text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (TDC | talk | contributions)*

Statement of the dispute
TDC has been sanctioned four times in the past month for 3RR infractions and repeated 24-hour bans appear to have no effect on his behaviour, save to increase his self-admitted and transparent efforts to "game" the system by disguising his reverts.

''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Description
TDC has been contributing to Wikipedia for at least a year. In an environment in which many people have strong opinions, TDC stands out as an tenacious POV warrior, more interested in slanting texts to suit his particular political ideology than in building good articles. For him, the collaborative editing process serves as a weapon rather than as a matter of facilitation. It is virtually impossible to find an edit among his contributions which is not intended to score political points. He frequently gets into edit wars, yet makes minimal effort to enter into dialog and look for compromise on Talk pages. He blatantly tries to game the 3RR rule by disguising reverts as new edits, something he freely admits in edit summaries and on Talk pages. He rarely cites sources for his edits, and when he does the sources often turn out not to say what they claim he does or they turn out to be irrelevant and not mention the subject of his edits at all. (See Talk:Paul Robeson and Talk:Pablo Neruda)

In addition, TDC now appears to be editing some of the same articles over which he has been recently banned with the sockpuppet account User:Dagen. (See: Pablo Neruda, Fidel Castro, W. E. B. DuBois, Earth Day)

Once already an RfC has been compiled on him. It was initially filed on 7 May 2004. See: Requests for comment/TDC

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

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)

3RR violations
1. Iraq Liberation Act, 21 March 2005

2. 22 March 2005

 * 1st revert: 04:56, 21 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 13:38, 21 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 21:50, 21 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 22:18, 21 Mar 2005
 * 5th revert: 23:56, 21 Mar 2005
 * 5th revert: 23:56, 21 Mar 2005

Reported by: Christiaan 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

 * TDC has already been blocked once already for violating 3RR on this article. —Christiaan 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The diffs appear to be quite different. I noted the edit comments though and will have a look at the actual page. Refdoc 00:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you mean the diffs appear different? —Christiaan 00:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to present evidence for a 3RR you should give the diffs which show that the violating user has not actually added anything in. As it is, I have banned User:TDC for one week form editing as this was the second 3RR violation in short succession on the same set of pages. But I also not the anonymous revert which conveniently appeared when "your" turn came. I think you are sailing very close to the wind, USer:Christiaan... Refdoc 00:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * As remarked before, you cannot block someone for more than 24 hours under WP:3RR. I'll adjust the period of the block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, no argument. Refdoc 13:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3. 3 April 2005

4. 19 April 2005
 * 1st revert: 17:47 18 April
 * 2nd revert: 19:31 18 April
 * 3rd revert: 20:15 18 April
 * 4th revert: 22:23 18 April
 * 5th revert: 23:43 18 April

Reported by: Viajero 20:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

 * According to this user's Talk page, he has been given 24 hour bans for violating the 3RR three on three previous occasions: 21 March, 22 March, and 3 April. Perhaps a stiffer sanction would be in order.
 * Can't find a version he has reverted to on the third revert.Geni 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice way to try and trap me with a lefty pile on, too bad I am too smart for your tomfoolery.TDC 21:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ok now I can this diff shows they are identical despite claims to the contry Geni 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hoursGeni 22:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5. 25 April 2005

6. 18 May 2005

 * 1st revert: 07:50, 18 May 2005
 * 2nd revert: 11:09, 18 May 2005
 * 3rd revert: 11:49, 18 May 2005
 * 4th revert: 13:22, 18 May 2005

Reported by: Mark1 06:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

 * More fun on Fidel Castro. TDC has not specifically been warned this time, but he is an enthusiastic repeat offender.   With minor variations, the version reverted to is . Mark1 06:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I will drop him a note suggesting that he put the steam down a little bit. Rama 08:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Rama, I blocked him before I saw your post. By all means unblock if you feel a warning is more appropriate. I prefer to warn first too, but in this case, TDC and Trey Stone seem to have acted in concert, both have been blocked many times for 3RR before, and there's no indication that either of them reverted the fourth time in error. But if you feel differently, I won't challenge you. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, see my whining below. El_C 08:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin: this is quite all right, I just wanted to be absolutely sure not to be too rough. I still am trying to get accustomed to adminship, so I try to be cautious; the lead of experienced admins, especially from people for whom I have come to grow a particular confidence, is a good example in this regard. Rama 09:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Self-avowed 3RR "gaming"

 * BTW this is not a 3RR vio, as the versions are different. 21:43, 18 Apr 2005 1 (TDC's third consecutive COINTELPRO revision. Comparison TDC's three consecutive versions shows they are exactly the same: 18:15, 18 Apr 2005 compared to 21:43, 18 Apr 2005 and 20:23, 18 Apr 2005 compared to 21:43, 18 Apr 2005.)
 * Nice way to try and trap me with a lefty pile on, too bad I am too smart for your tomfoolery.TDC 21:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (written on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR after three reverts; after four he was banned)
 * Subject: "3RR" Awww, someone failed to entrap me. Nice try and what'n, but try harder next time, I am ,after all, a fucking pro at this by now. Ciao. TDC 21:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (User_talk:Viajero)
 * RV, thats two for each of us, I wonder who will be the first to reach 4 and get a temp ban (Paul Robeson edit at 17:09, 14 Apr 2005)
 * well, someone had best protect this page becasue it's time for an edit war. (Anti-globalization edit at 18:21, 2 Apr 2005.)
 * "RV, thats two for each of us, I wonder who will be the first to reach 4 and get a temp ban"
 * "3 RV's a day will keep the admins away!" 13:49, 29 June 2005
 * "RV, another day, another 3 reverts" 22:24, 7 July 2005

Self-avowed "flaming"

 * RV to me, is it hot in here or is it just the flame war? 1
 * added criticsm section, let the flame war begin! 2

Personal attacks and incivility

 * "Well then go to a "decent university" and look it up little man. Thankfully my public library has a quite complete archive on CD-ROM"
 * "Please see quit complaining about my edits because you dont have acess to my sources "
 * "are you so afraid of this obvious truth that you will not even take it to talk! And someone voted you an admin?"
 * "so take your libelous slanderous bull malarkey and cram it sideways"
 * " are you here to beat your fists in the sand and whine about me taking your toys from you?"
 * "RV, shouldnt you be sending your monthly care package to Saddam right now?" 21:49, 16 Apr 2005
 * "I thought they took all of Saddam's money, is his family now paying you?" 05:39, 26 Mar 2005
 * "How many times do we need to cover this? REMOVED ORIGINAL RESEARCH" 03:01, 21 Mar 2005
 * "RV, so Blix beleives that the Iraq Liberation Act was a violation of 687? and what does the rest of it have to do with the article?" 18:23, 19 Mar 2005
 * "read my lips: ORIGINAL RESEARCH WILL BE REMOVED" 17:57, 19 Mar 2005
 * "removed original research, thought you could slip that shit in while I was away" 05:02, 6 Mar 2005
 * "RV, if you are too lazy to look for the source in the talk archives, that is not my problem" 14:24, 28 Jan 2005
 * "RV to non plagarized version, stings dont it?" 19:12, 28 Dec 2004
 * "Hubbard a phony, RV" 04:59, 8 Apr 2005
 * "RV, dont you have an article on Noam Chomsky to save?" 16:26, 14 Feb 2005
 * "last time, please site this bull or stop inserting it" 04:46, 16 Feb 2005
 * "once again, remove ridiculous statement" 04:35, 15 Feb 2005
 * "remove ridiculous statement" 06:07, 14 Feb 2005
 * "hey Ruy, when did the DPKR get niternet acess?" 14:23, 14 Mar 2005
 * "RV Ruy Lopez, I thought you were on that bus to the DPKR" 07:29, 13 Mar 2005
 * "RV, hey Roy I think there is a bus heading for the DPKR you should be on" 01:33, 12 Mar 2005
 * "RV, I dont discuss with a FOS (friend of Saddam)" 22:43, 21 Mar 2005
 * "Once again cite this ridiculous bullshit, remove it or I will take it to arbitration" 03:10, 21 Mar 2005
 * "RV, remove original research, so the little bitch has his pet articles protected and this is how he lashes out?" 30 Jan 2005
 * "RV, remove original research, please read the Wiki policy on original research before you embarrass yourself again" 04:11, 30 Jan 2005
 * "RV to Sr Paul, pathetic, now you wont even go to the talk page" 02:01, 15 Mar 2005
 * "RV to TDC, I see the Stalinist airbrush artists are hard at work today" 00:20, 15 Mar 2005
 * "RV, why so quick to take the pruining shears to the article, are you tired of it saying things you find uncomfortable?" 14:29, 14 Mar 2005
 * "Lets not be stupid here" 05:01, 24 Jan 2005
 * "RV, it is really sad to see you sink to this level, but replace sad with funny" 19:22, 12 Mar 2005
 * "RV, some people just never learn" 00:22, 12 Mar 2005
 * "remove bullshit" 20:04, 6 Mar 2005
 * "See, that’s where you are mistaken. If you argue with me, I will drag you down and beat you, that is why you must debate me, engage me, stimulate me." 18 Mar 2005
 * "last time, quoting is not "false" and a direct link to the article is present"
 * "Go back to my point #4 above, and re-read it as many times as it is necessary for you to comprehend it, oakaley dokaley?"
 * "so please do your blood pressure a favor and simmer down some."
 * "Can you read?"
 * "In the words of that great entertainer Justin Timberlake; cry me a river!"
 * "Time to scuttle on over to Paul Robeson, and unprotect. Just remember, I win, I always do!" 3 May 2005
 * "ho ho, he he, ha ha, reinserted Smith act info" 3 May 2005
 * "as a devout Stalinist, Robeson spent a good deal of his life rhetorically felating his primary opponent." 3 May 2005
 * "as you have proven yourself to be, yet again, a no faith editor."
 * "Are you being a stubborn idiot just to prove a point, and if so what would that point be exactly?" 11:02, 6 May 2005
 * "This is perhaps due to the fact that truth scared you too much to do so" 23:52, 6 May 2005
 * "please explain edits in talk, as other non assholes have taken the time to do" 01:16, 7 May 2005
 * "Hey, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Gamaliel has made every effort possible both in his actions as well as his rhetoric to prove himself a Grade-A asshole" 12:59, 7 May 2005
 * "do you even read these things before you revert them?"
 * "You hate it when I am right, don't you?"
 * "sorry, but this is Wikipedia.org, not wikipedia.cu, RV"
 * "restored deleted material from vandal"
 * "Gamaliel, its the 4th, why dont you take one day off of hating America and live a little."
 * If you look at the context of this, it is even more appalling than it sounds on the face of it. Up until now I have given TDC the benefit of the doubt; I have now changed my mind about that. -- July 5, 2005 15:55 (UTC)
 * "You forgot a few relevant details in your rant.You missed a few things in your little tirade." 21:28, 19 July 2005
 * "Once again, your hypocrisy knows no ends."

