text:
Proto-Indo-European verbs

Proto-Indo-European verbs reflect a complex system of morphology, more complicated than the substantive, with verbs categorized according to their aspect, using multiple grammatical moods and voices, and being conjugated according to person, number and tense. In addition to finite forms thus formed, non-finite forms such as participles are also extensively used.

The verbal system is clearly represented in Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, which closely correspond in nearly all aspects of their verbal systems, and are two of the most well-understood of the early daughter languages of Proto-Indo-European.

Basics
Verb conjugation in Proto-Indo-European involves the interplay of six dimensions (number, person, voice, mood, aspect and tense) with the following variables identified under the Cowgill-Rix system, which is one of the methodologies proposed

and applies only to certain subfamilies:

Further, participles can be considered part of the verbal systems although they are not verbs themselves, and as with other PIE nouns, they can be declined across seven or eight cases, for three genders and three numbers.

Roots
The starting point for the morphological analysis of the PIE verb is the root. PIE roots are morphemes with lexical meanings, which usually consist of a single vowel flanked by one or more consonants arranged to very specific rules.

Stems and stem formation
Before the final endings — to denote number, person, etc., can be applied, additional elements (S) may be added to the root (R). The resulting component here after any such affixion is the stem, to which the final endings (E) can then be added to obtain the conjugated forms.

 * $$\underbrace{\underbrace{\mathrm{root+suffix}}_{\mathrm{stem}} + \mathrm{ending}}_{\mathrm{word}}$$

Athematic and thematic stems
Verbs, like nominals, made a basic distinction based on whether a short, ablauting vowel -e- or -o-, called the thematic vowel was affixed to the root before the final endings added.

In the case of the thematic conjugations, some of the endings differed depending on whether this vowel was present or absent, but by and large the endings were the same for both types.

The athematic system is much older and exhibits ablaut within the paradigm. In the descendant languages, athematic verbs were often extended with a thematic vowel, likely because of the complications resulting from the consonant clusters formed when the mostly consonant-initial endings were added directly onto the mostly consonant-final stems.

Consequently, the athematic verbs became a non-productive relic class in the later Indo-European languages. In groups such as Germanic and Italic, the athematic verbs had almost gone entirely extinct by the time of written records, while Sanskrit and Ancient Greek preserve them more clearly.

Proposed endings
At least the following sets of endings existed:
 * Primary ("present") endings used for:
 * Present tense of the indicative mood of imperfective verbs.
 * Subjunctive mood
 * Secondary ("past" or "tenseless") endings used for:
 * Past tense of the indicative mood of imperfective verbs.
 * Indicative mood of perfective verbs.
 * Optative mood
 * Stative endings used for
 * Indicative mood of stative verbs.
 * Imperative endings used for
 * Imperative mood of all verbs.

Note that, from a diachronic perspective, the secondary endings were actually the more basic ones, while the primary endings were formed from them by adding a suffix, originally -i in the active voice and -r in the middle voice.

The more central subfamilies of Indo-European have innovated by replacing the middle-voice -r with the -i of the active voice.

Traditional accounts say that the first-person singular primary ending is the only form where athematic verbs used a different ending from thematic verbs. Newer accounts by, and  are similar, with the proto-forms modernized using laryngeal notation.

Sihler, however, notes that many of the most archaic languages have third-person singular forms missing a t and proposes an alternative t-less thematic ending along with the standard ending. Greek and Balto-Slavic have t-less forms in thematic actives, whereas Vedic and Hittite have t-less athematic middle forms.

uses the t-less forms as the starting point for a radical rethinking of the thematic endings, based primarily on Greek and Lithuanian. These proposals are still controversial, however.

Stative endings
A second conjugation has been proposed in Jay Jasanoff's h₂e-conjugation theory. Svensson (2001) suggests *-h₂éy for the second and third dual stative endings, on the basis of evidence from Indo-Iranian, Tocharian, and Gaulish.

Verb aspects
Proto-Indo-European verbs belonged to one of three aspect classes:
 * Stative verbs depicted a state of being.
 * Eventive verbs expressed events. These could be further divided between:
 * Perfective verbs depicting actions viewed as punctual, an entire process without attention to internal details, completed as a whole or not completed at all. No distinction in tense was made.
 * Imperfective verbs depicting durative, ongoing or repeated action, with attention to internal details. This included the time of speaking; separate endings were used for present or future events in contrast to past events.

The terminology around the stative, perfective and imperfective aspects can be confusing. The use of these terms here is based on the reconstructed meanings of the corresponding forms in PIE and the terms used broadly in linguistics to refer to aspects with these meanings.

In traditional PIE terminology, the forms described here as stative, perfective and imperfective are known as the perfect, aorist and present systems:

 * Stative = Perfect
 * Perfective = Aorist
 * Imperfective = Present

The present/imperfective system in turn can be conjugated in two tenses, described here as present and past but traditionally known as present and imperfect. The traditional terms are based on the names of the corresponding forms in Ancient Greek (also applied to Sanskrit), and are still commonly encountered. Furthermore, there is a separate secondary-verb form commonly known as the "stative" and marked by a suffix *-eh₁-, which has no connection with the stative/perfect described here.

The following table shows the two systems of terminology.

In Proto-Indo-European, the aspects had no tense meaning, which later developed in the descendant languages. In Ancient Greek, for example, the perfect carried the meaning of a state resulting from a past action, but the PIE stative referred to the state alone. Likewise, the aorist, though having a tense-like meaning in Ancient Greek, had none in PIE. Perfective and stative verbs were effectively tenseless, or indifferent to time.

Eventive verbs
The perfective ("aorist") and imperfective ("present") aspect classes are together known as eventive, or verbs that depict events, to distinguish them from stative (verbs that depict a state of being). Both shared the same conjugation, with some small differences. The main difference was that imperfective verbs allowed the use of special present-tense (primary) endings, while perfective verbs only allowed the default tenseless (secondary) endings.

