text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of the Soviet Union/archive1

Military history of the Soviet Union
Partial self nomination. Both comprehensive and concise. A former Collaboration of the Week that has benefitted enormously from the knowledgable contributions of many Wikipedians. Was posted on Peer Review without response. Looking forward to your comments. Ryan Anderson 04:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I still think that structuring may use some more work, but it is quite good as it is. The article has been greatly improved and is close to FA, but needs more work. Primarily I am concerned about sectioning logic. The article seems loosely structured around chronology - from section 1 being Tsarist and revolutionary background to one of the last sections being Collapse of the Soviet Union and the military, but this history brief is interrupted by sections on  Development of the structure, ideology, and doctrine of the Soviet military or Military-industrial complex and the economy which I feel should be described after the History section, which needs to be created and encompass all chronological history. Second, I think some events (wars) need their own sections (or at the very least, a large paragraph), especially the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War and the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan, each of which IIRC led to the reshaping of the Red Army after its defeat. As a minor point, the history section to be complete should at least briefly mention all wars from the timeline (like '39 Invasion of Poland and Bessarabia, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. Why this structure was chosen is discussed there... Chronological articles run the risk of leaving the reader with little understanding of the military as an institution and its relationship to other structures. (For a chronicle, see the timeline.) If the article details, e.g., the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War, or the invasion of Afghanistan in depth but fails to convey a basic understanding of these broader structural relationships, it has wasted the reader's time; it has left him with a meaningless flux of data (trivia) that he can't interpret in an educated manner. (On that note, I've dealt with quite a few students who are military history buffs-- they often known a lot more about all the battles and campaigns than I do, which isn't saying too much--, but when asked, e.g., what did nomenklatura authority have to do with the Soviet military, they're often drawing blanks.) I'm sure that a survey on the structure, ideology, and doctrine seems quite elementary to you, but keep in mind that, unlike yourself, most readers will probably lack an understanding of even these most basic of attributes, and the structure of the article ought to be designed with them in mind. 172 07:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I read the Talk:Military_history_of_the_Soviet_Union and this discussion is far from complete. I completly agree with you that the article should convey a basic understanding of these broader structural relationships - and it does it now. This is a very good article, but dividing it into chronological history first and moving sections about development/structure after this would make this easier to read - I feel that atm it is bit chaotic, to use your student comparison I'd say that the student that wrote it had good grasp of important facts but has problem with logical structuring his essay. As for detailing other wars, I think we have space for this in the article (after restructuring). Few more paragraphs wouldn't hurt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is Ryan Anderson. I'm having trouble logging in at school. Thank you for your helpful suggestions.  I have added coverage of the Polish-Soviet War, the Winter War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well as the invasions of Poland and Bessarabia.  As for the format:  I do believe this is chronological, actually... just that the focus is on the ideas rather than the events.  The concept is that this is not just a timeline of Soviet military conflicts (which is provided at the bottom of the page), but rather an in-depth analysis of the ideology underlining and determining these conflicts.  The subjects you argue should be listed at the bottom are actually the focal point of the article: the "Tsarist....background" section that procedes it allows us to understand how Soviet military policy evolved from its roots in Imperial Russia and the sections that follow illustrate how this policy was applied after its establishment.  These sections are the rason d'tre of the article, as they are the only material which is not redunant with other relevant entires, and thus I do believe they should remain where they are.  216.170.63.177 15:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support 172 08:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. If there is anything important lacking in this article it is well beyond me to say. I guess I would prefer deaper research and greater citing of individual facts, but I always will. - Taxman 18:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. IMO the article lacks an important item: purpose of the Red Army (hint: wider than the trivial one: 'to defend'). In other words, in addition to military doctrine, the political doctrine has to be covered. In particular, see Talk:Military history of the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 21:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion! I've added a section to  Development of the structure, ideology, and doctrine of the Soviet military which covers the material you suggested.  I hope you'll find that further discussion of the evolution of political doctrine is sprinkled into the various entries under Practical deployment... Ryan Anderson 21:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Neatly arranged and well written. Tygar 02:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent.--ZayZayEM 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've put NPOV on the article, and since then I think I've substantially improved it. May need some more work.--Silverback 02:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


text:
Thomas Huckle Weller

Thomas Huckle Weller (June 15, 1915 – August 23, 2008) was an American virologist. He, John Franklin Enders and Frederick Chapman Robbins were awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1954 for showing how to cultivate poliomyelitis viruses in a test tube, using a combination of human embryonic skin and muscle tissue.

Weller was born and grew up in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and then went to the University of Michigan, where his father Carl Vernon Weller was a professor in the Department of Pathology. At Michigan, he studied medical zoology and received a B.S. and an M.S., with his masters thesis on fish parasites. In 1936, Weller entered Harvard Medical School, and in 1939 began working under John Franklin Enders, with whom he would later (along with Frederick Chapman Robbins) share the Nobel Prize. It was Enders who got Weller involved in researching viruses and tissue-culture techniques for determining infectious disease causes. Weller received his MD in 1940, and went to work at Children's Hospital in Boston. In 1942, during World War II, he entered the Army Medical Corps and was stationed at the Antilles Medical Laboratory in Puerto Rico, earning the rank of Major and heading the facility's Departments of Bacteriology, Virology and Parasitology. After the War, he returned to Children's Hospital in Boston, and it was there in 1947, that he rejoined Enders in the newly created Research Division of Infectious Diseases. After several leading positions, in July 1954, he was appointed Tropical Public Health Department head at the Harvard School of Public Health. Weller also served from 1953 to 1959 as director of the Commission on Parasitic Diseases of the American Armed Forces Epidemiological Board. In 1954 he was awarded the George Ledlie prize in recognition of his research on rubella, polio and cytomegalovirus(CMV) viruses.

In addition to his research on polio, for which he won the Nobel Prize, Weller also contributed to treating schistosomiasis, and Coxsackie viruses. He was also the first to isolate the virus responsible for varicella.

In 1945, Weller married Kathleen Fahey, who died in 2011 aged 95. They had two sons and two daughters.

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

title: Thomas Huckle Weller


text:
Talk:Kuro5hin

List of well-known users
I find it quite well... biased that the list of "well-known" Kuro5hin users are also prominent Wikipedians? Is this intentional or something? Ambush Commander 04:18, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't call Rusty and Larry Sanger Wikipedians. I don't think Rusty has ever contributed here, and Larry Sanger hasn't been associated with Wikipedia in years. Besides, all three are well-known Internet personalities, so removing them would not be the proper course. Maybe you could add to the list. I can't think of any other "well-known" K5 people though. Maybe Johnny and Carnage4Life. Rhobite 05:37, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah... I see. I'm not really familiar with Kuro5hin. Thanks for clearing it up. Ambush Commander 03:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Closing and reopening K5 - important here?
Is the text on temporary closing of K5 to new users important to this article? One would expect more general info like what kind of audience it attracts or how quality of website chneged over time than long forgotten minor technical details. Even the switch to not-for-profit organization would be more important.

Pavel Vozenilek 18:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, absolutely. The closing to new users was an absolutely HUGE part of Kuro5hin history. This was the most controversial thing Rusty ever did. I understood why he did it, but couldn't agree that it was good for the site (you should be aware I wrote an article on it). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If you think... Pavel Vozenilek 00:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Localroger's novel: noteworthy?
Other k5ers will already know what I'm talking about. To those who aren't k5 users, I'll explain. A k5 user in long standing, localroger, used to post frequent submissions in the Fiction category. At that time, a significant group of k5er's believed localroger (whose real life name is Roger Williams) to be one of the best fiction writers at k5. The site managers hosted online a free e-text of a science fiction novel he had written entitled The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect. After being asked by some to publish, Roger agreed to publish through a print-on-demand company if and only if a certain number of k5er's vowed to buy a copy. I can't remember what that amount was, but it was fairly significant. Anyway, he got enough pledges and had the books printed, and they were sold as promised.

There are a few aspects of this that I think may be notable:
 * k5's fiction section giving rise to at least one novel writer; these days, another author (user Michael Crawford) is advertising his own novel on k5.
 * k5 actually hosts this novel as a free e-text.
 * the novel was published (or, if you prefer, printed) in response to a community effort. If I remember correctly, Roger was initially rather reluctant to publish as he had a low opinion of vanity presses.  It was other k5ers who finally convinced him to have the books printed.