18:07, 15 August 2005

Evidence of POV pushing

 * "I have been quite consumed with destroying the “noble” and “romantic” image of undercover Stalinist Pablo Neruda."
 * "Ahh yes, exposing the shameful pasts of Stalinist like Neruda is quite rewarding."
 * "Also, I cannot wait to piss on Pablo Neruda's grave once my sources come in." 15 May 2005
 * "When exactly was Kerry in Paris to meet with his communist overlords?" 17:40, 20 July 2005

Evidence of plagiarism

 * I don't know the source of this paragraph, but it says "As noted in chapter I", so obviously it is right out of a book. Later that day, TDC wrote in an edit summary "whoops, copy pasted the wrong thing".
 * The section that begins with Louis Stein and ends with the quote from Josep Peirats is almost word for word a copy of a section from page 102 of Intellectuals and Assassins by Stephen Schwartz. Interestingly, one change TDC did make was omitting the three ellipses from the Peirats quote, implying that this is one continuous statement, when in the original it is not. TDC has repeatedly inserted this section into the article.
 * This paragraph is a word for word copy from a section from page 382 of Paul Robeson by Martin Duberman. TDC intially reverted this change, then replaced it with a version that only changed a few words here and there.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:NPOV
 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * Cite your sources

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 2005/04/18: Viajero asks for a little more civility on Pablo Neruda, and TDC's response
 * 2005/03/21 Tony Sidaway queries a rather odd edit on Fidel Castro, labelled "Minor Edits", which appeared to be far from minor.
 * 2005/04/18 DJ Silverfish queries text inserted by User:TonyMarvin into COINTELPRO and requests supporting citation. TDc replies without citing. TDC's 3RR follows.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Viajero 13:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * — Helpful Dave 14:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * — DJ Silverfish 18:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rama 21:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Jmabel | Talk 21:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Response
Hmm …. Where to begin ………

First let me address the allegations made by these two fine upstanding Wikipedians.

I admit that I have violated the 3RR rule several times. Some of these were the acts of a collaborative provocation between two users, so I was an idiot to fall into what was a rather transparent and crude attempt to silence me, so sue me. Others, I believe, were clearly the acts of an over zealous Admin. I feel the most recent 24hr ban was unwarranted because I had put new information into the article as well as restoring information that had been blanked. Other instance, there is no excuse and I will freely admit to my error. Simple enough I suppose.

What can I say, when you wave a flag, don’t be surprised when TDC comes charging.

Now let us move on the real reason I am being RfC’s.

For some reason Viajero has a problem with me. Viajero feels that my contributions to Pablo Neruda are not justified. His reasons for this, well that’s anybody’s guess because he has refused to discuss my contributions to the article in the article’s talk page. This is most likely due to the fact that my contributions are entirely factual, supported by credible sources, and presented in as an NOPV was as possible. So naturally he would not want to debate me, he has no legs to stand on.

In short, I am playing with his toys, and he don’t like it.

Now I know that some users are going to say “blah blah blah TDC does not work with others and pushes his POV blah blah blah (unintelligible remark about fascist right wingers)”. First, as I have said before the only POV I push is the truth. If it were up to the individuals who are behind this RfC, Wikipedia would be Commiepedia as evident by “Helpful Daves” drive to collaborate with likeminded users and push some editors off Wikipedia. Secondly I can work with users who I have vast disagreements with, an example:.

You see, people like AndyL and 172, as much as I may have disagreed with them, could be reasoned with respected and both parties could walk away from a dispute without any hard feeling.

What we have here now, is a new breed, embodied primarily in Chameleon. The ultimate in POV warriors like me, but unwilling to collaborate, unwilling to respect others, and unable to see that they are wrong. They believe that they can turn Wiki into a might makes right forum; using group action to dilute others they find objectionable.

I think that the recent controversy around [Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism], the deletion from the main article the VFD of the new one and the continual attempts to re-merge make this point very well.

This is nothing more than a cheap parliamentary trick to get me kicked off and silenced, and I absolutely positively will not fucking stand for it.

What proof do I have? None really, just a hunch, as Chameleon is no longer open about his plans and refuses to discuss anything outside of private and what he demands to be confidential email. What’s he got to hide ? I suppose we will never know, seeing as how he is doing his best to cover his tracks in anticipation of his next Admin bid.

Do people take my harsh comments out of context? Most of them are simple jokes, and I will not be held responsible for a lack of a sense of humor. TFB I say. Oh, how dare I, was that rude? Oh well that’s the world in which we live.

No for a side issue that has been bugging me. Some users, whose names will be witheld for the protection of the innocent, have accused me of using sock puppets. I take this allegation very seriously as I feel it is one of the most dishonest acts that can be perpetrated on Wikipedia. Sockpupets skew what would normally be a dynamic debate where editors prevail or fail based on the strength of an argument or on the validity of the process. Seeing as how I believe I have mastered these since starting here over 1 year ago, I find Sockpupets vile and do not condone their use. Since I only edit from 3 locations, all within the Chicago land area (and Fishkill NY on two recent business trips), it should be simple enough to determine if any of these alleged sockpuppets are actually me by running the IP address through geobytes or any IP tracing site.

So, in short, either provide some concrete evidence that I am doing this or kindly STFU. TDC 19:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

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

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

Outside view by Sam Spade
I think TDC should be more careful of the 3rr and Civility policies, and encourage him to contact myself or others when he feels a need for assistance. Sam Spade 16:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Sam Spade  16:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Jmabel
TDC brings a lot to Wikipedia, and I really hope this can be resolved in a way that doesn't involve banning him. He reads a lot of different sources than most Wikipedians, and often adds useful information to articles.

On the other hand, he is a belligerent POV warrior. I first really noticed him over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TDC-2&action=edit&section=9anextremely polemical edit without a summary, a tactic that I can only presume to be intended as stealth. He is rather uncivil (I've endorsed the summary above) and I've never really seen him do any of the basic work of building an article: instead, he's always trying to score political points, slant articles his way, etc.

In the recent case of Neruda, it's hard to see the argument for including a lengthy passage from one of Neruda's (politically and literarily) most embarrassing poems (although I'm entirely in favor of mentioning the existence of the poem, and would have no problem with a line or two being quoted). Neruda is not mainly known for bad polemical poetry, and we do not customarily add this sort of thing to an article (e.g., we do not include an extract of Mirabeau's pornography. Or even Sade's. We do not quote George W. Bush's rambling, ungrammatical sentences at length.)

I wish TDC would show some indication of actually being more interested in building an accurate, useful encyclopedia than in trying to turn it into a soapbox. Or even as interested. Or even willing, if it's not his primary interest. Again, I think he has a lot to bring to the table, but if the price of his presence is that any article that doesn't go exactly his way becomes a battleground, I stop being interested in defending him. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Dbiv 08:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Rama 08:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Dagen
This request for comment should be considered in the context of those bringing the complaint and their motivation for doing so. Without exception, I have discovered each of those endorsing the complaint are very frequently responsible for left or far-left wing agenda pushing within articles. To the extent TDC is fighting this propagandizing he should be congratulated. If you wish for a Wikipedia dominated by leftist propaganda then you will get rid of good editors like TDC. I stumbled on his good quality edits and noticed a systematic destruction of them by several users including most of the above endorsing the complaint against him. Those complaining should have clean hands, the above users do not.

Even worse, I believe the intent of this comment process is to have a chilling effect on TDC's edits and interest in making edits. It is an attempt at censoring an opinion that is not lockstep with the radical left agenda pushed consistently by the complainants. It is most improper in the circumstances. I see no valid complaint made and more to the point I see very real problems with the left wing agenda (usually self-admitted) by the group of editors above who act like a group of raptors descending on an article and leaving a left-wing leaning carcass in their wake.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Dagen

 * Meta-comment: I'm one of the endorsers of what you refer to as "the complaint". As far as I know, Dagen's remark is the first time on Wikipedia I've been accused of being "very frequently responsible for left or far-left wing agenda pushing" and lacking "clean hands". Would my left "agenda pushing" be demonstrated by these edits to Barry Goldwater:, Or perhaps you can edify us with a demonstration of the thoroughgoing leftist agenda in my article on László Tokés?