The present tense used the primary eventive endings, and was used specifically to refer to present events, although it could also refer to future events. The past tense referred to past events, and used the secondary eventive endings. Perfective verbs always used the secondary endings, but did not necessarily have a past-tense meaning. The secondary endings were, strictly speaking, tenseless, even in imperfective verbs. This meant that past endings could also be used with a present meaning, if it was obvious from context in some way. This use still occurred in Vedic Sanskrit, where in a sequence of verbs only the first might be marked for present tense (with primary endings), while the remainder was unmarked (secondary endings). If the verbs were subjunctive or optative, the mood markings might likewise be only present on the first verb, with the others not marked for mood (i.e. indicative).

In Ancient Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian, the secondary endings came to be accompanied by a prefixing particle known as the augment, reconstructed as *e- or *h₁e-. The function of the augment is unclear (it is usually thought to be connected to the meaning of 'past'), but it was not a fixed part of the inflection as it was in the later languages. In Homeric Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, many imperfect (past imperfective) and aorist verbs are still found lacking the augment; its use became mandatory only in later Greek and Sanskrit.

Morphologically, the indicative of perfective verbs was indistinguishable from the past indicative of imperfective verbs, and it is likely that in early stages of PIE, these were the same verb formation. At some point in the history of PIE, the present tense was created by developing the primary endings out of the secondary endings. Not all verbs came to be embellished with these new endings; for semantic reasons, some verbs never had a present tense. These verbs were the perfective verbs, while the ones that did receive a present tense were imperfective.

Stative verbs
Stative verbs signified a current state of being rather than events. It was traditionally known as perfect, a name which was assigned based upon the Latin tense before the stative nature of the PIE form was fully known. While Latin conflated the static aspect concept with tense, in PIE there was no association with any particular tense.

The stative aspect differed from the eventives by being marked formally with its own personal endings, having a root in the singular in o-grade, but elsewhere in zero-grade, and typically by exhibiting reduplication.

Like the perfective verbs, stative verbs were tenseless, and described a state without reference to time. This did not mean that stative verbs referred to permanent states (as in Spanish ser versus temporary estar), but rather that there was no way to express, within the verbal morphology, whether the state was applicable in the present moment, in the past, or in the future. These nuances were, presumably, expressed using adverbs.

In many daughter languages, the stative took on a meaning that implied a previous action that had caused the current state, a meaning which resulted in the Greek perfect. Eventually, by shifting emphasis to the inchoative action, an action that was just started or a state that was just begun prior to the resulting state, the stative generally developed into a past tense (as in Germanic, Latin, and later, Greek). The original present sense of the IE stative is seen in the Germanic preterite-present verbs such as Gothic wait "I know" (< PIE *, originally "I am in a state resulting from having seen/found"; cf. Latin vidēre "to see", Sanskrit vinátti "he finds"), with exact cognates in Sanskrit véda, Ancient Greek oĩda, and Old Church Slavonic vědě, all of which retain their essentially present tense meaning "I know".

Voice
Verbs originally had two voices: active and mediopassive. In some daughter languages (e.g., Sanskrit) this was supplemented with a passive voice; in others (e.g., Latin) the mediopassive evolved to have a passive meaning for roots that were also used in the active voice, but retained its mediopassive character for so-called deponent roots.

Mood
The moods of PIE included indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative and perhaps injunctive.

Indicative
The indicative mood was the default mood, and, alongside the imperative, the oldest. It was used for simple statements of fact.
 * Imperfective verbs. The indicative mood was the only mood to have distinctions in tense in imperfective verbs, all other moods were tenseless.
 * The present tense used the primary endings.
 * The past tense used the secondary endings.
 * Perfective verbs
 * The indicative of perfective verbs used secondary endings.
 * Stative verbs
 * They used their own, entirely different set of endings in the indicative mood.

Imperative
The imperative mood was used for commands directed towards other people, and therefore only occurred in the second and third person. It used its own set of special imperative endings.

Subjunctive
The subjunctive mood was used to describe completely hypothetical events, along the lines of "suppose that I oversleep...". It was also sometimes used for future events (which are by definition hypothetical rather than actual) for this reason.

The subjunctive was formed by adding the thematic vowel to the stem, along with primary endings, with the stem in the e-grade. The subjunctive of athematic verbs was thus thematic, and morphologically indistinguishable from a thematic indicative. For verbs that were already thematic, a second thematic vowel was added after the first, creating a long thematic vowel.

Optative
The optative mood was used for wishes or hopes, like the English "may I sleep well". It was formed with an athematic ablauting suffix -yéh₁- ~ -ih₁- attached to the zero-grade of the stem.

In Vedic Sanskrit, optatives were very rarely found for characterised stems (primary and secondary derivations); most occurrences of the optative are in root verbs. This is taken by Sihler to indicate that the optative was not really a mood in PIE, but a separate verb, and was thus restricted to being derived directly from roots only, not from already-derived verbs. In addition, it appears that in PIE itself, stative verbs did not have the optative mood; it was limited to eventive verbs. Early Indo-Iranian texts mostly lack attestations of stative optative forms.

Injunctive
The place of the injunctive mood, of obscure function, is debated. It takes the form of the bare root in e-grade with secondary endings, without the prefixed augment that was common to forms with secondary endings in these languages. The injunctive was thus entirely without tense marking. This causes Fortson (among others) to suggest that the use of the injunctive was for gnomic expressions (as in Homer) or in otherwise timeless statements (as in Vedic).

Verb formation
From any particular root, verbs could be derived in a variety of means.

In the most conservative Indo-European languages (e.g. Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Tocharian, Old Irish), there is a separate set of conjugational classes for each of the tense/aspect categories, with no general relationship obtaining between the class of a given verb in one category relative to another. The oldest stages of these languages (especially Vedic Sanskrit) reveal clear remains of an even less organized system, where a given verb root might have multiple ways, or no way at all, of being conjugated in a given tense/aspect category — sometimes with meanings that differ in unpredictable ways.

This clearly suggests that the tense/aspect categories originated as separate lexical verbs, part of a system of derivational morphology (compare the related verbs "to rise" and "to raise", or the abstract nouns "produce", "product", "production" derived from the verb "to produce"), and only gradually became integrated into a coherent system of inflectional morphology, which was still incomplete at the time of the proto-language.

