation. In the presence of thrombomodulin, thrombin acts to decrease clotting by activating protein C; therefore, the concentration and action of protein C are important determinants in the negative feedback loop through which thrombin limits its own activation.

Role in disease
Various hereditary disorders of factor V are known. Deficiency is associated with a rare mild form of hemophilia (termed parahemophilia or Owren parahemophilia), the incidence of which is about 1:1,000,000. It inherits in an autosomal recessive fashion.

There exists a bleeding tendency associated with the genetic up‐regulation of FV‐short, a minor splicing isoform of FV. This abnormal bleeding tendency occurs in east Texas bleeding disorder, Amsterdam bleeding disorder, and a third and more extreme example described in 2021 by Karen L. Zimowski et al.

Other mutations of factor V are associated with venous thrombosis. They are the most common hereditary causes for thrombophilia (a tendency to form blood clots). The most common one of these, factor V Leiden, is due to the replacement of an arginine residue with glutamine at amino acid position 506 (R506Q). All prothrombotic factor V mutations (factor V Leiden, factor V Cambridge, factor V Hong Kong) make it resistant to cleavage by activated protein C ("APC resistance"). It therefore remains active and increases the rate of thrombin generation.

History
Until the discovery of factor V, coagulation was regarded as a product of four factors: calcium (IV) and thrombokinase (III) together acting on prothrombin (II) to produce fibrinogen (I); this model had been outlined by Paul Morawitz in 1905.

The suggestion that an additional factor might exist was made by Paul Owren (1905–1990), a Norwegian physician, during his investigations into the bleeding tendency of a lady called Mary (1914–2002). She had suffered from nosebleeds and menorrhagia (excessive menstrual blood loss) for most her life, and was found to have a prolonged prothrombin time, suggesting either vitamin K deficiency or chronic liver disease leading to prothrombin deficiency. However, neither were the case, and Owren demonstrated this by correcting the abnormality with plasma from which prothrombin had been removed. Using Mary's serum as index, he found that the "missing" factor, which he labeled V (I–IV having been used in Morawitz' model), had particular characteristics. Most investigations were performed during the Second World War, and while Owren published his results in Norway in 1944, he could not publish them internationally until the war was over. They appeared finally in The Lancet in 1947.

The possibility of an extra coagulation factor was initially resisted on methodological grounds by Drs Armand Quick and Walter Seegers, both world authorities in coagulation. Confirmatory studies from other groups led to their final approval several years later.

Owren initially felt that factor V (labile factor or proaccelerin) activated another factor, which he named VI. VI was the factor that accelerated the conversion from prothrombin to thrombin. It was later discovered that factor V was "converted" (activated) by thrombin itself, and later still that factor VI was simply the activated form of factor V.

The complete amino acid sequence of the protein was published in 1987. In 1994 factor V Leiden, resistant to inactivation by protein C, was described; this abnormality is the most common genetic cause for thrombosis.

Interactions
Factor V has been shown to interact with Protein S.

title: Factor V