 * If there is any basis for your charge against me, please start an RfC about my behavior, so that I have a suitable venue to defend myself. If not, please withdraw the accusation. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I side with Jmabel on this. Collectively accusing people without clear charges seems to me an unhealthy practive, very much unlikely to achieve our aim which is mediation (not lynching). For now I haven't yet seen any unacceptable behaviour of any of the endorsers on this page. As for their behavious on other pages, it is not the subject of this RfC and can be discussed in separate RfCs, which anyone is very welcome to fill in if necessary. Rama 06:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Jmabel, consider the following. You know just as well as I do that some articles in Wikipedia are guarded like private property. In the case of Neruda, I fully expected the poem to be thrown out after a long discussion. I realize that when dealing with an article like this one, great care must be paid to how material is introduced. Usually one has to go overboard and be content with the knowledge that much will be tossed after discussion, standard negotiating tactics. No discussion, however, took place initially with Viajero initially just reverting my edits until he realized I was not going to give it up and Gamaliel jumping on the bandwagon. As you can see from the discussion, Gamaliel has no intent on having a real discussion about the article, continues to slander me with the Sock Puppet allegation, and is being completely uncooperative, and he is an Admin for Christ's sake! But somehow I am the sole asshole of that particular article?

 * I hope you will admit that much of what I contribute is solely unique to a contributor like myself. I don’t mind being the maggot of Wikipedia, uncomfortable to look at, but at the same time serving a valuable service to the project. Articles like lenoard peltier, the CPUSA and the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drastically improved in content, POV and citation through my contributions. TDC 17:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think my comments on this page make it clear that (1) I think that you bring valuable material to Wikipedia, and I would like to see a solution that keeps you as a participant and (2) your behavior is often uncivil, and you seem to have no respect for the spirit of rules, constantly pushing the boundaries rather than trying to work cooperatively. Neither of these statements diminishes the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello, let's stick to the facts please: I did not start out by reverting your edits to Pablo Neruda. I copyedited the entire text for style, structure, and NPOV, and that included but did not exclusively concern your most recent edits. Later, I posted a message on the Talk page saying that I questioned your subsequent inclusion of the long citation of the Stalin ode. Your response was:
 * ''Isn't there something a bit wrong with that? Although he worked for the NKVD and helped Stalin and his disgusting regime commit act of murder and depravity, he is known for his poetry? Martin Amis was dead on.
 * With a comment like this, you completely destroy your credibility. It is not for us to pass judgement on the nature of his fame; our job is not to determine why he should be famous; we are here to record why he IS famous. If this distinction is lost on you, then I am afraid you will never really understand NPOV. -- Viajero 21:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * My first edit to the article, a simple one just adding that he won the Stalin Peace Prize

16:47, Apr 16, 2005, and now the edit just prior to that , compare this to your first edit , a complete removal of my work. No discussion, no talk, just a blanket deletion of all my contributions. Now, lets see your next move:, another deletion of my contributions in their entirety. And then Gamaliel jumps in, and his first contribution is a blanket RV. In fact the fist attempt by you to discuss this took place after you eliminated my contributions twice. So please don’t play the poor abused editor, you did not want my contributions to stay, regardless of their veracity of them.

 * As far as my credibility goes, I will let my work speak for itself. TDC 21:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you claim that this edit of mine:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Neruda&diff=12483077&oldid=12404798
 * is a "a complete removal" of your work, "a blanket deletion" of all your contributions, then it appears we aren't seeing the same things, don't even speak the same language. -- Viajero 22:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Whoops, I though I added the material earlier, that would be this edit of yours, your first to the article after my material was added .TDC 22:12, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * This diff shows no changes. -- Viajero 22:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by 172
I feel compelled to come to TDC's defense here. Jmabel is correct to point out below that he brings a lot to Wikipedia; he does use more-- and a greater variety of-- sources than most Wikipedians working in his area, and he has been adding a wealth of useful information to articles for over a year. I say this despite my disagreement with TDC's stance on Pablo Neruda, and many similar disagreements in the past. Jmabel is way too harsh, though, in calling TDC "a belligerent POV warrior." "Belligerent POV warriors" get their way through wearing down opposition, and they do not tolerate editors who do not share their views. TDC works respectfully and constructively with users who do not share his views, at least when other editors give him a chance... It seems that some users are getting the wrong impression from his sense of humor... Mediation might work better here than arbitration. Although I am not a mediator, I volunteer to help out if anyone's interested. 172 8 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)

BTW, TDC, regarding Neruda, after Khrushchev's speech at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the Sino-Soviet Split, the term "Stalinist" is most often used to refer to "anti-revisionist" Communists who attacked the Soviet Union as "revisionist." Neruda, however, was a member of the Chilean Communist Party, which did not take an "anti-revisionist" line. So if I heard a Chilean referred to as a "Stalinist," I'd assume that he/she belonged to a more extreme outfit than Neruda's party. You do make a good case that he personally was sympathetic to Stalin, but, IMO, Viajero has a point about keeping Neruda out of the "list of Stalinists." 172 8 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm all for mediation, if you think you can help but, be that as it may, a recent edit summary like RV, another day, another 3 reverts is a pretty strong sign that TDC is rejecting efforts to ratchet down the problem. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Outside view by Trey Stone
I've only crossed paths with TDC on articles a few times but he seems like a good contributor. Tough on others at times but that's not necessarily a bad thing. He's helped in NPOVing some of the most blatant cases of bias that go unchecked. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Discussion
Firstly I want to apologise to TDC for suspecting him of using sock puppets. The evidence is circumstantial and far from conclusive.

For the rest, there seems to be a clear problem here. How to solve it? TDC, would you consider mediation? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. As for the mediation, it depends, to what end? TDC 20:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * To resolve our existing differences, improve communication and reduce the chance of future problems of the type we've encountered recently. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * To resolve our existing differences: never gonna happen, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

 * improve communication: a good possibility, but I doubt the sincerity of many, not all, of the parties involved.

 * reduce the chance of future problems: Inherent to the current setup of Wikipeida. Example based on current events: What is a Stalinist, and who decides. Is that decision based on who has the better argument (meritocracy), or who can bring more voices into the fray (mobocracy). What about that user that just refuses to shut up? What makes something notable? How notable should something be to be in Wikipedia? Who decides what is and is not noticeable? Why does the criteria for notability change so often? What about precident? Why is it that when a decision is made on one issue and another arises which is very similar, an exact opposite decision is made?

 * The problem is this: there are not rules here, not even basic ones really. Granted laws are primarily for the lawless, but with no procedure or standards the project looks like a chinese fire drill.TDC 21:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to understand the To resolve our existing differences suggested by Tony Sidaway not as a suggestion that our points of view should be identical (this indeed would be both unfeasable and undesirable), but that the means of expressing our points would be in adequation. Your very user page makes numerous allusions to confrontation; your edits are often very radical and apparantly rarely meant to find a commonly acceptable formulation; your edit summaries are sometimes needlessly insulting.

I understand that one could feel that there would be some sort of need for "balancing the POV" or something like this, but everybody should be well-aware that opposite extreme discourses do not cancel each other out, much to the contrary. A confrontational attitude does not tend to discourage other users from opposing you, but notably degrades the atmosphere of the articles. For people who get stuck into a cross-fire, it is extremely discouraging. So one thing which could be worked upon would be accepting other users as collaborators on one commons project, rather than opponants. You are an engineer, so I am confident that you see what I mean. Rama 22:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Rama, I agree at least in part to your comments. While my contribution at times may seem “radical” it is all a part of the idea that in certain instances, you have to shoot for the stars in order to make it to the moon. TDC 17:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I see that we are talking of the same thing (which is a good start). See, my view of this is that most of the effect of this tactics is that it induces an arm race.
 * Firstly, it supposes an "other side", while we should all one team. If a user show his absolute inhability to behave as a member of one team, he should be talk to, in a RfC if necessary. Secondly, it encourages people to make increasingly ridiculous editions, and eventually the article only suffers from it. Also, what could be legitimately understood as a valid point (for instance, say, "Neruda had links with Soviet officials in the 1950s, there and here") will be summarily reverted if stated as "Neruda's lovefest with Stalin" (for instance). So in overall, while I understand how one could come to the conclusion you mention, I really have yet to see any positive effect of applying it.
 * I also cannot but notice the remarkable effectiveness of measured and exact discussion, even with users having very contrasted views of the same event (not necessarly for ideological reasons, it can very well be related merely to the national media of two users). So why not at least give the second solution a try and see how your edits are appreciated then ? Rama 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And BTW, just because I respect TDC's work, am a new arrival and am monitoring the reversions against him does not mean I'm a sockpuppet. I'm not. Check the IP's or whatever you do to find out, I'm not him. Dagen 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TDC, I'm sorry that you don't think that our differences can be resolved. I emphasize the word "resolved" and agree with Rama's interpretation. As encyclopedists we should be able to work together within the framework of Wikipedia towards the common goal of a better encyclopedia, not that our very different points of view should somehow unite. The encyclopedia would not gain, and indeed could only lose, from incorporation of our personal opinions into the articles. I urge you to reconsider my offer of mediation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Tony, allow me to rephrase my answer as you have misinterpreted my reply. If by disputes you mean, differing opinions on what material should be presented and how it should be phrased, then I fully a free that I can and do work with other good faith users when I can. How many other users with my particular POV can say that they were able to establish a good report with a user like 172 ? As I am sure you have seen with the Ward Churchill article, that at times this particular approach does not work. TDC 17:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's really not the vibe I get from you, I'm afraid. And the main reason is your propensity to launch apparently unprovoked attacks. You just have to know by now that this is counter-productive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I'm getting ahead of myself. I think we could undergo mediation productively. Do you accept? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I honestly do not think it has gotten to that point. I have been in many similar situations in the past and they usually work themselves out, but perhaps in a few weeks if the issue has not been settled, then mediation might be an alternative. TDC 02:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, my impression is that you seem to be blowing hot and cold on this. On one hand you express severe doubts about the adequacy of Wikipedia procedures, for at least a year you have felt free to launch some of the most extreme casual personal attacks I've seen made by a Wikipedia regular, you seem to engage in POV-pushing as a matter of policy, and you get into revert wars frequently. You appear to have little or no respect for those who try to collaborate with you on Wikipedia articles, regarding them it seems to me as opponents to be fought.