There were a variety of means by which new verbs could be derived from existing verbal roots, as well as from fully formed nominals. Most of these involved adding a suffix to the root (or stem), but there were a few more peculiar formations. One formation that was relatively productive for forming imperfective verbs, but especially stative verbs, was reduplication, in which the initial consonants of the root were duplicated. Another notable way of forming imperfective verbs was the nasal infix, which was inserted within the root itself rather than affixed to it.

Root verbs
The most basic verb formation was derived directly from the root, with no suffix, and expressed the meaning of the root itself. Such "root verbs" could be either athematic or thematic; it was not predictable which type was used. The aspect of a root verb was determined by the root itself, which had its own "root aspect" inherent in the basic meaning of the root. Thus, there were verbal roots whose default meaning was durative, ongoing, or iterative, and verbs derived from them were generally imperfective in aspect. Roots whose meaning was punctiliar or discrete created perfective-aspect verbs. Stative roots were rare; perhaps the only reconstructible stative root verb was "know".

There are numerous unexplained surprises in this system, however. The common root meant "to be", which is an archetypically stative notion. Yet, aspect-wise, it was an imperfective root, and thus formed an imperfective root verb, rather than a stative verb.

Primary derivations
In early PIE, the aspect system was less well-developed, and root verbs were simply used in their root aspects, with various derivational formations available for expressing more specific nuances. By late PIE, however, as the aspect system evolved, the need had arisen for verbs of a different aspect than that of the root. Several of the formations, which originally formed distinct verbs, gradually came to be used as "aspect switching" derivations, whose primary purpose was to create a verb of one aspect from a root of another aspect.

This led to a fundamental distinction in PIE verb formations, between primary and secondary formations. Primary formations included the root verbs and the derivational formations that came to be used as aspect switching devices, while secondary formations remained strictly derivational and retained significant semantic value. For example, the secondary suffix derived causative verbs, and retained this purpose and meaning throughout the descendants of PIE. The common primary suffix, however, came to be used for the majority of verb formations in Latin, without any discernible meaning being conveyed by the suffix; its function had become purely morphological.

A verb needed no derivational or aspect-switching markers for its own root aspect. Affixes of various types were used to switch the inherent aspect to a different type. Such affixes created "characterised" verb formations, contrasting with the basic "root" or "uncharacterised" formation. Examples of aspect switching affixes include -yé-, -sḱé-, and the nasal infix, all of which were used to derive imperfective verbs from roots whose inherent aspect was not already imperfective. Conversely, the "s-aorist" formation (retained most notably in Greek) used the suffix -s- to create perfective verbs. Many roots were "hyper-characterized", however, with an aspect marker added to a root that already had the correct aspect. This may have been done in order to emphasize the aspect. For example, the s-aorist also seemed to have been used when the verb root was inherently perfective already.

A root did not necessarily have verbs to express all three aspects. There were many roots that seem to have had verbs for only for one or two aspects in PIE. For example, the root "to be" seems to have formed only an imperfective verb, no perfective or stative verbs derived from this root can be reconstructed. Various later languages amended this situation differently as needed, often by using entirely different roots (suppletion). Latin used the root "to become" to fill in as the perfective aspect of, while the Germanic languages used the root  "to live, to reside" in that role.

While several aspect switchers were available to be added to the root, particular markers were not exclusively assigned to any root. Certain roots did show a preference for the same markers in multiple daughter languages, but the use of a particular marker was not exclusive, and a variety of formations are often found for the same root. For example, the basic root for "stand", *steh₂-, was a perfective root. Therefore, the root verb had the punctual sense of "come to a standing position; to rise from a sitting position". In order to speak about "standing" in a present, durative sense ("be in a standing position"), the root verb required a derivational marker to put it into the imperfective aspect. For this root, the imperfective aspect switcher was often reduplication (Ancient Greek hístēmi, Sankskrit tíṣṭhati), but the Germanic languages also show a nasal infix or suffix for this root (Gothic present ik standa vs. preterite ik stōþ), at least by a later period. The Slavic languages, meanwhile, also have a form derived with the -yé- suffix. Such discrepancies suggest that in PIE proper, this root had no imperfective verb at all, and the aspect-switched verbs we see in the later descendants were formed independently of each other.

Many primary formations retained some "residue" of their original derivational function and meaning, and significant relics of this earlier derivational system can be reconstructed for PIE. The perfective root "to step" is reconstructible with two different imperfective derivations:  (Ancient Greek báskō, Sanskrit gácchati) and  (Ancient Greek baínō, Latin veniō). Both formations survived side by side in Greek, suggesting that they did not overlap significantly enough in meaning throughout their history for one or the other to fall out of use.

Secondary derivations
Secondary verbs were formed either from primary verb roots (so-called deverbal verbs) or from nouns (denominal verbs or denominative verbs) or adjectives (deadjectival verbs). (In practice, the term denominative verb is often used to incorporate formations based on both nouns and adjectives because PIE nouns and adjectives had the same suffixes and endings, and the same processes were used to form verbs from both nouns and adjectives.) Deverbal formations included causative ("I had someone do something"), iterative/inceptive ("I did something repeatedly"/"I began to do something"), desiderative ("I want to do something").

The formation of secondary verbs remained part of the derivational system and did not necessarily have completely predictable meanings (compare the remnants of causative constructions in English — to fall vs. to fell, to sit vs. to set, to rise vs. to raise and to rear).

They are distinguished from the primary formations by the fact that they generally are part of the derivational rather than inflectional morphology system in the daughter languages. However, as mentioned above, this distinction was only beginning to develop in PIE. Not surprisingly, some of these formations have become part of the inflectional system in particular daughter languages. Probably the most common example is the future tense, which exists in many daughter languages but in forms that are not cognate, and tend to reflect either the PIE subjunctive or a PIE desiderative formation.

Secondary verbs were always imperfective, and had no corresponding perfective or stative verbs, nor was it possible (at least within PIE) to derive such verbs from them. This was a basic constraint in the verbal system that prohibited applying a derived form to an already-derived form. Evidence from the Rig Veda (the earliest attestation of Sanskrit) indicates that secondary verbs in PIE were not conjugated in the subjunctive or optative moods. This suggests that these moods follow the same constraint, and are derivational in origin. The later Indo-European languages worked around these limitations, but each in their own way.