I suppose it would be worth noting here that I may be a bit personally biased because I was one of those k5ers who asked Roger to have the books printed, and own a printed copy of the novel. But that aside, I think it really speaks to the site's original goals of being a community effort. Kasreyn 01:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * No. Here's why:
 * He wrote MOPI years before K5 existed.
 * We never voted on MOPI. Rusty hosts it as a personal favor.
 * --On Swole 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But k5ers were critical in getting it published in book form. I already made those two points.  What k5 did was persuade him to print it with Lulu, and enough of us promised to buy one that he agreed to do so.  Kasreyn 02:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A dozen sci-fi nerds financed a laughably low-volume order from a web-based print-on-demand service with a base price of $4.53, and you want a fucking memorial to their heroic effort? Get a grip. --On Swole 20:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please research what you're talking about before attempting to talk down to others.  The goal of pledges was 100 people promising to buy a copy, not a dozen.  Also, a copy of MOPI costs $11.95 not including shipping, not $4.53, a figure which I have no idea how you came up with.  I remember MOPI's publishing being reported on by MSNBC at the time, but their online archive does not seem to go back that far.  I am not interested in a memorial.  I am interested in the angle of MOPI being an example of what k5 was originally founded for:  collaborative discussion and publication of ideas about the intersection of technology and culture.  Localroger is among the top tier of k5 users by number of stories accepted (not to mention stories that have gone FP).  This being the case I would consider the collaborative effort to get his novel in print - which is precisely about "technology and culture" - to be a notable example of what k5 was originally intended to do.  Kasreyn 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kuro5hin's mission is not to convince amateur erotica novelists to upload their crap to lulu/cafepress. The only notable thing about this is that localroger found 100 K5 users gullible enough to pay for a free e-book he wrote 20 years ago. Why do you have such a hard-on for this idea? Do you think some indirect acknowledgement of your activity on Kuro5hin will justify the enormous amount of time you've wasted? --On Swole 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see you're not interested in discussing the actual issue. I won't bother you further.  Cheers, Kasreyn 06:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else? Should I go ahead and add the information? Kasreyn 06:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We're using an encyclopedia which details the history of the Transformers in intimate detail; a one or two-sentence mention of MOPI as an example of the community finding interesting niche content, and pushing it back into meatspace, seems ok to me. You could also mention CheeseburgerBrown's publishing success. Mike Crawford's book isn't a novel btw. Conflatuman/Scrymarch 10:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Live from the Diary Ghetto: Recent k5 History
It's probably also worth noting that these days, the majority of material posted on k5 is in the Diary section, which is very frequently referred to by k5ers as "the Diary Ghetto" for the way it is often deemed "inferior" to the story submission queue. This is probably because Diary entries aren't voted on by other editors, so you can post anything you want to them. Compared to how it used to be (I have been at k5 for five years), the submissions queue is very, very slow these days. The Diary section, by comparison, scrolls by blazing fast with constant new entries and users posting diaries in response to each other, as a dialogue.

So k5 is still interesting, but not in the same way it once was. As formerly at what we call the other site, various memes have become ossified and overused. Examples would include internetisms like "YFI" for "You Fail It", "HTH HAND" for "Hope This Helps Have A Nice Day" (intended sarcastically), and "LOL WHAT" which is more or less a catchall response to any bizarre statement.

It's kind of sad that there are so few story submissions; a lot of k5's older users left within this last year and since then, many seem to prefer the sort of drama-queen atmosphere of the Diary section, which includes everything from random nonsense polls to threats to leave k5 (rarely followed-up on) to attacks on other users to commentary on whatever's happening in the world. Of course, none of this gets voted on, except informally (if it sucks no one will reply), so the quality of the Diary section in terms of actual stories is very low. Its quality in terms of humor and outlandishness is very high, though.

I'm still trying to think of an NPOV and encyclopedic way to actually cite all this. Any help would be appreciated.Kasreyn 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd avoid "K5 is dying" whining, but the relative activity levels and crap in the diary section vs the front page might be worthwhile. ie Diary section is higher volume, more crap. Always has been as far as I'm concerned, though silly jokes have ebbed and flowed over time. Maybe you could work in how k5 is more or less contemporary, or even slightly anticipated, blogs. Conflatuman/Scrymarch 10:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * For a period of time following the 9/11 attacks, the queue overflowed and the users were generally sincere. It took a few years to fizzle out due to Iraq. It appears you got involved after the 9/11 circle-jerk was well underway. Get over it; K5 has been a low-rent multi-user blog since the beginning. --On Swole 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't happen to share your negative view of the site. I'll agree that a "multi-user blog" is what k5 has partially devolved to, but if I understand correctly that wasn't its original intended purpose.  It is fashionable amongst kuro5hin users today to be very cynical and loudly proclaim how little they care for the site, how it's dying or worthless, and so on and so forth.  All that bright-eyed 50's-esque optimism about democracy and technology that the site was founded with is just so embarassingly square, right?  I will admit to having fallen into the trap of posturing as a jaded netsnob from time to time myself, though in reality I still find k5 interesting enough to be my homepage.  (Without k5, how would I learn about bees from XC0005?)  However, you're at Wikipedia now and I promise not to tell the others at k5 if you want to loosen up and express a positive remark about kuro5hin.  Try it sometime, you might like it, even if it makes you uncool!  :P  Kasreyn 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * K5 was not "founded" the instant you discovered it, you brat. What you perceive to be posturing and negativity is, in fact, actual knowledge derived from experience. --On Swole 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, I remind you, we are at Wikipedia, where a different sort of atmosphere is preferred. This being Wikipedia, you can dispense with the cynicism and whose-uid-is-lower stuff.  Y'see, different forums have different rules for behavior.  Also, I'm curious where you think I claimed that K5 was "founded the instant I discovered it", because I don't recall saying that.  In fact, I seem to recall being careful to use verbiage such as "if I understand correctly" to clarify that my knowledge in some cases is recieved rather than firsthand.  A better way to rebut me would then have been to say "as it turns out, you do not understand correctly", rather than to put words in my mouth and resort to namecalling.  Cheers, Kasreyn 06:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kucinich interview
It might also be worth mentioning that during the run up to the 2004 Presidential election in the U.S., Dennis Kucinich (a Democratic candidate who failed to win his party's nomination) gave an interview to the assembled hordes of k5. It was done in the typical method developed at slashdot; first a story was posted and the highest-rated comments were selected to be asked. Then a second story was posted with the interviewee's answers. Kasreyn 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * If you do, I'd include this interesting collaborative interview with Harry Browne too (and let's face it, Harry and Dennis had similar chances) Conflatuman/Scrymarch 10:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rustina
I'm not so sure it was vandalism that the imagelink was removed. The image is extremely shocking (I've seen it, and trust me, I wish I hadn't) and doesn't really illustrate anything or carry any information. I personally don't feel we need the link; the image's continued existence really doesn't play any current part at k5 (though I'm pretty sure anyone who posts it there will still get anonymized). Kasreyn 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How is it "extremely shocking"? its a pic of a black guy having sex with a white woman. unless you are a virulent racist or fifth generation amish i dont see how this can shock anyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.5.237 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relability of Kuro5hin as a source.
The following was removed from the article:
 * There is a widespread belief that Kuro5hin has been taken over by trolls, leading to a perception of the site as a cesspool of idiots and causing many users to leave the site.

with the explanation
 * Sorry, these are not reliable sources. The sentence as written is neither verifiable nor in an encyclopedic tone.

I think that kuro5hin is in general a reliable source for discussing kuro5hin. I agree that the sentence is not in an encyclopedic tone, but unless there are specific reasons that the sources listed are not reliable, I would presume that they are. Jrincayc 16:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those links are to specific examples of people leaving the site; they do not establish "a widespread belief that Kuro5hin has been taken over by trolls" or a "perception of the site as a cesspool of idiots". Kuro5hin posts can be used for certain claims (e.g., the cited posts by rusty are perfectly valid), but these posts are inadequate in this case. -SpuriousQ 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is what I wanted to know. Jrincayc 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference as a Slashdot Clone
I removed the "and Slashdot clone" from the intro because while Kuro5hin and Slashdot may look similar in structure they differ enough in the type of content that I felt it was not warranted. It also may insinute that Slashdot is the end-all-be-all of of its type which is too sweeping. Xunker 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources?
There is not one reliable source or reference here - this page passes WP:WEB and WP:V because...?  Dei z  talk 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It doesn't. I will work on improving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTA MART (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Slashdot Trolling Phenomena article
Please see discussion at Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_1.

Part of the discussion centres around internet trolling on sites like Kuro5hin, with the option of creating a more general article about internet trolling on user submitted content sites. Kuro5hin in particular seems to tolerate a lot of trolling, and so editors of this article may be interested in joining the discussion.Mojo-chan (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Most sources are from the site itself
I'll be working on finding new sources to make this a better article. Most of the sources, especially in the History section, seem to be first-hand. 98.92.20.46 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No sources; updating the article
Per WP:WEB and WP:V, this article fails. I will try to improve in the coming weeks. If you have sources let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTA MART (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability?
A defunct site that has been out of the public eye for nearly a decade? It wasn't even a major blogosphere player in the hayday of the blogosphere. At best, it was a modestly popular slashdot alternative for a couple of years. I'd say an AfD is in order. With the demise of the website, many of the references in the article are broken.

 * I'm not sure I follow your argument. A few years ago it was Alexa Rank #1 for the nation of Bangladesh.  More recently it was wildly popular among Indians, both those in India as well as those who reside in the UK.  Claiming that Kuro5hin is no longer notable is like claiming that Shakespeare is no longer notable because The Immortal Bard has been dead for centuries.

 * Care to elucidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.159.232 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In any case, as the "subscription" section is no longer sourced, I would recommend its deletion at least. It's debatable whether the events mentioned there are even very important to the history of the site -- by this stage, its place in various advertising networks that had brought it to a place of minor significance in the open source blogosphere was long gone and its readership had dropped radically.