In short, I think a number of other editors have a problem with your behavior and attitude, and they want to see a genuine change.

It may be that they in their turn are exacerbating the problem, and that is something that mediation can resolve.

So I disagree with you. I think it certainly *has* reached a point where we should be looking for a resolution for what it perceived by a number of editors to be a long run of problematic behavior on your part, and by at least one other editor as some kind of political blackballing on the part of those who claim about you. I think something must be done, in the interests of Wikipedia. I don't think that just carrying on is really the wise thing to do at this point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like a make a quick comment here. TDC viciously attacks me all the time, but I must say I really don't care.  At least he's honest and upfront, unlike many I could name.  I don't think his incivility is a big deal.  Sticks and stones, eh?  My only problem with him is that he skews articles to the far right, which lowers their encyclopaedic quality.   — Helpful Dave 18:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation proposal accepted by TDC

 * Allright then, I will accept your offer of mediation. TDC 13:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Who else agrees to enter into mediation? As this is a RfC concerning TDC's behavior I suggest that some others who have endorsed the RfC join me as a common disputant with TDC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think thats a very bad idea. Mediation w you is just fine, but as an AMA advocate, I have to vigorously oppose TDC accepting mediation w a group. 1 on 1 is balanced, w a potential for a neutral result. A gang vrs. 1 user is no kind of mediation in my book. Sam Spade 17:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with mediation between me and TDC is that it wouldn't affect the way people treat TDC. He and I could get along fine (I might, for instance, agree to avoid engaging with TDC at all) but next time he goes and attacks someone in an edit comment he's mincemeat. Nobody else would care about what Tony and TDC agreed.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's really up to him, but I don't see a mediation w such a large group of his opposition as practical or likely to succeed, despite his best intents. Sam Spade 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. It would almost certainly be better to try to use mediation to establish a dialog between us two as individuals. I have made a mediation request. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Side issue: I just want to point out that Dagen has neither withdrawn nor formalized or substantiated his aspersion on my conduct and that of the others who certified or endorsed the original claim. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:23, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand and share the concern of Sam Spade's about keeping the RfC a fair discussion and make sure it never turns into some sort of public lynching. This being said, I though that these were supposed to be the closest thing to a discussion between one particulr user ad the rest of the community.
 * I this optic, while I accept the idea that one particular user would represent the others to technically facilitate the discussion, I think that it is very necessary that the outcome be an engagement of the user and the whole community toward each other.
 * One RfC has already taken place against TDC, which has not prevented this one from being necessary (with everything it implies of disturbance of the normal process of Wikipedia). I would really like to stress the idea that this RfC is not some ponctual chat to appease a bunch of angry users, but a cold-minded attempt to truely and friendly solve the matter on the long term. Rama 07:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, an RfC is an opportunity for the community to discuss and confront / communicate with a user seen to be problematic, but mediation is another thing entirely. It is a private exchange with a goal of resolution. An RfC often doesn't have resolution as its goal. Sam Spade 10:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * To resolve a problem you first need to define it. A RfC is one tool to use to take the problem off the talk pages and permit a group of users to define precisely what the problem is, what they've done to resolve it and whether it is agreed that a problem still exists.  This is pretty confrontational, but it's also a very good way of starting to work out how to resolve the problem.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * #"I have been quite consumed with destroying the “noble” and “romantic” image of undercover Stalinist Pablo Neruda."

God forbid anyone know the truth about the matter, what was I thinking! And I think that after 14 months of having a piece of information rejected I can be entitled to gloat a little. But, that's nice, you know, following me around from edit to edit. TDC 13:51, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * In the light of your acceptance of the mediation, I think that the recent additions to this page can be understood as constructive comments which might help you identify ponctual cases edits or comments of yours which are seen disturbing. Since a few of them are dated of the 3rd of May, it might be helpful in the sense that the state of mind which led you to making them is probably still clear and lively in your memory. Perhaps this might make your working on this easier. Rama 07:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2


text:
Museum of the American Printing House for the Blind

The Museum of the American Printing House for the Blind opened in 1994 and is located in Louisville, Kentucky. The museum tells the story of the international history of the education of people who are blind, and how the American Printing House for the Blind (APH) has contributed to that history. Exhibits focus on tactile systems, writing devices, braille production, orientation and mobility, educational aids and early schools for the blind. It is located on the second floor of the company's original 1883 factory building.

Layout and exhibits
Visitors enter the museum through the 1883 Gallery which contains the exhibit "History in the Making: APH from Past to Present." The exhibit focuses both on the specific history of APH and the various products it has produced including raised-print books, audiobooks, and stereotype machines. This exhibit was praised for its use of photographs and artifacts but criticized for the minimal attention given to those who worked in the APH factory which the museum now inhabits.

The main Callahan Gallery focuses on development of reading systems and schools for blind people over time, across the United States as well as specifically in Kentucky. "The Way We Worked" focuses on production machines used in the APH Gallery. There is also room for travelling exhibits.

Visitor experience
The museum is designed to be accessible for people who are blind or low vision, with labels in Braille, audio, and large print formats. It also features learning experiences such as using braillewriters and mobility feature walking canes.

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


text:
User talk:TSFS

Welcome!
'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
 * Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:TSFS


text:
User talk:WarLord

Welcome!
'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
 * Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms
Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Drive for the Firearms Wikiproject
Hello WarLord. The Firearms Wikiproject is having an infobox drive. The purpose of this is to ensure that most (if not all) of the articles within our scope have the relevant infoboxes. The start date will be May 28th. If you choose to participate, go to our project page and pick an article under the To-do list's Infobox section or look for firearm articles that need an infobox. Before you start editing an article, please cross it out on the list so that we don't have editor's work clashing. The drive will last for five days. If you are interested, please RSVP to LWF. Thank you, the Firearms Wikiproject. --Seed 2.0 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Article
The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:WarLord


text:
File:Yello - Solid Pleasure CD cover.jpg

Summary
Yello - Solid Pleasure. Original UK CD cover

Licensing
Original UK release album cover - album covers are fair use. Picture scanned by me Ian Dunster from original UK CD album.


text:
User:Avalyn

If you feel an urgent need to contact me, leave me a message and I'll get back to you.

title: User:Avalyn


text:
Le Dernier Combat

Le Dernier Combat (The Last Battle) is a 1983 French post-apocalyptic film. It was the first feature film to be directed by Luc Besson, and also features Jean Reno's first prominent role. Music for the film was composed by Éric Serra. The film was the first of many collaborations between Besson, Reno and Serra. A dark vision of post-apocalyptic survival, the film was shot in black and white and contains only two words of dialogue. It depicts a world where people have been rendered mute by some unknown incident.

Plot
The film opens to a shot of an abandoned office, where the main character (Pierre Jolivet), who is only identified as 'The Man' in the end credits, is having intercourse with a sex doll. The Man is then seen attempting to salvage parts from abandoned vehicles, but returns to his dwelling empty handed, where he works on building a makeshift aircraft. The Man ventures outside the office building he lives in, which is surrounded by a desert wasteland. A group of men are shown surviving in the wasteland. They hold a man, 'The Dwarf' (Maurice Lamy), captive, and force him to retrieve water for them. The Man, who has been observing the survivors, makes his way to their camp, stabs their leader, 'The Captain' (Fritz Wepper) and retrieves a car battery. Survivors pursue The Man, though he is able to escape in his now completed aircraft.

'The Brute' (Jean Reno) is seen approaching a hospital with a box containing canned food. The Brute rings a bell, and 'The Doctor' (Jean Bouise), instructs him to place the canned goods on the ground and back away from the door. The Doctor then takes the goods and closes the door before The Brute can get inside.

The Man's aircraft crash lands at night. The following morning he continues on foot. The Brute returns to the hospital with a new box of items, though this time he constructs a device that will keep the door open long enough for him to enter the building. The plan works, however, once back inside the building The Doctor pulls a lever which closes a secondary iron bar gate preventing The Brute from entering. The Man finds an abandoned bar, gets himself heavily intoxicated and passes out. When he awakes, he ventures outside where he is amazed that it is raining fish. While searching for a way to cook the fish, The Man encounters The Brute. A fight ensues; the Brute gains the upper hand though The Man is able to escape.

The Man, now badly injured, wanders around until he finds The Doctor. The Doctor treats The Man and cooks him some fish. The Doctor inhales a form of gas that allows him to, with some difficulty, say a single word: Bonjour. The Man also takes the gas and is able to reply with the same word. Both are ecstatic about being able to speak. The Man and the Doctor bond over table tennis and painting, before The Man ventures outside into a sandstorm to retrieve a painting he found in the bar. The Brute, who has been living in the bar, returns and notices the painting is missing.