Formation types
The following gives a list of the most common verb types reconstructed for (late) PIE.

Root athematic
Also called "simple athematic", this formation derived imperfective verbs directly from a root. It can be divided into two subtypes:
 * 1) Normal type: *(é)-ti ~ *(∅)-énti. Alternating between accented e-grade root, and zero-grade root with accent on the endings.
 * 2) Narten type: *(ḗ/é)-ti ~ *(é)-nti. Mostly root accent and alternating lengthened/normal grade, or, according to an alternative view, fixed normal grade throughout.

The normal type is the most common by far.

Examples: *h₁ésti.

Root thematic
Also called "simple thematic", it functioned the same as the root athematic verbs. There were also two types:
 * 1) normal type: *(é)-eti ~ *(é)-onti. Accented e-grade root.
 * 2) "tudati" type: *(∅)-éti ~ *(∅)-ónti. Zero-grade root, accent on theme vowel.

The "tudati" type is named after the Sanskrit verb that typifies this formation. It is much rarer than the normal type.

Examples: *bʰéreti.

Reduplicated athematic
The root is prefixed with a copy of the initial consonant(s) of the root, separated by a vowel. The accent is fixed on this prefix, but the root grade alternates as in root athematic verbs. The vowel can be either e or i:
 * 1) e-reduplication: *(é)-(e)-ti ~ *(é)-(∅)-nti
 * 2) i-reduplication: *(í)-(e)-ti ~ *(í)-(∅)-nti

Examples: *dʰédʰeh₁ti, *stísteh₂ti.

Reduplicated thematic
*(í)-(∅)-eti ~ *(í)-(∅)-onti. Like the athematic equivalent, but the vowel is always i and the root is always in zero-grade (like in the "tudati" type).

Examples: *sísdeti.

Nasal infix
*(né)-ti ~ *(n)-énti. This peculiar formation consists of an infix -né- ~ -n- that is inserted before final consonant of the zero-grade root, and inflected with athematic inflection. The infix itself ablauts like root athematic verbs. This formation is limited to roots ending in a stop or laryngeal, and containing a non-initial sonorant. This sonorant is always syllabified in the zero-grade, the infix is never syllabic.

Examples: *linékʷti, *tl̥néh₂ti.

nu-suffix
*(∅)-néw-ti ~ *(∅)-nu-énti. Formed with an ablauting athematic suffix *-néw- ~ *-nu- attached to the root. These are sometimes considered to be a special case of the nasal-infix type.

Examples: *tn̥néwti.

ye-suffix
This thematic formation exists in two types:

 * 1) *(é)-y-eti ~ *(é)-y-onti. Accented root in e-grade. This type was primarily used to form transitive imperfective verbs from intransitive perfective verbs.
 * 2) *(∅)-y-éti ~ *(∅)-y-ónti. Zero-grade root with accent on the thematic vowel. This type formed mostly intransitive imperfective verbs, often deponent (occurring only in middle voice).

Examples: *wr̥ǵyéti, *gʷʰédʰyeti, *spéḱyeti.

sḱe-suffix
*(∅)-sḱ-éti ~ *(∅)-sḱ-ónti. Thematic, with zero-grade root and accent on the thematic vowel. This type formed durative, iterative or perhaps inchoative verbs.

Examples: *gʷm̥sḱéti, *pr̥sḱéti.

se-suffix
*(é)-s-eti ~ *(é)-s-onti. Thematic, with accented e-grade root.

Examples: *h₂lékseti.

eh₁-stative
*(∅)-éh₁-ti ~ *(∅)-éh₁-n̥ti. This formed secondary stative verbs from adjectival roots, perhaps also from adjective stems. The verbs thus created were, nonetheless, imperfective verbs. This suffix was thematicised in most descendants with a -ye- extension, thus -éh₁ye- as attested in most daughter languages. It is unclear if the verb ablauted; most indications are that it did not, but there are some hints that the zero-grade did occur in a few places (Latin past participle, Germanic class 3 weak verbs). Some scholars, including the editors of the Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, believe that the eh₁-stem was originally an aorist stem with 'fientive' meaning ('to become X'), whereas the -ye- extension created the present with 'essive' meaning, 'to be x'.

Examples: *h₁rudʰéh₁ti.

éye-causative/iterative
*(o)-éy-eti ~ *(o)-éy-onti. Thematic, affixed to the o-grade of the root, with accent on the suffix. This formed causative verbs, meaning "to cause to do", or iterative verbs, meaning "to do repeatedly". Most branches, like Germanic, preserve the causative meaning, but some (Greek and Slavic) retain mostly the iterative one.

Examples: *sodéyeti, *bʰoréyeti, *h₃roǵéyeti.

(h₁)se-desiderative
This thematic suffix formed desiderative verbs, meaning "to want to do". Two formations are attested:
 * 1) *(é)-(h₁)s-eti ~ *(é)-(h₁)s-onti. Accented full grade of the root.
 * 2) *(í)-(∅)-(h₁)s-eti ~ *(í)-(∅)-(h₁)s-onti. Reduplicated with i, accent on the reduplicated prefix, zero-grade root.

Examples: *wéydseti, *ḱíḱl̥h₁seti.

sye-desiderative
*(∅)-sy-éti ~ *(∅)-sy-ónti. Similar to above, but with an accented thematic vowel and zero-grade root.

Examples: *bʰuHsyéti.

ye-denominative
*-y-éti ~ *-y-ónti. Affixed to noun and adjective stems for a variety of meanings; accent is on the thematic vowel. The thematic vowel of the nominal stem, if any, is retained as e, as is any possible -eh₂ suffix, thus creating the variants -eyé- and -eh₂yé-, which developed into independent suffixes in many daughter languages.

h₂-factitive
*-h₂-ti ~ *-h₂-n̥ti. This formed factitive verbs from adjective stems. As above, the thematic vowel was retained, as e. Like the eh₁-stative, this suffix was often extended with -ye- in the daughter languages, giving -h₂ye-.