As for the "financial difficulties" section, this is also unsourced. How long will wikipedia record for posterity the story of a guy in his mid twenties collecting some thirty thousand dollars from internet users for the furtherance of his website? There are kickstarter stories more notable. The section should be removed.

Much of the other material is barely notable. For example, mention of a 2000 DoS attack is of no interest to a modern reader. The discussion of the editing/voting queue is trivial at best and could be adequately described as "a democratic process of story selection whereby users can directly control front page content." It is worth noting that this fairly silly approach to user generated content was not used in any successful ventures since kuro5hin (arguably including kuro5hin).

It is probably worth waiting a few weeks to be sure kuro5hin is indeed gone forever. But at some point, I think a discussion (assuming anyone cares) is in order, to determine whether kuro5hin (pronounced, according to the telegraph kew-ro-five-hin) worth immortalizing in the pages of wikipedia.

Tripel sec (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Outages and attacks are sometimes mentioned in articles about other Web sites; for example, PlayStation Network, The Pirate Bay, Gmail and Amazon Web Services have such material.

I've added archive URLs for the citations in the Subscription section.

You can start another AfD, but it's been less than two months since Articles for deletion/Kuro5hin was closed. — rybec   03:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Playstation Network, Gmail, and Amazon Web Services are major commercial ventures and the Pirate Bay is much more widely used even today than kuro5hin ever was. The Pirate Bay also has received far more media coverage. It seems fair to me to wait a few months before another AfD. The sparse support for keeping in the last AfD is telling. Tripel sec (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My mention of the other articles was in support of including the material about the outage in 2000. It seems like something that is noteworthy about the history of Kuro5hin. I wasn't trying to imply that Kuro5hin is equally notable as those other services. You're not trying to say that this article, if kept, should cover its subject in less depth than those articles do, are you? — rybec   18:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I will vote for deletion if Tripel sec (talk) moved this page to AfD. I tried almost a year ago; perhaps the site's stagnation since then will allow for more appropriate AfD outcome this time around. Trollaxor (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that Kuro5hin spawned many Scoop based sites, and Rusty Foster once worked for the Howard Dean team to get Scoop for their website. Even if Dean lost it is a part of history. Scoop is no longer maintained. Many of the trolls moved on and left K5, and it has a $5 paywall now. If anything merge the Kuro5hin article to the Scoop article. Orion Blastar (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I Am Puzzled
What leads so many of you to regard Kuro5hin as a dead website?

Have you read any of the front-page articles there? I earned over $100,000.00 in AdSense clicks on my own site's copy of Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads; Rusty told me that K5's copy got ten times the traffic that my copy did.

Living with Schizoaffective Disorder is on an official reading list that the State of California Mental Health Department distributes to its county clinics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.159.232 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Kuro5hin RIP 1999 to 2016
Current Kuro5hin.org link goes to a landing page at Ghandi.net or something in France. A lot of websites that used to reference it deleted the articles about it. Rusty Foster and his Scoop project was used by Howard Dean's campaign at one time and The Daily Kos (Before they switched to Django) and was supposed to be a Slashdot clone written in Perl (The 1999 version of Slashdot not the modern one that has been bought out a few times and changed formats, etc). There are alternatives to Kuro5hin that came out when it was dying. Though the social networks sort of stole away a lot of K5 Users and Trolls as Kuro5hin slowly died of neglect like the broken Cancel button. the lack of support for Images (After the Rustina event Rusty removed the IMG tag). I've been trying to find reliable sources for the article here, but most of them have been deleted or archived somewhere else. Might have to merge the Kuro5hin and Rusty Foster articles together. 02:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion Blastar (talk • contribs)
 * KUro5hin Autopsy shows what happened to Kuro5hin and some alternatives. Orion Blastar (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kuro5hin


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Reynolds

 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 (actually userfied by RickK). jni 16:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Colin Reynolds
Self advertising, non-notable person. SeventyThree 04:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Nomination was blanked by User:Reynolcr, author of the article about himself. 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.
 * Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just another in a long line of non-notable people writing vanity-filled articles about themselves. Zzyzx11 05:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to the userpage and if that's not an option, delete--nixie 05:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Sigh. Inter 14:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it reads like it should be on a dating-site instead. Radiant! 08:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a vanity page --StoatBringer 10:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity. Isn't this a candidate for Speedy deletion? LukeSurl 19:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, sockpuppetry, parentage of the subject in question and even vandalism!  Should be a speedy IMO.  Almost done, however. - Lucky 6.9 23:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've said before in such cases, if the user had made any other contributions to Wikipedia whatever, I'd have voted Userfy. But he hasn't, so Delete. Uncle G 07:31, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * Delete --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Save Vanity? Perhaps.  Sockpuppetry?  A far cry.  You should consider it a blessing to your education that you know and have heard about this young man.  He is headed for great fame and influence, and it is only a matter of time before his name finds its place in the ranks of Churchhill.  I am a sooth sayer.  You, Lucky 6.9, are a truth nayer (which, may I add, your name seems a period away from sexual gratification.  And believe me, I should know.  Some girl is always keeping sex from me on the grounds of a period)!  Motion to delete Lucky 6.9 for a profane username!  --Stephen Premo 02:24  2 Mar 2005
 * Moved to User:Reynolcr and deleted. RickK 07:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - interesting band member. The Recycling Troll 11:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above user, who is so kindly letting us know of his troll status, is following me around and making oh-so-minor edits to every article I touch. RickK 22:56, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Robert Racic

Robert Racic (8 January 1964 – 25 October 1996) was an Australian DJ and record producer. He was influential within the local electronic and house music circles, but was less well known internationally. Racic produced several top 10 Billboard dance hits including Volition Records' artists Severed Heads' "Greater Reward" and Boxcar's "Freemason", "Insect" and "Gas Stop". He died in 1996, aged 32, of a brain virus, JC virus, which caused progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Biography
Robert Racic was born on 8 January 1964 and grew up in Melbourne. At the age of 18 he began working as a clerk at Waltons menswear store in Sydney. Soon after he was a DJ at the 45 Club, Kings Cross, on weekends and followed with other harbour city venues. He imported "New York garage and Chicago house records and as such became widely-regarded as 'benevolent godfather' to the nebulous Australian dance music scene."

In 1987 he recalled how he started remixing, "I got tired of the way some 12-inchers present themselves... I wanted to make them more exciting... so I bought myself a reel-to-reel recorder, sat down and started to edit". One of his first remixes was of Nona Hendryx' "I Want You" from The Art of Defense (1984), which was played on 2 JJJ radio by Tim Ritchie.

In 1986 Racic started working with experimental music group, Severed Heads, he collaborated with their founder, Tom Ellard, on their sixth album, Come Visit The Big Bigot (September 1986). Racic "would remix selected tracks for the dance floor market." In May of the following year he edited and mixed tracks for the group's seventh album, Bad Mood Guy (October 1987).

Racic co-produced "Thief" (July 1988), a single, by Rockmelons with the band's members Bryon Jones, his brother Jonathon Jones, and Raymond Medhurst (see Tales of the City).

title: Robert Racic


text:
Talk:Masculinism

Vote
This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Masculinism. dbenbenn | talk 04:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment Given the number of google entries for masculinism 10,100 vs masculism's 4180 I feel that the wrong page was voted for deletion. The world is evolving at a faster rate than ever before, and the benefit of a Wiki is surely it's ability to move quickly with these changes, (mind you, apologies if I'm out of line - I'm a brand new Wikipedian so I'm still learning wiki protocol :)) With that said, I propose that the entry remains based on it's usage being more than twice that of the alternative spelling. PaulZigZag 00:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Despite the fact that Google search results fluctuate from day to day (indeed, results are now doubled as I post this), it seems that your assertion is correct, and that the term "masculinism" is more often used than "masculism" two to one. --24.126.30.46 07:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Interesting, it would appear that Steve Dixon's Masculinism® has superceded Masculism in terms of popular usage, this suggests that it is more readily adoptable in language and more aggressive memetically than masculism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.159.47 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 October 2005

Trademark
Comment: It is ludicrous to claim trade mark protection, either in the United States or in the UK, for philosophical concepts not remotely connected with industry or products or, as the name states simply, trade. As an attorney well-versed in intellectual property rights both in the US and abroad, I submit that despite Mr. Dixon's assertions to the contrary, one cannot expect legal protection against the free use of the terms "masculinsm" or "masculist" any more than one could trade mark the terms "feminism," "feminist," or "sophist." See e.g. the OED's entry on "masculist" (one cannot trade mark words in the dictionary under any treaty). PWH, 18 Nov. 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.203.124 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 November 2005

Redirect article
The vote for deletion mentioned above resulted in "redirect to Masculism." So why is the article still here?

It's true that there are more web sites using masculinism than masculism. However, if you look up masculinism or masculinist you'll see that the term has often been used to mean something like "relating to male-ness," "male dominant," or "favouring the masculine" (e.g., ). On the other hand, I checked numerous sites on masculism, and all used it to refer to the men's movement or men's rights.

Besides, we don't say femininist.