The Doctor prepares some food and blindfolds The Man. He leads The Man to a part of the hospital where a woman is kept, and gives her the food. The Brute sets fire to the front door of the hospital, though The Doctor and The Man extinguish the flames. The Man and The Doctor go to bring food to the woman again, and The Man gives her a wrapped gift. They then catch The Brute attempting to saw through the iron bar gate, though are able to scare him off.

The Doctor and The Man prepare food for the woman, yet this time The Doctor permits the man to not be blindfolded, and encourages him to comb his hair. Meanwhile, it is revealed that The Brute has breached the iron gate to the hospital. The Doctor is killed on the way to the woman when chunks of rock rain down from the sky. The Man, who does not know how to find the woman without The Doctor, attempts to locate her, though he is confronted by The Brute. A fight ensues, with The Man eventually killing The Brute. The Man then locates the woman's room, though is devastated when he discovers that The Brute had already killed her.

The Man repairs his aircraft, and flies back to the original survivors he encountered. He kills their new leader and frees The Dwarf. The Dwarf shows the Man where The Captain keeps his concubine (Christiane Krüger). The Man greets her with a warm smile, which she returns.

Themes
Writing in the book The Films of Luc Besson, Susan Hayward, director of Film Studies at the University of Exeter, considered Le Dernier Combat and The Fifth Element to be Besson's two film's which focus on the theme of environmental damage, as waste and pollution are visible throughout both films. Capitalism was also considered to be a theme; consumer commodities were said to be signs of death, such as the abandoned cars in the desert and the floating washing machines in a flooded abandoned factory.

Production
Besson described the film as an "imaginary excursion", stating he got the inspiration for the film from an abandoned cinema he saw in Paris. Thinking of all the other abandoned buildings there must be in Paris, Besson decided to create a world where all these places were together, and combined this idea with a previous suggestion that he make a feature-length version of his 1981 debut short film, L'Avant Dernier. Le Dernier Combat was primarily filmed in Paris, with scenes depicted as being in the desert filmed in Tunisia. Locations for filming in Paris included a former Électricité de France building that was demolished the day after filming was completed, and the derelict area where the Bibliothèque nationale de France was later constructed. The film was shot in black and white and contains only two words of dialogue.

Release and reception
Le Dernier Combat was distributed in France on 6 April 1983. The film attracted 236,189 viewers at the French box office, grossing the equivalent of $1.7 million. Le Dernier Combat was released in the United States in June 1984.

Time Out gave a favourable review, calling the film a "welcome addition to the post-holocaust barbarism [film] boom." Steve Macfarlane from Not Coming to a Theater Near You gave a moderately positive review, stating "While the film's heart is syrupy-sentimental (who's shocked?), its surfaces are clean, incremental, reverently silent—appropriate, given that ... humankind has lost its ability to speak." Janet Maslin from The New York Times called it "a bravura first film, using the simplest means, yet managing to incorporate humor, pathos, suspense and even a well-articulated definition of basic human needs." Dave Kehr from the Chicago Reader also gave a positive review, stating: "The absence of dialogue ... is a cleverly executed stunt, but it is also an effective alibi for a technically proficient filmmaker who really has nothing to say. Another John Carpenter is born, which is by no means a bad thing."

Colin Greenland reviewed The Last Battle for Imagine magazine, and stated that "Luc Besson's The Last Battle [...] is visually the most startling evocation of the struggling on after some devastating catastrophe, not least because it's in Cinemascope and black and white: an unusual combination, to say the least. It's mysterious, it's violent, and it has a wild and fascinating beauty."

Accolades
Le Dernier Combat won Best Film, Best Director and the Audience Jury Award at Fantasporto in 1984. It also won Best Film and Best Director at the 1983 Sitges Film Festival, and won the Critic's Prize at the 1983 Brussels International Fantastic Film Festival. It was nominated for Best First Work at the 1984 César Awards.

Home media
In 1985, this film was first released on videocassette on CBS/Fox Video's Key Video that October as English title, "The Final Combat". In 2001, Adam Tyner from DVD Talk gave a positive review of its DVD release that August, awarding it 4 out of 5 stars for video, audio and content, though awarding it 0 stars for extras, noting the only extras were trailers for other films. The same DVD was released alongside Besson's 1997 film, The Fifth Element as a 'Luc Besson 2-pack'. Upon reviewing the 2-pack in April 2003, Ron Epstein from DVD Talk gave the Le Dernier Combat DVD 3$1/2$ out of 5 for video, audio and content, though also giving it 0 stars for extras.

title: Le Dernier Combat


text:
Marie Henriette of Austria

Marie Henriette of Austria (Marie Henriette Anne; 23 August 1836 – 19 September 1902) was Queen of the Belgians as the wife of King Leopold II. The marriage was arranged against the will of both Marie Henriette and Leopold and became unhappy due to their dissimilarity, and after 1872 the couple lived separate lives, though they continued to appear together in public. Queen Marie Henriette was described as an energetic and intelligent horsewoman, foremost devoted to her animals. In 1895, she openly retired from public life and lived her last seven years in the city of Spa, where she became known as "The Queen of Spa".

Early life
Marie Henriette was one of five children from the marriage of Archduke Joseph, Palatine of Hungary, and Duchess Maria Dorothea of Württemberg. Marie Henriette was a cousin of Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, and granddaughter of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor, through her father. She was also a first cousin, once removed to the future Queen Mary of the United Kingdom through her mother.

Her father was Palatine of Hungary, and she spent a great deal of her childhood in the Buda Castle in Hungary. She lost her father at the age of ten. After her father's death, she became a ward of Archduke John of Austria at the Palais Augarten in Vienna. It was said that she was raised by her mother "as a boy". Marie Henriette was a vivid and energetic person with a strong will and a hot temperament, interested in riding.

Marriage
One day before her 17th birthday, she married 18-year-old Prince Leopold of Belgium, the heir to the throne, on 22 August 1853. Leopold was the second-surviving son of Leopold I of Belgium and his French wife, Louise of Orléans; Marie Henriette was the sister-in-law of Charlotte of Belgium, future Empress of Mexico and a cousin by marriage to Victoria of the United Kingdom and Maria II of Portugal. The marriage was arranged to strengthen the status of the Belgian Monarchy. As the former Protestant monarch of a newly established monarchy, the Belgian king wished his son to marry a member from a Roman Catholic and prestigious dynasty, and the name Habsburg was one of her more important qualities. The marriage further more created an historical link between the new Kingdom of Belgium and the Habsburg dynasty of the Austrian Netherlands.

The marriage was suggested by her future father-in-law the king of Belgium to her guardian, the Archduke John of Austria, and arranged by the two men over her head. She was introduced to Leopold on an Imperial court ball at Hofburg in May 1853, and she was informed that she was to marry him. Neither she or Leopold made a good impression on each other. She protested against the marriage plans without success, but was convinced to submit to it by her mother. Leopold himself also commented that he had agreed to the marriage because of his father.

Marie Henriette resigned from her rights to the Austrian throne and signed the marriage contract in Vienna on 8 August 1853. A wedding by proxy was celebrated at the Schönbrunn Palace on 10 August, after which she travelled to Brussels, where the final ceremony was celebrated with Leopold in person on 22 August. The wedding was followed by a tour through the Belgian provinces and a trip to Great Britain in October. Queen Victoria commented to king Leopold I about the differences between the couple. Marie Henriette was described as intelligent, well educated and cultivated, Leopold as well spoken and interested in military issues, but with no common interests whatsoever. The marriage was arranged against the will of both Marie Henriette and Leopold, and was to be unhappy from the start.

Duchess of Brabant
In April 1854, Leopold and Marie Henriette settled in the Palace of Laeken as duke and duchess of Brabant. The couple lived with the king and his younger children Philippe and Charlotte. Marie Henriette did not have a close relationship with her father-in-law the king, but was to become a personal friend of Charlotte. Marie Henriette was given her own household, with her mother-in-law's former Dame d'honneur (principal lady-in-waiting) the comtesse de Mérode. She devoted herself to her interest in animals. She was not only interested in horses and riding, but also in other animals. She attempted the breeding of monkeys, as well as dog breeding. She also kept parrots and fish. She owned about fifty horses. She also cultivated her interest in music and took lessons in singing, piano and the harp.

The Duke of Brabant was recommended trips to a warmer climate for health reasons. Marie Henriette accompanied him on his 1855 trip to Egypt via Vienna, Trieste and Corfu, and from Egypt to Jerusalem. Marie Henriette and her spouse made a state visit to France to attend the Exposition Universelle (1855). During their visit, their dissimilarities were again the cause of comment. Marie Henriette was described as strong, vivid and energetic and Leopold as serious, dry and physically weak: Marie Henriette as extrovert, Leopold as introvert. Pauline de Metternich wrote that theirs was a marriage "between a stable-boy and a nun, and by nun I mean the Duke of Brabant".

In 1856, her cousin Archduke Maximilian visited the Belgian court to meet his future wife, Marie Henriette's sister-in-law Charlotte. He estimated that Marie Henriette must have had help from her lively intelligence to overcome many sensitive situations and that she brought some life to the Belgian royal family.

In 1858, Marie Henriette gave birth to her first child. The fact that the child was a girl was a cause of disappointment. The future heir to the throne was finally born in 1859. In 1860 and in 1864, Leopold made two more long health trips, this time without Marie Henriette, the last trip to Egypt, Ceylon, India and China. Both trips were made when Marie Henriette was pregnant, and she expressed her disappointment in being left at home with the children while he was making long journeys to faraway lands.

Queen
On 10 December 1865, King Leopold I died and was succeeded by his son Leopold II, making Marie Henriette queen. When the king was enthroned, there were questions as to whether Marie Henriette should participate, but the king refused and the queen was instead reduced to being a spectator at the ceremony.