Examples: *néweh₂ti.

ye-factitive
*-y-éti ~ *-y-ónti. Very similar to the denominative, but formed from adjectives only. The thematic vowel is retained, but this time as o. The existence of this type in PIE is uncertain.

Root athematic
*(é)-t ~ *(∅)-ént. The same as root athematic imperfective verbs. Most perfective verbs appear to have been of this type.

Examples: *gʷémt, *léykʷt, *bʰúHt.

Root thematic
*(∅)-ét ~ *(∅)-ónt. The same as root thematic imperfective verbs. This formation was very rare in PIE, barely any are reconstructable, but became more widespread in the later languages. The formation seemed to have zero-grade of the root and accent on the thematic vowel, like the "tudati" type.

Examples: *h₁ludʰét.

Reduplicated thematic
*(é)-(∅)-et ~ *(é)-(∅)-ont. This formation was maybe even rarer than the root thematic type, only one verb is reconstructable.

Examples: *wéwket.

s-suffix
*(ḗ)-s-t ~ *(é)-s-n̥t. Inflected as the "Narten" athematic type, with lengthened grade in the singular and fixed accent. This suffix was the primary means of deriving perfective verbs from imperfective roots, though it appears that there were not many verbs created that way. The suffix became very productive in many of the descendants.

Examples: *dḗyḱst, *wḗǵʰst.

Root
*(ó)-e ~ *(∅)-ḗr. Owing to the rarity of stative roots, this formation was correspondingly rare. Only one verb can be reconstructed.

Examples: *wóyde.

Reduplicated
*(e)-(ó)-e ~ *(e)-(∅)-ḗr. This was the only way to form new stative verbs.

Examples: *memóne, *lelóykʷe.

The following is an example paradigm, based on, of the verb , "leave behind" (athematic nasal-infixed present, root aorist, reduplicated perfect). Two sets of endings are provided for the primary medio-passive forms (subjunctive and primary indicative) — the central dialects (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, and Armenian) use forms ending in, while the peripheral dialects (Italic, Celtic, Hittite, and Tocharian) use forms ending in , which are generally considered the original forms.

Ringe makes certain assumptions about synchronic PIE phonology that are not universally accepted:
 * 1) Sievers' Law applies in all positions and to all resonants, including.
 * 2) Word-final becomes  when adjacent to a voiced segment (i.e. vowel or voiced consonant).

The effects of the generally accepted synchronic boukólos rule whereby becomes  next to  or  are shown.

The following is an example paradigm, based on, of the verb "carry" in the simple thematic present tense. Two sets of endings are provided for the primary middle forms, as described above.

The above assumptions about PIE phonology apply, in addition to a rule that deletes laryngeals which occur in the sequence -oRHC or -oRH#, where R stands for any resonant, H any laryngeal, C any consonant and # the end of a word. The most important effect of this rule is to delete most occurrences of in the thematic optative.

Post-PIE developments
The various verb formations came to be reorganised in the daughter languages. The tendency was for various forms to become integrated into a single "paradigm" which combined verbs of different aspects into a coherent whole. This process proceeded in steps:

 * 1) Combining different forms with similar meanings into a system of three major aspects. The result of this was the so-called "Cowgill–Rix" system described above, which was completed in late PIE, shortly after Tocharian had split off and well after the Anatolian split. At this stage, formations that originally had various purposes had their semantics largely harmonized into one of the aspect classes, with a clear distinction between primary and secondary derivations. These formations, however, were still separate lexical verbs, still sometimes with idiosyncratic meanings, and for a given aspect a root could still form multiple verbs or no verbs in that particular aspect. This is the stage visible in early Vedic Sanskrit.
 * 2) Combining the various aspects under a single unified verb, with a clear distinction between inflectional and derivational forms. This involved pruning multiple verbs formed from the same root with the same aspect, and creating new verbs for aspects that were missing for certain roots. At this stage a single verb was defined by a set of principal parts, each of which (approximately) defined the type of formation used in each of its aspects. This stage was in process in Vedic Sanskrit and was largely completed in Ancient Greek, although even in this language there are still verbs lacking some of the aspects, as well as occasional multiple formations for the same aspect, with distinct and idiosyncratic meanings. Many remnants of this stage are also found in Old Church Slavonic, which still had distinct stems for the present, aorist and infinitive/participle. Most Slavic languages later lost the aorist, but verbs still have distinct (and unpredictable) present and infinitive stems up to the present day.
 * 3) Regularizing the formations into "conjugations" that applied across the whole system, so that a verb belonged to a single conjugational class rather than one class for each aspect formation. This stage was partly complete in Latin, in particular in regards to the -āre, -ēre, -īre (first, second, fourth) conjugations. The older system, however, is still clearly visible in the -ere class, with each verb in this class, and some in the other classes, needing to be defined by separate present, perfect and supine formations. In Proto-Germanic, this process seemed to have been largely completed, with only a few relic formations such as j-presents and n-infix presents remaining as "irregular" verbs. However, a clear distinction was still maintained between primary and secondary verbs, since the lack of multiple aspect stems in the latter eventually led to the creation of the weak verbs, with most of the original primary verbs becoming strong verbs. A small minority of statives retained their perfect/stative inflection, becoming the preterite-present verbs.
 * 4) Gradual reduction in the number of conjugational classes, as well as the number of productive classes. This development is very clearly attested in the later Germanic languages. Afrikaans is an extreme example, where almost all verbs follow the same conjugational pattern. English is also a strong example, where all weak verb classes have merged, many older strong verbs have become weak, and all other verbs are considered irregular relic formations. Dutch and German also show this development, but the non-productive strong verb classes have remained more regular. Swedish still retains two weak verb classes, although only one is productive. In the Romance languages, these developments have also occurred, but to a lesser degree. The classes -āre -ēre -ere -īre remain productive; the fourth (-īre) though is generally only marginally productive.