As for the trademark, this site says "The title Masculinist Evolution in New Zealand" was first used by Men's Centre North Shore co-ordinator Martin Lewis in 1995 when he founded the MENZ Issues newsletter."  And this site  refers to an article "Science, Masculinism, and the Gender System, paper at University of Delaware 1994."  And this site   lists the article "Berg, L.D. 1994. Masculinism, Power, and Discourses of Exclusion in Brian Berry's "Scientific" Geography. Urban Geography. 15(3):  279-287. Also footnote 1 above was from 2001. My own Oxford Canadian Dictionary, 2001 has a listing for masculism. Finally, in case there's any doubt from the country in which it was "trademarked," this site lists an article published in Britain:  Healy, Murray (1996) Gay Skins:  Class, Masculinism, and Queer Appropriation.  London:  Cassell. So let's can the 2002 trademark.

The article reads like an advertisment for Steven Dixon. It was voted to be redirected, and then someone put it back again. I suggest redirecting again. 24.64.223.203 09:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

-- okay, I redirected it. I hope it stays that way. 24.64.223.203 03:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibilities
I notice this redirect is protected. I would like it if an admin might possibly add Template:R with possibilities here. I recently created femininism which, based on the sources I located, appears to have a distinct meaning from feminism.

The distinction here, with these terms compared to masculine / femininine is whether or not the -ism suffix supplements the -ine (minus the silent E) or whether or not it replaces it.

In contrast to masculism and feminism which both have articles, I would like to refer to the longer supplementary suffixed terms (masculinism and femininism) as the "Inisms" in contrast to the "Lisms" perhaps. Just to be a bit easier on the eyes.

Since there is every indication that the Inism of feminism has a distinct meaning more associated with femininity rather than egalitarian lobbying, it opens my mind to the possibility that the Inism form of masculism may not be as interchangeable as we assume.

Yes, for certain they have had interchangeable usage history, but so do the Inism and Lism in the femin area too. Yet beyond being confused with feminism, the Inism has also been used in very different ways, so the Inism of masculism may have also. Have we looked into this? Ranze (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Masculism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Masculinism


text:
Talk:Veto

Halo
Is the information about the use veto in the computer game Halo really so central to the concept that it should be in the first paragraph? Is this a major usage arround the world? Surely this would be better placed in a small paragraph at the end of the page.

-- I totally agree that i am stupid. What rubbish to put in the first paragraph. I'm Hulu gumby pump yolks Curdle birdies.

U.S. state governor veto
It would be nice if we could verify whether or not all US state's governors have veto power so that we could remove the unprofessional looking "perhaps all" phrase from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.226.193 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 February 2005.
 * This is no longer in the article. Governors can veto, though they may be some particular nuances per state. -- Centrx 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland

 * In Switzerland, the government cannot stop legislation by itself, but 50'000 voters or eight cantons can demand that a law enacted or certain treaties ratified by the Federal Assembly be made subject to a binding popular referendum. When this constitutional rule was introduced in the 19th century, it was widely referred to as the "people's veto".

Is this 50k figure the same as since the introduction? Or has it been changed since then. Either way it's an interesting point that needs to be clarified. 50k in the 19th century would have presumably been a much larger percentage of the population and therefore likely a lot harder to achieve just to get the referendum (I guess it would have been at least 10% of the population, probably more)... Nil Einne 14:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC). SVIET is one of the famous and well knowned institution of technology in Punjab. It is ranked among 20 best B-schools in the world.

Papal Veto
Can there be an entry for the veto used in papal elections - last persons so affected Mariano Cardinal Rampolla and Pius X - there were a number of others. Jackiespeel 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really know if that fits the article. This article is about heads of state vetoing legislation. Otherwise any time a ruler has said "no" to an idea, that would be considered a veto under this article. Right? --Hyphen5 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * fixed the phrase that implied that the term veto came from this, not the case. Also, can someone with some Latin knowledge please elaborate a little more on the etymology? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.7 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This 'Papal' veto is called jus exclusivae, exercised by Cardinals on the direction of Catholic Monarchs. There is a wiki entry on "jus exclusivae" which could be possibly merged or linked with "veto". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.152.89 (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jus Exclusivae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.152.89 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Portugal
In Portugal, the president has veto powers in the following cenario:

If by any chance a law is proposed by the ruling party, that violates (in the President's view) the Portuguese Constitution, he/she has the power to issue a veto on that law, thereby forbidding it. However, the government can still make an appeal to a special court, the "Constitutional court", made by a body of judges, that together issue a verdict approving or rejecting the president's decision. --Netshark 09:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So long as you reference it, you should include that. --Hyphen5 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese President can also use a "pocket veto", simply by not promulgating the law voted by parliament. --B.Lameira (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Two things
1. I am tempted to delete that section about how the presidential veto is "an irony and a paradox". Is that paragraph really necessary? It moves from exposition to analysis. Isn't it kind of unencyclopedic? At the very least, it's unsourced. --Hyphen5 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

2. In the introductory paragraphs, we mention the origin of the veto had something to do with the Roman Senate. Shouldn't we expand upon that in its own section? Does anyone have any details about that? --Hyphen5 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Here there is some information about them.--FAR 11:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Delaying veto
there is the third kind of veto - dalaying veto. If veto is set by any party, it can not be overruled by anyone else, but the legislation has to be taken off the agenda and adopted later - after the disagreeing parties have come to a consensus.

Australia
I added a heap of stuff about veto powers in Australia. I am an Aussie, and I wanted to encourage info about other Commonwealth countries, so the article doesn't look umbalanced (and about other countries too, of course). I think this is a neat article. There are lots of interesting and strange examples of the veto being used by different officers of state and legislatures. For example, when King Badouin refused to assent to the Belgian abortion act, and was declared unfit to rule so the act could pass. We should try and find examples like that. Cheers all!--Gazzster 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
Someone chopped off %70 of this article in September 2008, and no one seems to have noticed, rendering it little more than a stub. I've reverted it, and tried to do some cleanup, but it needs the help of a comparative political scientist, and perhaps a section on usage of this procedure in non-political systems (Roberts Rules of Order, for instance). Either way, PLEASE look at the byte count in the history before you reverse vandalism. That's how vandal edits get embedded in to articles. Thanks you T L Miles (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Threaten to veto
I don't really see why that's there. Maybe if there were actually an article about, or with information on threats to veto, but it just links to the article for the word "threaten". I'm removing it, I guess you can put it back if you think there's a good reason for it to be there, but it just seems silly to me. 65.78.144.186 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Germany
As far as I know Germany has a de facto presidential veto, as the federal president can refuse to sign a bill into law and thereby force it to be changed or abandoned. Horst Köhler has done that a few times. -- Imladros (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

only legislation?
The opening paragraph refers to legislation. In the USA, the term is used only in reference to legislation. But the former power of certain states (Austria, France?) to veto papal elections is not about legislation. Roman tribunes could veto executive action, and whether the Roman Senate's power was legislative in nature is something I have doubts about. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspensive Veto
Suspensive veto is a redirect to veto. However, suspensive veto is not described in the article. I encourage editors with knowledge of the topic to add an explanation to this article. patsw (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I take it, it just means a formal power to delay implementation of laws. Theoretically seems a much more defensible concept than what is presently widespread (like on the UN-SC for example). I also take it that UK currently has this system, and that the original French republic did also (does anyone know how long their king's veto was supposed to have effect?). Where in the structure of this article would an explanation best fit? Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge w/veto override
The veto override info is already in this article. Rather than merge that article (because it has no additional useful information), I'd like to make that article a redirect to this one. Johnathlon (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Veto
Despite the information in The Book of States 2012, Pa. Const. art. IV, sec. 15 requires the approval of 2/3 of all those elected in each house to override a veto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.216.67 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Veto. 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/20110614035130/http://www.govhouse.wa.gov.au/powers.htm to http://www.govhouse.wa.gov.au/powers.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120714204231/http://www.governor.vic.gov.au/role.htm to http://www.governor.vic.gov.au/role.htm

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 00:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Veto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111014193759/http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Spain
The text about the veto is not precise. We have to distinguish between the theoreticall royal veto (none royal veto never has been since the end of the dictatorship), the Senate veto and veto of the government for bills which will increase the waste — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMIMCP (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Rebalance
let's rebalance to reflect reality for better future of this planet, as now as possible

China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States of America -> China, Europe, India, Russia, US (I preserve alphabet)

effects: decision making will no longer be only for northern part of planet, religional/political/cultural equilibrium will change to the state, that's closer to mankind distribution and mankind itself, India would probably put new ideas into system (new ideas are always good stuff)

thanx

mooph

Lords
"The House of Lords used to have an effective power of veto by refusing to concur in bills adopted by the House of Commons." We have to be a bit careful - this is a completely different type of veto. If the right of one of the two chambers of a bicameral legislature to block legislation is a veto, why isn't the right of the US Senate or US House to block legislation also mentioned? In effect this statement is conflating two different types of veto. The entire rest of the article is about vetoes by presidents, kings, governors or tribunes. A legislative chamber voting against something is a different matter. 13:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.171.174 (talk)

 * I agree completely with your reasoning and have removed the paragraph in question. If this belongs in the article then so would endless discussion of the powers of the upper house of all the world's bicameral legislatures. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible reorg
I am incubating a reorg of this article at User:Visviva/Veto. It is still quite incomplete but involves some significant structural changes, so I wanted to mention it here in case people have opinions/suggestions. In addition to adding sections for the typology and theory of vetoes, the major change is to greatly increase the number of countries covered, relying as much as possible on comparative scholarship. Each country gets one paragraph, with a "further reading" link steering the reader/editor to an article where they can find additional context and where any additional details could be added (which is most commonly "Politics of X"). I am experimenting with a bulleted-paragraphs format that I am not entirely sold on, but think it is more satisfactory in this context than a table, and considerably more satisfactory than the blizzard of L2 headers this article would have if it were scaled up in its current structure. This reorg would involve spinning off the US material to a separate article (rather overdue I think), and possibly also offloading some of the UK, AU and CA material to the extent it is salvageable and non-redundant.