Marie Henriette and Leopold still lived together during the first seven years as king and queen, but their relationship was distant, and Leopold was described as a polite but authoritarian husband. Marie Henriette was interested in opera and theatre and often visited the Royal Theatre of La Monnaie, where the royal box was extended with a private room where the queen could socialize with a circle of private friends she gathered over the years.

In 1867, her sister-in-law empress Charlotte of Mexico was imprisoned for mental instability by her in-laws, the Habsburgs. Marie Henriette was given the assignment by Leopold to negotiate Charlotte's release to Belgium. She went to Vienna with her advisor baron Adrien Goffinet, and succeeded in her task after two weeks of negotiations. Charlotte initially stayed with the royal couple at Laeken, where Marie Henriette reportedly hardly left her side and devoted herself to improving her health. Charlotte did show some signs of improvement, but when she regressed again, Marie Henriette lost patience and in 1869, Charlotte was permanently removed from Laeken.

In 1869, the only son of the royal couple died. Marie Henriette did not show her grief as openly as Leopold, but made several journeys to Switzerland and Hungary without Leopold to mourn, and developed an interest in religion. The king and queen temporarily reconciled in hopes of having another son, but when their efforts resulted in the birth of another daughter, Clementine, in 1872, they lived separately for the rest of their lives, though officially still married. Leopold II accused Marie Henriette of the death of their son, an accusation she could not forgive. She was also humiliated by Leopold's open adultery. After 1872 they were no longer personally involved with each other but continued to appear in public as king and queen. The wedding anniversary of the king and queen in August 1878 was the subject of national celebrations all over Belgium: Festivals were arranged, public buildings decorated and four holidays declared. Marie Henriette was given a tiara financed by the contributions of citizens through a public committee, and the queen held a patriotic speech in gratitude.

Queen Marie Henriette was interested in music and painting. Her main interest was in her Hungarian horses. She did not keep horses only for riding, but was actively engaged in their breeding. She also personally tended to their needs, something which was not customary for a royal woman to do in this time period and was considered eccentric.

The queen was interested in military issues and often attended the military drill at Beverloo in the east of Belgium, on her Hungarian horse which she had named Beverloo. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871, she engaged in medical care. While Belgium did not participate in the war, the queen devoted herself to the care of the foreign wounded soldiers from the war who passed their borders. She convinced the king to open the royal palace in Brussels as a hospital for the wounded soldiers after the Battle of Sedan, and personally attended to the wounded there. Her efforts were recognized and King John I of Saxony awarded her the Sidonie Order as an acknowledgement. She was also engaged in the care of those suffering during the smallpox epidemic in Brussels in 1871.

After the death of her son, Marie Henriette left the care of her children almost entirely to governesses and tutors who reportedly abused their authority and treated them badly, while their mother became a distant figure to them and approved of the tutors' strict disciplinarian methods. She wished for her daughters to enter dynastic marriages. She was pleased with Louise's marriage, because it gave herself the opportunity to visit her childhood Hungary often. She was pleased over her daughter Stephanie's prestigious marriage to the Austrian crown prince in 1881. When their son-in-law the Crown prince of Austria committed suicide in the Mayerling incident in 1889, Marie Henriette and Leopold ignored the ban from the Austrian Emperor and attended his funeral. She supported a marriage between her last daughter Clementine and her husband's nephew, the Belgian crown prince, and was devastated when the crown prince died in 1891.

Queen Marie Henriette did not support king Leopold's interest in the Congo, who compared it to the failed project of the Mexican Empire and saw the whole colonial project as an unrealistic adventure.

Queen Marie Henriette often visited Spa for extended periods of time, to relax from her representational duties as queen and the court life in Brussels, leaving her ceremonial duties to her daughter Clementine. Spa and the Ardennes reminded her of her childhood Hungary, and she enjoyed taking walks and riding her horses. In the year of 1895, this recurring situation became permanent. In 1895 she retreated to Spa; her youngest daughter Clementine replaced her as first lady at the Court in Brussels for the remainder of her husband's life. Marie Henriette bought the Hôtel du Midi in Spa and effectively separated from her husband. With her assistant Auguste Goffinet, she installed eighteen horses next to her villa, attended horse races and received foreign dignitaries. She continued to perform her duties as queen limited to the city of Spa, where she visited schools and performed charity and protected artists, and was referred to as the "Queen of Spa".

Marie Henriette died at the Hôtel du Midi in Spa. She was buried in the Royal Crypt at the Church of Our Lady of Laeken in Brussels. Her husband later married (though illegally under Belgian law) his mistress Caroline Delacroix.

Issue

 * Princess Louise of Belgium (1858–1924) married to Prince Philipp of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 * Prince Léopold, Duke of Brabant (1859–1869); died young;
 * Princess Stéphanie of Belgium (1864–1945) married to Prince Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria, son of Franz Joseph I of Austria and Elisabeth of Bavaria;
 * Princess Clémentine of Belgium (1872–1955) married to Victor, Prince Napoléon

Titles and styles

 * 23 August 1836 – 22 August 1853: Her Imperial and Royal Highness Archduchess Marie Henriette of Austria
 * 22 August 1853 – 17 December 1865: Her Imperial and Royal Highness The Duchess of Brabant
 * 17 December 1865 – 19 September 1902: Her Majesty The Queen of the Belgians

Honours
She received the following awards:

 * Austria-Hungary: Dame of the Order of the Starry Cross, 1st Class
 * Kingdom of Bavaria: Dame of the Order of St. Michael
 * 🇧🇪 Belgium: Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold
 * Mexican Empire: Dame Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Charles, 10 April 1865
 * Persian Empire: Order of the Sun, 1st Class, 17 June 1873
 * Kingdom of Portugal: Dame of the Order of Queen Saint Isabel, 5 August 1854
 * Kingdom of Prussia: Dame of the Order of Louise, 1st Class
 * Kingdom of Saxony: Dame of the Order of Sidonia, 1871
 * 🇪🇸 Spain: Dame of the Order of Queen Maria Luisa, 6 April 1863
 * Holy See: Golden Rose, 1893 – gift of Pope Leo XIII
 * undefined: Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, 1st Class, 1878

title: Marie Henriette of Austria


text:
Talk:Chancellor of Poland

Untitled
To translate when I have more time: - about chancellors juridical courts. I am still looking for information about history and competences of Deputy Chancellors (podkanclerze) - help appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move
To Chancellor (Poland)? What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete templates
It would apprear that the 'Deputy Chancellors' Templates are missing quite a few people.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

GA status
im sorry, but this article doesn't meet GA standards; it is not well referenced. I can't even read the single reference provided. The only note doesn't have a citation, how is a reader supposed to know if that's truthful or not? I'm not saying the article is lying because there's not much verifiability, I mean the material sounds plausible, but sounding plausible isn't quite enough for GA status :/. Homestarmy 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire article is based on the reference (external link) listed in reference section. It was some months ago but I believe I used that Polish article as the basis for most of the information in this article. So the article is referenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the criteria is "well-referenced", not just "referenced". I admit, that's a slightly ambiguous criteria, but one reference just doesn't seem like it will do an article of this nature justice. Plus, it's still in Polish, I doubt that most readers of this here english Wikipedia will be able to read it :/. If you feel that strongly though, you can bring this to the Good articles/Disputes page as a dispute, but I don't think any of the people there know how to read Polish either. It's not that I hate Polish or anything, but if it can't be read, then I don't see how most readers can confirm the information. Homestarmy 04:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree on that one. While browsing the googlebooks for more English references might be tiresome, it would certainly look better. Besides, above you've posted yet another reference. Why not use it here? There's three more mentioned at Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ready to be incorporated here...  // Halibutt 07:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I find an English language source discussing Polish chancellors, it will be a first. This is a very obscure subject, and there are very few references. I know some other Polish ones, offline, some online may reveal more, but the one that is used now is rather comprehensive. And I don't think that there is anything in Offices... article about chancellors that is not here?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the more refs, the merrier. Just in case you could add those here. This wouldn't harm anyone I guess - yet would satisfy the needs of those who like every single statement easy to be cross-checked.  // Halibutt 19:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

B-class review
Needs inline cites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Name change
Is it possible to change the article name from Kanclerz to Chancellor of Poland? There is no such position or post these days (in the third republic - III Rzeczpospolita) therefore it would be very hard to confuse the title with other positions like the President or Prime Minister. Main reason for the change would be that this is English Wikipedia and the title itself may be hard to pronounce and difficult to understand.

THANKS ;) User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 8:24pm, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I think our naming convention would rather suggest Chancellor (Poland), but I don't have strong feelings here. . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The Polish "kanclerz" and the English "chancellor" are cognate terms. Thus nothing is lost, and clarity is gained, by rendering the Polish term here by the English one.
 * "Chancellor (Poland)" does indeed seem the proper title for the article, as the name of the office was not actually worded "Chancellor of Poland".
 * Nihil novi (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chancellor of Poland


text:
Category:Local government in Shropshire

The historic and ceremonial county of Shropshire, England, located in the West Midlands region, has two unitary authorities as the local authorities (since 1 April 2009) - Shropshire Council and Telford and Wrekin Borough Council. A number of authorities existed before the reorganisations of 1974 and 2009 and they can be found in this category.

The entire county is parished. Civil parishes that consist of more than one main village and are named therefore "x with x" are included here. Also parishes with names such as "x Rural" can be found here. A full list of parishes in Shropshire exists: List of civil parishes in Shropshire.

title: Category:Local government in Shropshire


text:
Douglas Morton Dunlop

Douglas Morton Dunlop (1909–1987) was a renowned British orientalist and scholar of Islamic and Eurasian history.