The gradual tendency in all of the daughter languages was to proceed through the stages just described, creating a single conjugational system that applied to all tenses and aspects and allowing all verbs, including secondary verbs, to be conjugated in all inflectional categories. Generally, the primary verbs were largely all lumped together into a single conjugation (e.g. the Latin -ere conjugation), while different secondary-verb formations produced all other conjugations; for the most part, only these latter conjugations were productive in the daughter languages. In most languages, the original distinction between primary and secondary verbs was obscured to some extent, with some primary verbs scattered among the nominally secondary/productive conjugations. Germanic is perhaps the family with the clearest primary/secondary distinction: Nearly all "strong verbs" are primary in origin while nearly all "weak verbs" are secondary, with the two classes clearly distinguished in their past-tense and past-participle formations.

In Greek, the difference between the present, aorist, and perfect, when used outside of the indicative (i.e. in the subjunctive, optative, imperative, infinitive, and participles) is almost entirely one of grammatical aspect, not of tense. That is, the aorist refers to a simple action, the present to an ongoing action, and the perfect to a state resulting from a previous action. An aorist infinitive or imperative, for example, does not refer to a past action, and in fact for many verbs (e.g. "kill") would likely be more common than a present infinitive or imperative. (In some participial constructions, however, an aorist participle can have either a tensal or aspectual meaning.) It is assumed that this distinction of aspect was the original significance of the PIE tenses, rather than any actual tense distinction, and that tense distinctions were originally indicated by means of adverbs, as in Chinese. It appears that by late PIE, the different tenses had already acquired a tensal meaning in particular contexts, as in Greek. In later Indo-European languages, this became dominant.

The meanings of the three tenses in the oldest Vedic Sanskrit differs somewhat from their meanings in Greek, and thus it is not clear whether the PIE meanings corresponded exactly to the Greek meanings. In particular, the Vedic imperfect had a meaning that was close to the Greek aorist, and the Vedic aorist had a meaning that was close to the Greek perfect. Meanwhile, the Vedic perfect was often indistinguishable from a present tense (Whitney 1889). In moods other than the indicative, the present, aorist, and perfect were almost indistinguishable from each other.

The lack of semantic distinction between different grammatical forms in a literary language often indicates that some of these forms no longer existed in the spoken language of the time. In fact, in Classical Sanskrit, the subjunctive dropped out, as did all tenses of the optative and imperative other than the present; meanwhile, in the indicative the imperfect, aorist and perfect became largely interchangeable, and in later Classical Sanskrit, all three could be freely replaced by a participial construction. All of these developments appear to reflect changes in spoken Middle Indo-Aryan; among the past tenses, for example, only the aorist survived into early Middle Indo-Aryan, which was later displaced by a participial past tense.

Developments of the various verb classes
NOTE: A blank space means the reflex of the given class in the given language is undetermined.

Germanic
In Germanic, all eventive verbs acquired primary indicative endings, regardless of the original aspectual distinction. These became the "present tense" of Germanic. Almost all presents were converted to the thematic inflection, using the singular (e-grade) stem as the basis. A few "tudati"-type athematic verbs survived (*wiganą "to battle", *knudaną "to knead"), but these were usually regularised by the daughter languages. Of the athematic verbs, only three verbs are reconstructable:
 * *wesaną "to be" (present *immi, *isti, from imperfective *h₁ésmi, *h₁ésti),
 * *beuną "to be, to become" (present *biumi, *biuþi, from perfective **bʰewHm, **bʰewHt)
 * *dōną "to do, to put" (present *dōmi, *dōþi, from perfective *dʰéh₁m̥, *dʰéh₁t).

The merger of perfective and imperfective verbs brought root verbs in competition with characterised verbs, and the latter were generally lost. Consequently, Germanic has no trace of the s-suffix perfectives, and very few characterised primary imperfectives; by far the most primary verbs were simple root verbs. Some imperfectives with the ye-suffix survived into Proto-Germanic, as did one nasal-infix verb (*standaną "to stand" ~ *stōþ), but these were irregular relics. Other characterised presents were preserved only as relic formations and generally got converted to other verbal formations. For example, the present *pr̥skéti "to ask, to question" was preserved as Germanic *furskōną, which was no longer a simple thematic verb, but had been extended with the class 2 weak suffix -ō-.

Stative verbs became the "past tense" or "preterite tense" in Germanic, and new statives were generally formed to accompany the primary eventives, forming a single paradigm. A dozen or so primary statives survived, in the form of the "preterite-present verbs". These retained their stative (in Germanic, past or preterite) inflection, but did not have a past-tense meaning. The past tense ("imperfect") of the eventive verbs was entirely lost, having become redundant in function to the old statives. Only one single eventive past survives, namely of *dōną: *dedǭ, *dedē, from the past reduplicated imperfective *dʰédʰeh₁m̥, *dʰédʰeh₁t.

Secondary eventives (causatives, denominatives etc.) did not have any corresponding stative in PIE and did not acquire one in Germanic. Instead, an entirely novel formation, the so-called "dental past", was formed to them (e.g. *satjaną "to set" ~ *satidē). Thus, a clear distinction arose between "strong verbs" or primary verbs, which had a past tense originating from the statives, and "weak verbs" or secondary verbs, whose past tense used the new dental suffix. The original primary statives (preterite-presents) also used the dental suffix, and a few primary ye-suffix presents also came to use the weak past rather than the strong past, such as *wurkijaną "to work" ~ *wurhtē and *þunkijaną "to think, to consider" ~ *þunhtē. However, these verbs, having no secondary derivational suffix, attached the dental suffix directly to the root with no intervening vowel, causing irregular changes through the Germanic spirant law. Ending-wise, the strong and weak pasts converged on each other; the weak past used descendants of the secondary eventive endings, while the strong past preserved the stative endings only in the singular, and used secondary eventive endings in the dual and plural.

Balto-Slavic
The stative aspect was reduced to relics already in the Balto-Slavic, with very little of it reconstructable. The aorist and indicative past tense merged, creating the Slavic aorist. Baltic lost the aorist, while it survived in Proto-Slavic.