As a side note, as I bumble along I am running into an underlying ambiguity as to the scope of this article -- is it a general article on "veto" that encompasses all legal powers that are treated as veto powers in reliable secondary sources, or is it only about the more cohesive topic of executive vetoes of legislation? -- but I am not sure if that is the sort of ambiguity that can or should be resolved in this sort of article. For purposes of the reorg, I am aiming to keep the article content focused on but not strictly limited to traditional executive vetoes. -- Visviva (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: I think this is about ready (for a certain limited sense of "ready"), so if nobody squawks I will plan to apply it to the article shortly. It is still only a pale shadow of what a proper treatment of the subject matter would involve, but I think at least it is gesturing in the right general direction, so I hope it can provide a foundation for further growth and improvement. -- Visviva (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have now applied the rewrite. Please edit mercilessly. -- Visviva (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Veto


text:
Gleb Pavlovsky

Gleb Olegovich Pavlovsky (Глеб Олегович Павловский; 5 March 1951 – 27 February 2023) was a Russian political scientist who also described himself as a "political technologist". During the Soviet era, he was prosecuted as a dissident. From 1996 to 2011, he was a political adviser to Vladimir Putin. Since then, he was a critic of the Russian government.

Pavlovsky was president of the Foundation for Effective Politics (FEP). In 1997, he helped create "Russian Journal", one of Russia's oldest websites. Pavlovsky and FEP organized and financed many early websites on the Runet, including Lenta.ru. From 2005 to 2008, Pavlovsky hosted the weekly television news commentary "Real Politics", which was shown on NTV Russia at 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays. In 2012, he became editor-in-chief of the Russian-language blog Gefter.ru.

Biography
Pavlovsky was born in Odesa in Ukraine on 5 March 1951 in a family of engineers. From 1968 to 1973, he studied history at Odesa University. His first publication (in a university newspaper) was censored by the Politburo because of its alleged "anarchistic and left- extremist mood".

At the age of 21, Pavlovsky and friends organized a political commune "Субъект Исторической Деятельности" (Subject of Historical Action), inspired by the spirit of the protests of 1968 and ideals of intellectual Marxism (at the time, he described himself as a "Zen Marxist" ). At this stage, Pavlovsky began to increase his links to the dissident movement in Odesa. In the 1970s, he went to Moscow to meet fellow dissidents: Mikhail Gefter, Genrikh Batishev, Grigory Pomerants, and other associates. He first came into contact with the KGB in 1974.

As the 1970s went on, Pavlovsky cemented his place in Moscow's dissident movement and began publishing an underground newspaper entitled "Poiski", all while avoiding KGB interference. In 1982, he was arrested for anti-Soviet activity and sentenced to three years in exile in the Komi Republic. Before the trial, he initially collaborated with the authorities, although during the trial he disowned his testimony. In Komi, he made a living as a house painter and stoker. By 1985, he had returned to civilian life in Moscow, where he was able to pursue further engagements.

Between 1996 and 2011, Pavlovsky worked closely with Vladimir Putin as a Kremlin adviser and political strategist during Putin's initial tenure as president and prime minister. He was instrumental in the development of managed democracy in Russia at this time.

Pavlovsky was fired from this position in the spring of 2011.

He became a critic of the Russian government. In a 2012 interview, he said he did not expect Putin to stay in power beyond 2018.

Pavlovsky died on 27 February 2023, aged 71, after a long and serious illness.

Media

 * 1991—1992 — vice chair of "Kommersant" publishing house.
 * 1994—1995 — editor-in-chief quarterly published magazine "Переделы Власти"
 * 1995—1996 — founder and co-editor of "Sreda" magazine.
 * 1995—2009 — co-creator of Foundation of Effective Politics («Фонд эффективной политики», along with Maxim Meyer and Marat Gelman).
 * 1997—co-founder and editor-in-chief of internet magazine "Russian journal".
 * 2005 — co-founder and editor of "Europe" publishing house.
 * April 2012 — founder and editor-in-chief of the Gefter.ru blog named after the Russian and Soviet historian Mikhail Gefter (1918–1995).

title: Gleb Pavlovsky


text:
Ambrogio Bergognone

Ambrogio Borgognone (variously known as Ambrogio da Fossano, Ambrogio di Stefano da Fossano, Ambrogio Stefani da Fossano or as il Bergognone or Ambrogio Egogni, c. 1470s – 1523/1524) was an Italian painter of the Renaissance period active in and near Milan.

Biography
While he was nearly contemporary with Leonardo da Vinci, he painted in a style more akin to the pre-Renaissance, Lombard art of Vincenzo Foppa and Bernardino Zenale. The dates of his birth and death are unknown; he is said to have been born at Fossano, in Piedmont, and his appellation is attributed to his artistic affiliation with the Burgundian School.

His fame is principally associated with his work at the Certosa di Pavia complex, composed of the church and convent of the Carthusians. It is unlikely he designed, in 1473, the celebrated façade of the Certosa itself. He worked there for eight years starting in 1486, in collaboration with his brother Bernardino Bergognone, when he furnished the designs of the figures of the virgin, saints and apostles for the choir stalls, executed in tarsia or inlaid woodwork by Bartolomeo Pola, till 1494, when he returned to Milan. Only one known picture, an altarpiece at the Basilica of Sant' Eustorgio, can with good probability be assigned to a period of his career earlier than 1486. For two years after his return to Milan, he worked at the church of San Satiro. From 1497 he was engaged for some time in decorating with paintings the church of the Incoronata in neighbouring Lodi. Documentation of him thenceforth is scant. In 1508 he painted for a church in Bergamo; in 1512, his signature appears in a public document of Milan; in 1524 – and this is our last authentic record – he painted a series of frescoes illustrating the life of St. Sisinius in the portico of San Simpliciano at Milan. Borgognone is considered a modestly talented painter with marked individuality. He holds an interesting place in the most interesting period of Italian art.

The National Gallery, London, has a number or his works: the separate fragments of a silk banner painted for the Certosa, and containing the heads of two kneeling groups severally of men and women, and a large altarpiece of the marriage of St Catherine, painted for the chapel of Rebecchino near Pavia.

But to judge of his real powers and peculiar ideals, his system of faint and clear colouring, whether in fresco, tempera or oil; his somewhat slender and pallid types, not without something that reminds us of northern art in their Teutonic sentimentality as well as their fidelity of portraiture; the conflict of his instinctive love of placidity and calm with a somewhat forced and borrowed energy in figures where energy is demanded, his conservatism in the matter of storied and minutely diversified backgrounds to judge of these qualities of the master as they are, it is necessary to study first the great series of his frescoes and altarpieces at the Certosa, and next those remains of later frescoes and altarpieces at Milan and Lodi, in which we find the influence of Leonardo and of the new time mingling with, but not expelling, his first predilections.

Bernardino Luini is said to have been one of his pupils.

title: Ambrogio Bergognone


text:
André Frédéric Cournand

André Frédéric Cournand (September 24, 1895 – February 19, 1988) was a French-American physician and physiologist.

Biography
Cournand was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1956 along with Werner Forssmann and Dickinson W. Richards for the development of cardiac catheterization.

Born in Paris, Cournand emigrated to the United States in 1930 and, in 1941, became a naturalized citizen. For most of his career, Cournand was a professor at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and worked at Bellevue Hospital in New York City.

Many seats of medical research have recognized his work, and he has received the Anders Retzius Silver Medal of the Swedish Society for Internal Medicine (1946), the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research (1949), the John Philipps Memorial Award of the American College of Physicians (1952), the Gold Medal of the Académie Royale de Médecine de Belgique and of the Académie Nationale de Médecine, Paris (1956). He was elected Doctor (honoris causa) of the Universities of Strasbourg (1957), Lyon (1958), Brussels (1959), Pisa (1961), and D.Sc. of the University of Birmingham (1961).

In 1981, Cournand became a founding member of the World Cultural Council.