Early life and education
Born in England, Dunlop studied at Bonn and Oxford under the historian Paul Ernst Kahle (1875–1965). His work was also influenced by such scholars as Zeki Validi Togan, Mikhail Artamonov, and George Vernadsky. His uncle was B. K. Cunningham, an Anglican priest and academic.

Career
In the 1950s and 1960s, Dunlop was Professor of History at Columbia University in New York. He is best known for his influential histories of Arab civilization and the Khazar Khaganate. Dunlop was the "most esteemed scholar of the Khazar monarchy." He had command of the many languages needed to study the Khazars, information about whom is found in Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Chinese literature.

As author

 * "The Arabic Tradition of the Summa Alexandrinorum", in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 1982
 * Arab civilization to A.D. 1500 London: Longman, 1971.
 * Arab civilization to A.D. 1500, New York: Praeger, 1971.
 * The History of the Jewish Khazars, New York: Schocken Books, 1967.
 * "The Khazars." The Dark Ages: Jews in Christian Europe, 711–1096. 1966.
 * "The Translations of al-Bitrîq and Yahyâ (Yuhannâ) b. al-Bitrîq", in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1959
 * Dunlop, Douglas M.. (1957) "Sources of Gold and Silver in Islam according to al-Hamdani (10th Century AD)", in Studia Islamica
 * "Philosophical Predecessors and Contemporaries of Ibn Bâjjah", in The Islamic Quarterly, 1955
 * "Aspects of the Khazar Problem", in Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society, 1951.
 * "Ibn Bajjah's 'Tadbîru l-Mutawahhid'", in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 1945.
 * "The Karaits of East Asia", in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1944.
 * "Muḥammad b. Mūsā al- Kh wārizmī", in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 1943.
 * "The Dhunnunids of Toledo", in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 1942.

As translator

 * Abu Mashar al-Balkhi, Jafar Ibn Muhammad. (1971) The Mudhâkarât fî'Ilm an-Nujûm (Dialogues on Astrology) Attributed to Abû Ma'shar al Balkhî (Albumasar) (Book Chapter in Iran and Islam: in memory of the late Vladimir Minorsky )
 * al-Farabi, Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh. (1961) Fusul al-Madani: Aphorisms of the Statesman  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * al-Farabi, Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh. (1959) "Al-Farabi's Paraphrase of the Categories of Aristotle [Part 2]". The Islamic quarterly pp. 21–54
 * al-Farabi, Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh. (1957) "Al-Farabi's Paraphrase of the Categories of Aristotle [Part 1]" The Islamic quarterly pp. 168–197
 * al-Farabi, Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh. (1956) "Al-Farabi's Introductory Risalah on Logic" The Islamic quarterly pp. 224–235
 * al-Farabi, Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh. (1956) "Al-Farabi's Eisagoge" The Islamic quarterly pp. 117–138
 * al-Farabi, Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh. (1955) "Al-Farabi's Introductory Sections on Logic" The Islamic quarterly pp. 264–282
 * al-Farabi, Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh. (1952) "Al-Farabi's Aphorisms of the Statesman" (Journal Article in Iraq (London) ) pp. 93–117
 * al-Farabi, Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh. (1951) "The Existence and Definition of Philosophy / From an Arabic text ascribed to al-Farabi" (Journal Article in Iraq (London) pp. 76–93)

title: Douglas Morton Dunlop


text:
User talk:Magis00

Welcome!
'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
 * Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Angers
I'm afraid that there are a few problems with your edits on this article:
 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, and demands that its articles be written froma neutral point of view, couched in the sort of language one expects to find in a reference work. Thus, sentences like: "Led by the wise, endearing, and engaging Mark Melin", or: "CIDEF is believed by many to be the best place in the world to learn the French language (c'est une langue très riche après tout) in its purest form: l'accent Angevin" are not acceptable.
 * 2) You've used some non-English translations from the French; I'm not entirely sure what a "scholastic year" is meant to be; it could be "an academic year" or "a year of study". I've guessed at the former; if it's the latter, let me know, and I can change it.  Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "an immersion of international students".
 * 3) When another editor changes what you've written, don't just change it back with no explanation. At least explain in the "Edit summary" box, but it's better (especially when the changes are significant) to explain on the article's own Discussion page. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough Mel. My motivations for insisting upon the information about the accent and for including a URL for CIDEF are twofold: I know that many college-aged students who are considering going abroad lack resources for gaining an understanding of the place they'd be going; if they are considering Angers I feel that an entry about CIDEF would benefit them and that links to CIDEF would be of use as well. Secondly, angevins take great pride in their accent and are well aware of its perception by their countrymen, the same as New Yorkers or Bostonians or Scotsmen, and for those considering study-abroad with the aim of attaining fluency in a foreign language it's important to have access to info about that as well. Peace. magis00 14:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I've put the external link in the correct section. I'm still unsure about some of the stuff about the accent, but I've left it in, albeit toned down a little. Was I right about 'academic year' though? Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Magis00


text: Category:Algologists

title: Category:Algologists


text:
User:Lauchlin

Just editing some info about the local area mostly. Tasmania I have a vanity website at http://www.lauchlin.com/ for those that are interested. Lauchlin 12:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

My Pics

More of my photos on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lokulin/).

title: User:Lauchlin


text:
Lunar Receiving Laboratory

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) was a facility at NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (Building 37) that was constructed to quarantine astronauts and material brought back from the Moon during the Apollo program to reduce the risk of back-contamination. After recovery at sea, crews from Apollo 11, Apollo 12, and Apollo 14 walked from their helicopter to the Mobile Quarantine Facility on the deck of an aircraft carrier and were brought to the LRL for quarantine. Samples of rock and regolith that the astronauts collected and brought back were flown directly to the LRL and initially analyzed in glovebox vacuum chambers.

 * [[File:NASA-Houston LRL-installation.png]]

The quarantine requirement was dropped for Apollo 15 and later missions. The LRL was used for study, distribution, and safe storage of the lunar samples. Between 1969 and 1972, six Apollo space flight missions brought back 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand, and dust from the lunar surface—in all, 2,200 samples from six exploration sites. Other lunar samples were returned to Earth by three automated Soviet spacecraft, Luna 16 in 1970, Luna 20 in 1972, and Luna 24 in 1976, which returned samples totaling 300 grams (about 3/4 pound).

In 1976, some of the samples were moved to Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, for second-site storage. In 1979, a Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility was built to serve as the chief repository for the Apollo samples: permanent storage in a physically secure and non-contaminating environment. The facility includes vaults for the samples and records, and laboratories for sample preparation and study. The Lunar Receiving Laboratory building was later occupied by NASA's Life Sciences division, contained biomedical and environment labs, and was used for experiments involving human adaptation to microgravity.

In September 2019, NASA announced that the Lunar Receiving Laboratory had not been used for two years and would be demolished.

title: Lunar Receiving Laboratory


text:
German Red Cross

The German Red Cross (GRC) (Deutsches Rotes Kreuz ; DRK) is the national Red Cross Society in Germany.

With 4 million members, it is the third largest Red Cross society in the world. The German Red Cross offers a wide range of services within and outside Germany. GRC provides 52 hospitals, elderly care (over 500 nursing homes and a mobile nursing care network of covering the entire country), care for children and youth (i.e. 1.300 kindergartens, a full range of social services for children). GRC also provides 75% of the blood supply and 60% of the emergency medical services in Germany, as well as first aid training. GRC headquarters provides international humanitarian aid (disaster management and development assistance) to over 50 countries across the world.

Voluntary societies of the German Red Cross
The majority of active voluntary Red Cross members are part of the five voluntary societies of the German Red Cross.
 * Bereitschaften (disaster relief units, about 170,000 volunteers)
 * Wohlfahrts- & Sozialarbeit (welfare work, about 40,000 volunteers)
 * Jugendrotkreuz (Red Cross Youth, about 140,000 members)
 * Bergwacht (mountain rescue service, about 12,000 volunteers)
 * Wasserwacht (lifeguard service, about 140,000 volunteers)

Formation and early years
Instituted in 1864 by Aaron Silverman of the Charité hospital of Berlin, the German Red Cross was a voluntary civil assistance organization officially acknowledged by the Geneva Convention in 1929.

General Curt W. von Pfuel was the Chairman of the Central Committee of the German National Red Cross during World War I.

One of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles prevented the DRK from having any involvement in military matters. As a result, during the Weimar Republic (1918 to 1933), under the leadership of Joachim von Winterfeldt-Mencken, the DRK became a national organization focusing on social welfare.

Nazi Germany
In April 1933, Nazi Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick made it clear to Winterfeldt-Mencken that the focus on social welfare was over; the DRK would be expected to play its part in supporting the German armed forces in any future conflict. Shortly after, the DRK was informed that Dr. Paul Hocheisen, head of the SS Medical Corps, had been given responsibility for voluntary nursing organizations.

On 11 June 1933, Frick was invited to speak at Red Cross Day. He declared:"'The Red Cross is something like the conscience of the nation. ... Together with the nation, the Red Cross is ready to commit all its strength for the high goals of our leader, Adolf Hitler'."The DRK was quick to respond to the changed circumstances, as Winterfeldt-Mencken had always been opposed to parliamentary democracy. The Workers' Samaritan League, a left-wing humanitarian organization, had always been an unwelcome competitor to the DRK. Hocheisen quickly arranged for it to be taken over by the DRK. Similarly, the DRK quickly moved to rid itself of left-wing members, and in June 1933, decided to apply the Nazi Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, and dismissed its Jewish employees.