Modern Slavic languages have since mostly lost the aorist, but it survives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Sorbian. Slavic innovated a new imperfect tense, which appeared in Old Church Slavonic and still exists in the same languages as the aorist. A new past tense was also created in the modern languages to replace or complement the aorist and imperfect, using a periphrastic combination of the copula and the so-called "l-participle", originally a deverbal adjective. In many languages today, the copula was dropped in this formation, turning the participle itself into the past tense.

The Slavic languages innovated an entirely new aspectual distinction between imperfective and perfective verbs, based on derivational formations.

title: Proto-Indo-European verbs


text:
Wikipedia:Wikifun/Round 8/Answers/Question 17

 * ''Hint: the empress is Empress Eugenie. Eugene van der Pijll 12:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stumped
Well it's too cryptic for me - I have no idea how these solve the equation, but in case it helps anyone: -- Thejesterx 14:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Moses Horwitz - birth name of Moe Howard, leader of the 3 stooges
 * James Parry - usenet celebrity, nicknamed Kibo
 * where the U.S. won 12 Olympic gold medals - Athens, Greece in the 1906 Summer Olympics
 * the author of a national anthem, from Antwerp - possibly Alexandre Dechet ak Jenneval, credited as writing The Brabançonne, national anthem of Belgium (could also be Philips van Marnix, lord of Sint-Aldegonde, who wrote the Dutch national anthem, and was burgemeester of Antwerp)
 * Empress of France - the last one was Maria Eugenia Ignacia Augustina Palafox de Guzmán Portocarrero y Kirkpatrick, 9th Countess de Teba, aka Eugénie de Montijo (what a name!)

 * The equation is H - P - O - A - 100 = E, so:
 * H could be 3, 1897, 1975;
 * P could be 1967, 5895, 7, 4, 10;
 * O could be 1906, 12;
 * A could be 1538, 1598, 59, 1830;
 * E could be 9, 1826, 3, 94, 1920;
 * Apart from that, no idea. Alphax τεχ 16:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * ''I can confirm that Thejesterx has identified 3 answers correctly (not counting the author of the national anthem). Unfortunately, none of the numbers given by Alphax are correct. Eugene van der Pijll 16:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think: H = 30,439 P = 14,500 O = 582 E = 45 & that makes A=15,212

But I have a feeling I may be wrong somewhere. Any hints? Papable Prostate 09:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You are indeed wrong; for example: A is not 15,212; A is 5002. Perhaps it also helps if I tell you the variables are in decreasing order? Eugene van der Pijll 10:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * H = 30,439. Moses Horwitz was called Moe - Asteroid Moe appears on List_of_asteroids_%2830001-31000%29 next to Larry and Curly.
 * P = 14,500. James Parry is known as Kibo - Asteroid Kibo, number 14,500 on List_of_asteroids_%2814001-15000%29.
 * A = 5,002. Asteroid 5002 is Marnix, perhaps named after Philips van Marnix.
 * E = 45. Asteroid 45 is 45_Eugenia and is linked to from Eugénie de Montijo's article.

 * Which means O=H-P-A-E-100=10,792 which on List_of_asteroids_%2810001-11000%29 is Ecuador. Did the olympic team get lost or just me? Papable Prostate 11:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, good work, Papabile! FreplySpang (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * ''I think I can award at least part of the points to PP, but it would be nice if the correct answer is given too. Ecuador isn't correct, of course. The first (and only other guess) for O was Athens. But the total number of Olympic gold medals the United States won in Athens is much higher than 12... Eugene van der Pijll 12:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I looked through the past medal tallies, winter and summer, and the only time I found that the US won 12 medals (small for them at Summer games) was in Athens in 1906 -- Thejesterx 12:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Asteroids 582 & 1022 are named after Olympia and the Olympics but neither are correct. Other Olympic cities are 8837 London, 945 Barcelona, 10552 Stockholm, 1495 Helsinki, 787 Moskva, 1294 Antwerp, 4356 Marathon, 472 Roma, 301 Bavaria, 241 Germania. Papable Prostate 13:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yikes. I got most of the answers, but I never would have thought of the asteroid connection. Now let's see about O. Eugene gave what seems like a big hint...currently working on a theory... --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Solved!
Thanks to everyone who nudged me in the right direction. O is 10379 Lake Placid, where the US won 6 gold medals in 1932 and 6 more in 1980, for a grand total of 12. Also, 100 does not equal 100, but rather 513 Centesima (or else the math doesn't come out right). Therefore: H - P - O - A - 100 = 30 439 - 14 500 - 10 379 - 5 002 - 513 = 45 Eugenie. Howzat? --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I neglected to mention that Meanings of asteroid names (501-1000) explains the name of 513 Centesima ("hundredth") as originating in the fact that was its discoverer's hundredth asteroid. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, very impressive! Congrats for solving it, and congrats to Eugene van der Pijll for devising it, it was a devillishly difficult one. -- Thejesterx 16:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * {applause) FreplySpang (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I would never have thought there would be an asteroid named after Lake Placid. Well Done. Papable Prostate 11:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Thejesterx

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! TAS 12:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Wikifun Round 8
Congratulations, Thejesterx! Round 8 has finished, and you're in the lead. Unfortunately, you are not the only one: there is a three-way tie. You may accept this joint victory, but you're entitled to a tie-break question if you want to have one. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Wikifun. Eugene van der Pijll 17:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiFun
It is now 15 days after the last WikiFun round. In the interest of continuing the game, I am willing to be a neutral party to assist in this three way tie. You may email me a list of WikiFun questions and answers, then I shall pick the best ones out of the three of you. Please elaborate the difficulty for each question. I will need at least 7 questions from you, but I won't stop you from sending me 20 of them or more. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You may send me your questions as you go. If you only give me 7, I will only use 7.  If you give me anymore than 7, then I'll pick the hardest ones based on whether or not I can solve them.  You have to note how a person will arrive at the conclusion to your question. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Round 9
In the interest of continuing the game, and as you have not sent me anything, I have posted a new round and gave you 4 bonus points. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ARIA Music Awards of 2005
Hey, I noticed you'd done a lot of editing on this page. That's great! :D I like editing Aussie music articles, so it's always nice to see someone else who (probably) does too. BTW, just wondering if you were aware of these resources? Australian Wikipedians' notice board and WikiProject Melbourne (or Sydney, or Perth, or...) Anyway, cheers! pfctdayelise 10:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikifun
Hi, I've noticed you've taken part in Wikifun before.