His widow Beatrice died in 1993 aged 90.

title: André Frédéric Cournand


text:
Talk:XFree86

Rootless
According to the current article, "rootless X" is X running as an ordinary user, without uid 0. However, in X, "root" has a different meaning: not the superuser, but the entire screen area treated as a single fixed window. For instance, the image viewer xv has a "set root image" function that sets the desktop background. I always thought that "rootless" referred to this, especially with Mac OS X: at first the X root covered up the OS X native gui, so that X was a separate desktop and you had to be in one or the other at a given time; later, "rootless" allowed X windows to appear over the regular OS X desktop. I'm pretty sure the article is mistaken about this. I don't think it has anything to do with uid. Reuben 04:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Release history
Most of the innovation in X in the '90s happened in XFree86, so that stuff needs to be listed in the release history in this article. I've listed XAA and XRender so far (though I'm not sure I've got the right versions for either of these) - anyone else able to add to the list, with a ref? - David Gerard 15:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Tense
I know that XFree86 is still being updated, but, given that no Linux/Unix distributor ships versions with the license problem, I propose that the article ought generally to adopt the past tense rather than the present tense. However, before doing the edit, I'd like to see if there's a strong argument against such a move. Anyone want to share an opinion on this?
 * Yes. I don't see the point in putting this to the past tense. The fork doesn't mean xfree86 is dead (still being updated as you mentioned, and NetBSD uses it), just not as popular. eg. "XFree86 was an implementation of the X Window System.": that's not correct, it's still an implementation. The rest of the article would also be wrong. Wait before the project is completely discontinued.   66.131.163.253 17:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * According to the article, Apple has abandoned XFree86 as of Leoplard. NetBSD still using it?  It's been a year since anonymous 66.131.163.253 commented. --Treekids 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure this is such a big change. XFree86 is a piece of software that was once used by all GNU/Linux distros.  In its hey day, it was the display engine blah blah.  It is still maintained, but almost completely unused since people moved to X.org due to licensing issues. etc. etc. What's in the past is in the past, what's in the present is in the present.  Just some input - do what you like, be bold!  If there's a problem, someone can revert whatever they don't agree with. --Gronky 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 * NetBSD still uses XFree86 as of version 4.0, mainly because xorg is not supported on platforms other than x86. I use it, and can't find any problems with the license. 86.106.208.157 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

GNU/LINUX
should we bow down to the FSF or should we follow normal usage? I vote for the latter. Plugwash 00:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

whats actually in 4.5.0 and 4.6.0?
is there any notable original stuff or is it just repackaging of work from other branches? Plugwash 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this blog post is funny about it:. Not closer to any release notes though. ❝Sverdrup❞ 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"the official reference implementation of X11"?
The article says this title is now held by X.org, but doesn't explain how this came to be, and who allots the title - or is this just an inflated way of saying:  "...it's really popular now..."? -Snori 06:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * X.Org, owned by The Open Group, has always been the domain for the official reference implementation. The people who now operate the X.Org Foundation convinced the Open Group to let them use the domain name and have the official imprimatur - David Gerard 16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OS-X Leopard
"Leopard will ship with X.org". Um, this should be updated. --Treekids 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not shipped any longer
"As of the end of 2007, no operating systems ship with XFree86 any longer." This is false. NetBSD 4 was released on 19 December 2007 and shipped with XFree86 4.5 as the default X server implementation. Check any of the file tags under http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/xsrc/xfree/xc/ for the tag netbsd-4-0-RELEASE. It's true that NetBSD (actually, pkgsrc) allows one to easily replace XFree86 with X.org, but the default "xserver.tgz" set binary as distributed by NetBSD is still XFree86. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.90.33 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Be bold! 84.141.248.118 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * It appears that many of the NetBSD ports now ship with xorg as the default. That's probably going to be it for NetBSD.  They might stick around until 6.0, but any OS that has to support two GUIs is eventually going to drop the unsupported one.  From what I can tell, the last activity of any sort in the XFree86 community was in October.  Messages of updates to xterm are still being sent to the dev list, but that's it. superlusertc 2010 January 22, 07:43 (UTC)
 * Thomas Dickey develops xterm independently (and it's actively maintained); he sends the same emails to Xorg - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

When is an open source project considered 'dead'? There have been no releases in 2009, and no major CVS commits, only minor bugfixes, the last of them being May 2009 (as of November 3, that's 7 months of CVS deadness). I'll say it... It's worse than that, it's DEAD JIM, DEAD. User:WPostma

 * May 2009? Last they have listed is Feb 2009. Not even bugfixes are being shipped - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 one external links on XFree86. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050114191427/http://www.computerworld.com:80/softwaretopics/software/appdev/story/0,10801,67861,00.html to http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/appdev/story/0,10801,67861,00.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212013335/http://xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003127.html to http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003127.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212013349/http://www.xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002018.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002018.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100423070141/http://xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000125.html to http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000125.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615131754/http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/doc/specs/Xfixes/Attic/ to http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/doc/specs/Xfixes/Attic/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040228213700/http://xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000128.html to http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000128.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212013104/http://www.xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/001997.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/001997.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212012809/http://www.xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002165.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002165.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212013506/http://www.xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003016.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003016.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://xwin.org/article.php?story=2003041221350542
 * Added tag to http://www.skytel.co.cr/bsd/research/1992/1003.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.skytel.co.cr/bsd/research/1993/0214.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.skytel.co.cr/bsd/research/1993/0616.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303225603/http://cvsweb.openbsd.mirror.frontiernet.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/X11/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG.R5?rev=1.1.1.1 to http://cvsweb.openbsd.mirror.frontiernet.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/X11/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG.R5?rev=1.1.1.1
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050219175024/http://www.linuxmagazine.com:80/2001-12/xfree86_01.html to http://www.linuxmagazine.com/2001-12/xfree86_01.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040228213700/http://xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000128.html to http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000128.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040804184301/http://xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000168.html to http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000168.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on XFree86. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/appdev/story/0%2C10801%2C67861%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185719/http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-January/001892.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-January/001892.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skytel.co.cr/bsd/research/1993/0214.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:XFree86


text:
Talk:List of United States presidential vetoes

Trump Vetoes
I seriously doubt that Donald Trump has vetoed 200 pieces of legislation as shown in this article.71.209.223.89 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Figures
Does FDR hold the record?

Surely there are some other Presidential vetoes interesting enough to worth noting.

Nixon is shown as having more vetoes overridden that he actually made? This cannot possibly be right

Also, if someone wants to do the research (I'm a Brit so I don't know where to find this stuff) it would be interesting to know why the Presidents with lots of vetoes had so many - unless it is just facing a Congress controlled by the other party. Jonathan 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the other vetoes, but the chart listed 0-0-0-0 vetoes for Theodore Roosevelt. The listing at the US Senate reference desk site listed 42-40-82-0.

There are some problems with this list. Not only have there been changes made to the numbers without citing sources, the totals at the top of the columns no longer even reflect the numbers in those columns. I'm going to put a factual accuracy tag at the top of the page. NoIdeaNick 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the table. NoIdeaNick 07:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

HR 1591 (2007)
Please note that as of when I am writing this, THOMAS is still reporting that HR 1591 is cleared for the White House (it was so cleared on April 26). The veto isn't complete until the President returns the bill to the originating chamber (in this case the House) with his objections noted (see Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 2). He gets ten days exempting Sundays to decide, (I assume the day it is cleared counts as day 1), so Monday, May 7 is his last day to act on it. –Pakman044 11:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just another note that as of 3:35pm EDT, there has been no official word that HR 1591 has been vetoed. The current word is that he'll do so privately and then "make a statement" at 6:10pm .  Please don't add this to the table until it is reported that he actually vetoes it (not that he is going to veto it). –Pakman044 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)The thing has finally been vetoed. –Pakman044 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New control template
I created a new template for computing how many votes are needed to override a veto. The use is:

If everyone is present and voting, you need votes to override in the Senate.

If everyone is present and voting, you need votes to override in the Senate. –Pakman044 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Format

 * If the date is full (month, day, year), then it should all be linked. Wikipedia can only convert full dates.
 * Yes: March 42006 or 2006-03-04.
 * No: March 4, 2006.
 * When possible, bill names should be linked. Sometimes this will lead to a redlink. Maybe a Redirect will solve this, but even a redlink is sometimes OK.
 * Preferably the full bill's name: District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997 and then, perhaps, redirect to the partial name, District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act.
 * If not the name, then link the subject. District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997.
 * Link to USBill. The parameters are
 * ordinal Congress (1-110);
 * bill type (S., H.R., etc.) but periods are optional;
 * bill number (1-?)—Markles 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost every bill is going to lead to a red link. Looking at H.W. and Clinton, the only two guys I've done in detail so far, they vetoed mostly appropriations bills.  Maybe a better idea would be to include a brief summary, such as District of Columbia Student Scholarship Act of 1997 (school voucher bill for District of Columbia.
 * I'm not thrilled with the 2007-05-03 date format; it's hard to read in my opinion (although that could be because I'm not used to it. I'd rather go with May 32007 ; I just need to go back and change all of those dates.  A good regex string would do that the job (maybe something along the lines of matching to /(February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) (\d\d{0,1}){0,1}, {0,1}(\d\d\d\d){0,1}/ ).  And with the years, well they should all be wikilinked, but I was lazy with H.W. when I was adding his vetoes.
 * How should pocket vetoes be handled? For H.W.'s and Clinton's, I footnoted the resolution adjourning Congress sine die, the times they actually adjourned, and when the pocketed bills were received by the President.  I'm not really sure this information is useful, so maybe it should be tossed.
 * Should we include links to the veto message from the Congressional Record? It does a good job of explaining what the President is pissed off about, and it isn't trivial to find them in the Congressional Record if you don't know what you're doing.  At the same time, there's an art to knowing how to link them; the Congressional Record link template starts to fail circa 1992, and you have to be careful not to grab a temporary URL from the THOMAS page.  Maybe massive export of veto messages to Wikisource for easy linking ;-)?
 * I wish there was a way to auto-number the bullets. Unfortunately, the MediaWiki ordered list doesn't transfer across sections, and I'm loathe to use a  tag.
 * The fun part will be when we start adding the vetoes from more previous Presidents. Not only are they harder to find (THOMAS doesn't go back forever, so it'll be hours at a Federal Depository Library or using the Senate PDF's), they will bloat this page.  There are on the order of 2500 vetoes or so all time.  This page is already up to ~35KB, and that's only on H.W., Clinton, and W.  Just wait until FDR arrives (all ~635 or so vetoes!).  Eventually, some of these lists will have to shipped off to their own articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pakman044 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