However, the DRK was still a member of the Red Cross movement, and Germany remained a signatory to the Geneva Convention, so the German Red Cross could not apply the same level of Gleichschaltung, or nazification, as other organizations. The attitude of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) towards the DRK exclusion of Jews was later expressed in a 1939 letter by ICRC President Max Huber. According to him, the primary obligation of neutral treatment as foreseen in the Geneva Convention was to victims of war, not to the helpers. Huber argued that as it was impossible to prescribe rules in conflict with national laws, and that it was better to take a flexible approach than risk breaking up the international Red Cross movement.

Winterfeldt-Mencken's professions of loyalty to the regime were not reciprocated; the Nazi leadership sought to have him replaced with Hocheisen. German President Paul von Hindenburg was able to influence the decision, instead selecting Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Queen Victoria's grandson. Charles Edward had moved from England to Germany at the age of 15, had subsequently served as a German army general in World War I, and had long supported right-wing movements in general, and Hitler in particular. He was already honorary president of the National Socialist Motor Corps.

Charles Edward became DRK President in December 1933, and Hocheisen became his deputy. Not unsurprisingly, the two did not work well together. There followed a typically Nazi power struggle, in which Hocheisen was eventually able to assert his authority – only to be ousted by top SS doctor Ernst-Robert Grawitz at the start of 1937. At the end of 1938, the German Red Cross officially came under the control of the Ministry of the Interior's Social Welfare Organization, becoming de facto a Nazi entity, led by Grawitz in the role of 'acting president', with Oswald Pohl as chairman of the board of administration. By this stage, there was no doubt about who was in charge, though Charles Edward remained in his post until 1945. As he was related to European royalty and spoke English, he was a useful figurehead for the DRK.

Grawitz was different: he would turn up to International Red Cross meetings in his SS uniform. He took a radical approach to his task. He introduced a hierarchical chain of command into the DRK, and arranged for a new large and imposing "representative" presidential building to be constructed in Potsdam-Babelsberg, complete with a balcony from which speeches could be made. Grawitz's ideal concept for the DRK was that of a "healthy structure which would fit itself organically into the laws of life in the National Socialist Third Reich".

In the years after the Nazi takeover, in addition to adopting Nazi salutes and symbols, the DRK introduced Nazi ideology into its training. Rescue teams were trained in military conduct, basic concepts of National Socialism, pseudogenetics, racial hygiene and demographic policy. More senior staff – doctors, nurses and managers – were educated in demographic policy, racial history, racial hygiene, the biology of inheritance and the foundations of genetics. As a preparation for war, the DRK focused on training people to deal with air raids and gas attacks, and organised joint exercises with the police and the fire brigades. In June 1943, the Swiss Red Cross proposed that food parcels should be sent to Hitler's Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, but its proposal was rejected by the German Red Cross.

Postwar era to present day
After Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II, the Allied Military Government issued a special law outlawing the NSDAP and all of its branches. Known as "Law Number Five", this denazification decree disbanded the DRK, like all organizations linked to the NSDAP. Social welfare organizations, including the German Red Cross, had to be established anew during the postwar reconstruction of both West Germany and East Germany.

The German Red Cross in West Germany was recognized by the ICRC on 25 June 1952. In East Germany, the Deutsches Rotes Kreuz der DDR was established on 23 October 1952 and recognized by the International Red Cross on 9 November 1954. The East German Red Cross issued a magazine called Deutsches Rotes Kreuz (German Red Cross). Albert Schweitzer became an important role model for the organization. The East German Red Cross' status as a separate entity ended on 1 January 1991, when it was merged with the German Red Cross of the former West Germany.

Red Cross Hospital in South Korea
From May 1954 to March 1959. West German Red Cross Hospital provided the medical service for postwar rehabilitation after Korean War

Presidents of the German Red Cross
During the First World War, General Curt Wolf von Pfuel was the Chairman of the Central Committee of the German National Red Cross. Since 1921, the society has had the following presidents:

Secretaries General of the German Red Cross
DRK until the end of World War II:
 * 1887–1903: Dr. Otto Liebner
 * 1903–1920: Prof. Ludwig Kimmle
 * 1920–1921: Dr. Thode
 * 1921–1924: Paul Drauth
 * 1924–1934: Wolfram Freiherr von Rotenhan
 * 1935–1945: "Acting president" Ernst-Robert Grawitz

title: German Red Cross


text:
User:V8rik

Rik van der Lingen

 * I am using BKchem for image drawing (remember to export as SVG (CAIRO), Windows 7 users, find MSVCR71.dll on the internet and store in the /Program ]Files/BKChem/bkchem/ folder)
 * This user also blogs: http://chem.vander-lingen.nl
 * Other ventures: http://assessmentee.com https://procedurecheck.wordpress.com/

Books
Curation project
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:V8rik/Books/Stereochemistry
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:V8rik/Books/Organic_reactions
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:V8rik/Books/Functional_groups
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:V8rik/Books/Bonds_of_carbon
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:V8rik/Books/Total_synthesis

title: User:V8rik


text:
Jarallah Omar

Jarallah Omar al-Kuhali (جار الله عمر) (1942 in Kuhal, Ibb Governorate – 28 December 2002) was a Yemeni politician, intellectual, and guerrilla fighter.

Life
He was trained in Islamic law, but in the 1960s he turned towards Marxism. He was a political prisoner from 1968 to 1971 and participated in the civil war between North Yemen and South Yemen as a leader of the National Liberation Front, a politico-military coalition affiliated to the socialist government of the South. He escaped to the South after his forces were defeated by then-North Yemeni President and current unified Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Omar became a member of the Politburo of the Yemeni Socialist Party (YSP), the ruling party in the South, and was named minister of culture in the government of a newly unified Yemen in the early 1990s. He resigned his cabinet post and went into exile shortly before a failed attempt by former southern politicians to re-establish a "Democratic Republic of Yemen" in 1994. The president of the ephemeral secessionist regime, Ali Salim al-Baidh, was a former ally of Omar in the factional disputes within the YSP in 1986. When Omar returned to the country in 1995, he developed a reputation as a leading advocate of human rights and political freedoms in the authoritarian political climate of Yemen.

Death
Omar was assassinated in Sana'a in December 2002, receiving two shots to the chest. The assassin was 26-year-old Ali Ahmad al-Jarallah, an Islamist hardliner who sided with Saleh's government in the civil war. He was arrested immediately following the shooting and in interrogation revealed plots to kill other secular leftist (Nasserite and Baathist) leaders. He was sentenced to death on 14 September 2003.

Aftermath
At the time of Omar's death, he was deputy secretary-general of the YSP. He was buried in the "martyrs' cemetery" in Sana'a, on the orders of President Saleh.

title: Jarallah Omar


text:
The Machine (band)

The Machine is one of the oldest U.S. Pink Floyd tribute bands. Formed in 1988 by Tahrah Cohen and Joe Pascarell, the band has performed many shows around the world.

The Machine began as a cover band who played gigs local to the Rockland County, NY area and did not play Pink Floyd Music exclusively. In 1989, they were approached by a talent agent and it was suggested that they perform full-time. They seemed to garner such a delighted response from their audiences that the band's reputation continued to grow and soon they became one of the forerunners of the tribute band phenomenon.

The band has played thousands of shows worldwide and has seen several lineup changes. The most significant change came in December 2012 when Pascarell left the band for the second time (Pascarell also left the band in the year 2000 resulting in a 9-month hiatus). In January 2013 Ryan Ball became the lead guitarist and Adam Minkoff joined on bass and lead vocals. During the fall of 2015 Pascarell rejoined on lead guitar and lead vocals, Ryan Ball returned to bass. In March 2018, Ryan Ball left the band and was replaced by longtime friend of the band Stephen Bard who stayed on for one year and departed in March 2019. He has been replaced by Dylan Kelehan, previously of another Floyd tribute band Dark Side of the Hudson. Kelehan parted ways with the group on April 3, 2021, and was replaced by Machine veteran, Ryan Ball.

On The Machine's official Facebook page on January 25, 2022, it was announced that Joe Pascarell had died. "It is with the most broken of hearts that we announce the passing of our friend, bandmate, and brother, Joe Pascarell." Since Joe's passing, The Machine has continued to perform with bassists/vocalists Adam Minkoff and Connor Kennedy.

On September 21, 2022, it was announced that Connecticut based bassist and teacher, Chris DeAngelis, had joined the lineup on bass and lead vocals.

Members
Current members:
 * Chris DeAngelis (bass, lead vocals)
 * Scott Chasolen (keyboards, vocals)
 * Tahrah Cohen (drums)
 * Ryan Ball (lead guitar, vocals)

Past members:
 * Stephen Bard
 * Dylan Kelehan
 * Neil Alexander
 * Adam Price
 * Marc Zimmerman
 * Wes Nagy
 * Sarah Gardner
 * Joe Pascarell
 * Adam Minkoff

Discography

 * (1999) Softly Spoken Magic Spells (A live concert recording from The Wetlands in New York City, including a performance of Pink Floyd's classic album The Dark Side of the Moon
 * (2000) Till We Meet Again
 * (2003) Two Nights at the Keswick (Live CD & DVD)
 * (2006) The Machine Unplugged (Recorded Live at the BB King's Blues Club in NYC in October 2005)
 * (2007) The Machine Live In Amsterdam (DVD recorded of a live performance in Amsterdam)
 * (2011) The Symphonic Side of the Moon (Live performance of the Dark Side of the Moon and "Comfortably Numb" with a symphony orchestra)

title: The Machine (band)