 * A few of the Presidents vetoed so many bills that they would need their own article just on the ones that President vetoed if all were listed. Most notably, FDR. Jon 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Data needs correcting
The totals listed (as of today) are very different from the numbers cited in http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/presvetoes17891988.pdf. —Markles 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

S. 214 (2007)
I am removing the pocket veto on. The THOMAS listing for the bill simply says that it was "cleared for the White House" on May 22. That doesn't necessarily mean that it was presented to the President that day, so we don't know when the 10 day excluding Sundays clock begins. Further, even if it was the day it was presented to him, vetoes during recesses of Congress generally are not pocket vetoes, but rather would be a bill enacted without the President's signature. So I'd recommend we sit on this one until further development occurs on THOMAS. –Pakman044 03:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on waiting. According to the Congressional Research Service there is some question about the legality of intrasession pocket vetos, i.e., those that occur in the middle of a congressional session or those between the first and second sessions. The key is an adjournment that "prevents return" of a bill, such as a sine die adjournment. Congress is still in session, even though in recess, so there's nothing preventing a veto return. Regardless of that question, the 10-day clock begins when the bill is presented to the President. Congress is not required to send a bill to the President immediately after passage. There have been several bills passed by Congress prior to a holiday adjournment in which delivery is postponed.Dcmacnut 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree on waiting. Remembering WP's rule against original research (see WP:NOT), it's not up to us to decide if/when it is pocket vetoed.  Let's wait for an authoratative source.—Markles 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Time to start the 10 day clock. THOMAS now reports that it was presented to the President on Monday, June 4 (none of this "cleared for White House" garbage), so Bush will get until Thursday or Friday next week (I always forget whether ten days counts the day that the President gets the bill or starting the next day).  Seeing that I haven't heard anything noisy from him on this bill, I'm wondering if he might let it slip by without his signature or otherwise attach a signing statement to it? –Pakman044 05:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but let me remind everyone again: it's not for us to decide that this has been or has not been pocket vetoed. Even after the 10-day clock, we need a reliable independent source.  See WP:NOT.—Markles 21:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Congress is back in session until the first week of July, there's no way the bill can be pocket vetoed now. If the President does not want the bill to become law, he has to veto it outright. If he does not veto or sign it in 10-days, it becomes law. Healthy speculation is, well, healthy, on the talk page, but let's wait for confirmation.Dcmacnut 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. –Pakman044 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The President has signed the bill. See . –Pakman044 04:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

S. 5 (2007) - Preemptive reminder
(2007), the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 cleared the House by a vote of 247-176 (House Roll Call Vote # 443); it had earlier cleared the Senate 63-34. As this article mentions though, this bill is almost certain to be vetoed (probably sometime next week I would think). But let's not add it to the list (and revert back attempts) until there are accounts that Bush has vetoed it (not will veto it) or THOMAS reports the veto. Who knows; if S. 214 is veto-bound too, S. 5 could get vetoed first. –Pakman044 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI update, S. 5 was presented to the President today (June 12). Same idea as mentioned earlier (wait until actual veto reports, not speculation, or "will veto"), although my guess is that this one isn't going to take very long.  –Pakman044 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Vetoed (see ). It'll be interesting to see if it gets overriden in the Senate, since Senator Thomas recently died (he voted against the bill), the number voting drops to 99, and the three absent Senators have indicated they would vote for the bill, giving them the necessary 66 in the Senate (I wish I could find the news article that I saw this scenario in the first time).  Of course, that's pretty immaterial as the override attempt is dead on arrival in the House, given the margin there. –Pakman044 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Most recent veto (10/3)
It appears that Bush's most recent veto is of, since that bill was presented to the President on October 2. It is difficult to say since I haven't a news story yet report the actual bill number. –Pakman044 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so we don't have to repeatedly look this up....
I take it that most anyone here can do simple math operations such as 1484+5 and so forth. –Pakman044 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Percent vetoes overriden ...
Bryan H Bell added the percent vetoes overridden column last week, and I was lukewarm to it, but haven't really thought much of it (or not much more than, "that's going to be a pain to maintain"). But I'm thinking two things now: –Pakman044 06:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this add value to the article?
 * Should the denominator be total number of vetoes or total number of regular vetoes (since a pocket veto cannot be overridden)?

 * I wasn't sure readers would find 'percent vetoes overriden' useful, but decided to give it a shot and see what the reaction would be. After one of George W. Bush's vetoes was overridden recently, I visited this article for the first time. Of course the whole purpose of this chart is to easily compare the activities of the Presidential administrations and their corresponding Congresses to each other. In doing so, I noticed that comparing mere totals was misleading. For example, comparing overrides gives the impression that Harry Truman (tied for 2nd place in most vetoes overridden) was one of the weakest administrations in the face of Congressional opposition. But of course Truman was also one of the most active Presidents in issuing vetoes (3rd place in both most regular vetoes and most total vetoes). I looked for a way to equalize Presidential activism against Congressional opposition so I could get a better idea of how the balance of power compared between administrations (at least in terms of vetoes and overrides). Percentage of vetoes overridden gave me an approximation of this. Looking at it, you can see that the balance of power during Truman's administration was actually closer to average compared to other administrations. I found this information valuable and so decided to add it to the article to see if others would also find it valuable.

 * When calculating the percentage of vetoes overridden, I wrestled a bit over whether the denominator should be total vetoes or regular (overridable) vetoes. I thought about including columns for both calculations, but felt it might result in too much clutter on the chart (I was already unsure if adding one column would introduce too much clutter). In the end, I decided that using total vetoes would give a better indication of Congress' opposition power in the face of the totality of the President's veto power, even that part of the Presiden't power that Congress is (currently) helpless to address. I felt that using only regular vetoes would make Congress seem more powerful than it is in terms of its effect on the final outcome of passing laws.
 * –Bryan H Bell 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Oops, forgot to address Pakman044's maintenance concern. Is there a way to add a template or something that will calculate the data in the 'percent vetoes overridden' column? That could eliminate the maintenance of the column.
 * –Bryan H Bell 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * We could in theory write a template to do that (for example, there's a template that calculates what the two-thirds would be necessary on a veto override vote), but it would be expensive computationally because it would be called roughly 45 times. But it would probably be a little too much "power" than you'd really need.  We get enough people vandalizing the table here and there that any more complexity would be a bad idea.
 * Part of the problem with the percentage is that the number of bills passed has changed over time, while the difficulty of overriding such bills is still relatively constant (pretty hard), so a more irritated Congress could be masked by more bill traffic in general. For example, Congress overrode 12 vetoes for both Truman and Ford, but out of 250 vetoes for the former and 66 for the latter.  They're both still second to poor Mr. Johnson (who of course had his own problem with almost 2/3 of the Senate), but the raw number still tells you that they both had a rough time with Congress, which stands to reason, since Truman became unpopular near the end of his term (among irritating a bunch of steel mills by trying to taking them over) and Ford was succeeding a President who'd resigned, which isn't exactly a prospect for success.
 * But I suppose we can give it a try and as long as things don't get out of hand with the maintenance, it's a worthwhile addition. There will probably be bigger problems for the page (such as when all the vetoes for some of the Presidents who vetoed more than 100 bills get added). –Pakman044 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

HR 4986
HR 4986 is listed here as pocket vetoed, but signed into law on its own page. Someone needs to clarify this.199.76.156.60 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing "HR 4986" anywhere in the text of the main article nor am I seeing any articles with that title. Jon (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama Vetoes
Can someone explain or clarify why both "H.J.RES.64" and "H.R. 3808" situation are considered pocket vetoes? My understanding is that, under the Constitution, the President can do 1 of 3 things when a bill comes to his desk:

(1) Sign the bill: The bill becomes law.

(2) Not sign the bill, and return it "to that House in which it shall have originated" (along "with his Objections", or a "Memorandum of Disapproval"): This is called a Veto, and Congress can try to override it, or not take up the business at all.

(3) Not sign the bill, and not do anything at all: If, by the end of the 10 day limit, Congress is still in session, it becomes law. If, by the end of the 10 day limit, Congress is NOT in session, it is voided (in this case, it is called a pocket veto).

It can only be a pocket veto if the President does not do anything at all. By sending it back to the House, it is just a plain-old veto, not a pocket veto.

No where did the Constitution say that Congress cannot take up overriding procedure AFTER it reconvenes, that there's a time limit as to when it should be taken up. Therefore, both the "H.J.RES.64" veto, as well as "H.R. 3808" situation, are both plain old veto because the President sent the bill back along with a written objection.Finestela (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This New York Times story highlights another possible veto. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reagan Vetoes
Could someone please round out the vetoes of President Reagan? For instance, on September 26, 1986, President Reagan vetoed the act providing economic sanctions against the Government of South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.40.131 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Clinton Pocket Veto
Clinton also pocket vetoed Jerusalem Embassy Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.4.1.93 (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope SCAH (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of United States presidential vetoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081130131813/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002881919 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002881919
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121185510/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggNjwBmB-thb9wvB3eE1HjZZxLMA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggNjwBmB-thb9wvB3eE1HjZZxLMA
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719064844/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002916357 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002916357

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Did not Pres Trump veto the continuing resolution which led to govt shutdown?
Article says, "Trump has yet to veto any legislation presented to him by Congress." But didn't Pres Trump veto the continuing resolution which led to the govt shutdown? (PeacePeace (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC))
 * Nope, It never got to his desk SCAH (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization
Note "the president of the United States" is uncapitalized because "president of the United States" is preceded by modifier "the", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 1: "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 00:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump's 6th Veto
The article states "Override attempt failed in Senate, 53–36 (66 needed)". Where does the figure of 66 come from? Overrides require a 2/3 majority of those voting, which in this case is 89, so only 60 votes would be required. Perhaps the author mistakenly added 53 and 36 to get 99, and took 2/3 of that total? Obliqueref (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

President Biden
"President Biden has not yet vetoed any bills passed by Congress." - IMO we should include a date e.g. 1 January 2022 because otherwise when he vetoes anything, this information will become automatically false. Grillofrances (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a month/year date for this information. —ADavidB 13:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


text:
Borgognone

Borgognone is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Ambrogio Bergognone (1470–1523), Italian painter
 * Dirk Borgognone (born 1968), former National Football League placekicker
 * Guillaume Courtois (1628–1679), French painter active in Italy
 * Jacques Courtois (1621–c. 1676), French painter active in Italy

title: Borgognone


text:
Employment (album)

Employment is the debut studio album by English indie rock band Kaiser Chiefs, released in March 2005 on B-Unique Records. Employment takes its inspirations from the Britpop and new wave movements, 1970s-era punk rock and Beach Boys-esque West Coast music.

The album originally charted at number three in the UK Albums Chart on 13 March 2005, but charted at number two almost a year after its release, due to the band's success at the Brit Awards. Employment went on to become the fourth best-selling album in the United Kingdom that year.

Background
It was Kaiser Chiefs themselves that chose to work with producer Stephen Street. According to Street he had been introduced to Nick Hodgson after an Ordinary Boys gig in which Kaiser Chiefs were the support act. Hodgson gave Street a demo CD and said that they would love to work with him. The band's new label B-Unique suggested they try a test session with Street. In mid-August 2004 they visited the producer at a basement studio space at Olympic Studios he was renting with engineer Cenzo Townsend and recorded "I Predict a Riot".

According to manager James Sandom in an interview with HitQuarters, the album was recorded in a rush because the band were under very tight time constraints and touring at the time. As a result, they did not have enough time to get to know Stephen Street and relax in his company. The motorbike that appears at the beginning of "Saturday Night" is owned and 'played' by Graham Coxon. The sleeve notes read "Graham Coxon's motorbike, (1935 Kaiser 'Chief' 750cc Manx TT Works Racer) appears courtesy of Transcopic Records". "Caroline, Yes" is named in reference to The Beach Boys' song "Caroline, No". The track's original working title was called "Hail to the Chief", according to Kaiser Chiefs' book A Record of Employment.

A DVD titled Enjoyment, featuring music videos and live performances of the album's songs, was also released.

Reception
On Metacritic the album has a weighted average score of 78% based on reviews from 27 critics, indicating "Generally favorable reviews".
 * Rolling Stone (p. 76) - 4 stars out of 5 - "Danceable art-punk gems full of guitar fuzz, na-na-na choruses and boyish energy..."
 * Spin (p. 62) - Ranked #19 in Spin's "40 Best Albums of 2005" - "A cohesive debut that recalls the glory days of Britpop and second-wave punk."
 * Spin (p. 102) - "The quintet bash through nervy, synth-stoked guitar pop....With a dedication to daffy English humor and bouncy music-hall folderol that creates the illusion of cultural import." - Grade: B+
 * Entertainment Weekly (No. 814, p. 64) - "The Leeds five have polished their ability to craft catchy songs so well that any attempt at sincere artistry is subverted." - Grade: B.
 * Uncut (p. 105) - 4 stars out of 5 - "Employment is a gem...In the smart-pop steeplechase, Hot Hot Heat have got serious competition."
 * Yahoo Music - "finally, a worthy successor to Blur." - 8 out of 10
 * Mojo (p. 64) - Ranked #50 in Mojo's "The 50 Best Albums of 2005" - "Ricky Wilson's cheeky chappies proved the power of knowing daftness."
 * Mojo (p. 109) - 4 stars out of 5 - "Employing ill-fitting suits, tongue-in-cheek lyricism and a jerky guitar attack that smelts the classic rock canon into an infectious, head-spinning punch."
 * AllMusic - 4 stars out of 5 - "Employment is an uneven but still very promising debut that suggests that one day the Kaiser Chiefs will pull off something even more ambitious."
 * Pitchfork rated it 6.7 out of 10
 * Steve Hochman of the Los Angeles Times rated it 3 stars out of 5.

Kaiser Chiefs

 * Ricky Wilson – lead vocals
 * Andrew White – guitar, backing vocals
 * Simon Rix – bass, backing vocals
 * Nick Baines – keyboards, piano, synthesiser, organ
 * Nick Hodgson – drums, backing vocals

Technical personnel

 * Stephen Street – production
 * Stephen Harris – production

title: Employment (album)


text:
Chandler Burr

Chandler Burr is an American journalist, author, and museum curator.

Early life and education
Born in Chicago and raised in Washington, D.C., Burr graduated from Principia College in Elsah, Illinois. He began his journalism career in 1987 as a stringer in The Christian Science Monitor's Southeast Asia bureau, and later became a Contributing Editor to U.S. News & World Report. Burr has also written for The Atlantic on epidemiology and public health. Burr earned a master's degree in international economics and Japan studies from the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins.

Writing
In 1993, Burr wrote a cover story, "Homosexuality and Biology", for The Atlantic. The story became the basis for his first book A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation (1996), which investigated sexual orientation research. A Separate Creation was published by Hyperion, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, and its argument that sexual orientation is inborn prompted a call by Southern Baptists to boycott Disney films and theme parks.

In 1996 The Weekly Standard published Burr's article "Why Conservatives Should Embrace the Gay Gene", in which he argued that scientific research demonstrating that sexual orientation is biologically determined supports a conservative view of human nature.

Burr's The Emperor of Scent, published in 2003, tells how the French-Italian scientist Luca Turin originated the theory about the functioning of the sense of smell. As a result, The New Yorker proposed that Burr describe the creation of a perfume. Burr's March 2005 New Yorker article recounted Jean-Claude Ellena's year-long creation, in Paris and Grasse, of Hermès' Un Jardin sur le Nil. Burr's The Perfect Scent: A Year Inside the Perfume Industry in Paris & New York, published in 2008, describes Ellena's creation of Un Jardin sur le Nil in Paris, and Sarah Jessica Parker's creation of Lovely in New York City under the license aegis of the perfume corporation Coty. Burr's novel, You Or Someone Like You, was published by Ecco in summer 2009. From August 2006 until the end of 2010, Burr was perfume critic of The New York Times.

Museum and non-profit work
In December 2010 he founded the Department of Olfactory Art at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York City. In December 2010, Burr left The New York Times to curate the exhibition "The Art of Scent: 1889-2011" at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York City, which allowed visitors to experience seminal works by some of the greatest scent artists of the late-19th, 20th and early-21st centuries such as Jean-Claude Ellena, Ernest Beaux, and Jacques Cavallier. The New York Times reported that when asked about his refusal to display packaging or bottles, Burr replied "[T]he smell [is] the work of art. I’m opposed to the photon. If you have to see it, I’m not interested."

In 2014 Burr established the Department of Scent Art as an independent 501c3 non-profit arts organization based in New York. The DSA produces exhibitions such as Hyper-Natural: Scent from Art to Design at the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne.”

Personal life
The Bogotá newspaper El Tiempo in its edition of 2 December 2011 carried an article on how Burr reportedly had failed to disclose his sexual orientation in petitioning to adopt two Colombian orphans. As a result, the Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar halted the adoption proceedings, claiming a lack of candor on Burr's part; Burr responded that the children knew about his sexual orientation and "they didn't care". On 13 December 2011 it was reported that the adoptions were made official and that Burr and his adopted sons were reunited.

Burr is an atheist.

title: Chandler Burr