Just to let you know, Round 11 begins today at 0900 GMT. Dmn 04:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikifun round 12
This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.

Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.

-- Ravn 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Monsieur Camembert (album).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Monsieur Camembert (album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation original programming has been nominated for renaming
Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation original programming has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thejesterx


text:
User talk:Dumol

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! TAS 12:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

title: User talk:Dumol


text:
Russell Harlan

Russell B. Harlan, A.S.C. (September 16, 1903 – February 28, 1974) was an American cinematographer.

Biography
Born in Los Angeles, California, Russell Harlan witnessed the city's development from the construction of its first film studio to being the center for motion picture production in the United States. Harlan embarked on a career in film as an actor and stuntman but by the early 1930s was pursuing his interest behind the camera as an assistant. He performed as the cinematographer for the first time in 1937 on a Hopalong Cassidy western film that led to a career spanning more than thirty years. He received six nominations for the Academy Award for Best Cinematography, including two in 1962 alone when he worked on Hatari! and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Russell Harlan died in 1974 in Newport Beach, California and was interred in Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery in Glendale, California.

Selected filmography

 * North of the Rio Grande (1937)
 * Texas Trail (1937)
 * The Frontiersmen (1938)
 * Heritage of the Desert (1939)
 * The Light of Western Stars (1940)
 * Doomed Caravan (1941)
 * In Old Colorado (1941)
 * American Empire (1942)
 * Hoppy Serves a Writ (1943)
 * False Colors (1943)
 * Mystery Man (1944)
 * A Walk in the Sun (1945)
 * Ramrod (1947)
 * Red River (1948)
 * Gun Crazy (1949)
 * Guilty Bystander (1950)
 * The Thing from Another World (1951)
 * The Big Sky (1952)
 * Riot in Cell Block 11 (1954)
 * Blackboard Jungle (1955)
 * The Last Hunt (1956)
 * Lust for Life (1956)
 * Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
 * Run Silent, Run Deep (1958)
 * King Creole (1958)
 * Rio Bravo (1959)
 * Operation Petticoat (1959)
 * Sunrise at Campobello (1960)
 * Pollyanna (1960)
 * To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
 * Hatari! (1962)
 * A Gathering of Eagles (1963)
 * Dear Heart (1964)
 * The Great Race (1965)
 * Hawaii (1966)
 * Tobruk (1967)
 * Darling Lili (1970)

title: Russell Harlan


text:
User talk:Pevernagie

"There is no need to insult me,that first,"
Cool but where ? Sir Lothar (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark about the intelligence of the Dutch people, while I am not Dutch, it was clear the remark was intended for me. And we handled this matter back in January. Pevernagie (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

James Bobin
Hi, Pevernagie! I didn't notice that I had been logged out when I did that edit to James Bobin. My intention was to move that information to Fran Beauman, an article that's hyperlinked from James Bobin anyway. I've restored my edit, hope you agree that that information belongs better there. If you disagree, I won't revert anymore, it's no big deal for me. As you see, there's no biography of Bobin on Fran's page, either. Sunnan (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

== WP:AIV report for 96.242.20.12 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) ==

Hi, I've now blocked the user. When warning users for inserting false information (as opposed to straightforward vandalism), use the uw-error templates - it makes it much clearer what the problem is, and makes my job much easier! Good work spotting that it was false, though. Best, – Toon (talk)  20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender
To Pevernagie:

I have just found the message regarding my edit, which was regarded as not constructive. I have replaced them along with the valid links. How are they not constructive to the Last Airbender Page when those posts can be cited from Paramount Studio employees? There is a question regarding the production of the film and I have added data regarding the controversy.

How is that not relevant to the page?

Sphinxian247 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Sphinxian247

 * The casting call is not something you put on Wikipedia. And you use a lot of uppercase. Pevernagie (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Warnings
Please look at how many warnings a user has before placing a new one. You just gave someone a level 1 warning after he had already received 4 warnings. Ridernyc (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 * In my defense, I didn't see the first three because of the speedy deletion tag :-) . Pevernagie (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Lilian baels.png
Thanks for uploading File:Lilian baels.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Several months ago, you went through the effort of saying an edit I had made to the Billy Joel entry "did not appear to be constructive", and then used the rather powerful word "vandalism" to describe an edit I made to the Power trio entry. In both instances, you suggested I use the sandbox for experimenting, which "does not appear to be constructive" to me, since I was not experimenting, I was making legitimate edits. Needless to say, you reverted both edits. To be honest, I don't remember any more what these horrible things I did were, and I would genuinely like you to remind me, because I honestly don't recall ever having written anything "unconstructive", let alone so malicious as to be labelled "vandalism", in Wikipedia. I simply don't remember what it was that could have offended your sensibilities so much, because I've got nothing but respect for Wikipedia and my intent in making edits is always only to expand the body of knowledge available to humanity. So, if it's not too much to ask, would you be so kind as to let me know what it was that I wrote in these edits that you considered to be unconstructive and even vandalism? Perhaps I can then rewrite them in a way that manages to contribute to the general body of knowledge while at the same time meeting your stringent criteria for "appearing to be constructive". Thank you. 208.80.97.117 (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the changes you mention, and I reverted Power trio because you removed quite a lot of material from the page without discussing it on the talk page; as for Billy Joel, in hindsight perhaps a "please provide source material" would have been better placed. Pevernagie (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte
Not that my blog was receiving all that many hits from the article that I linked to Princess Charlotte's death, but did you read the article before deleting it? It was not a collection of links, but a fully written post that was researched, footnoted and quoted. In addition, please note that other contributors to Wikipedia have linked to my blog, asking me for permission first, which I always give. Yes it is my blog, but I linked this particular article because it had something to add about how her death influenced obstetrics. This discussion does not belong in the main body of the article about Princess Charlotte. What I wrote was extremely specific and I linked to the post only. Regarding a discussion, I have found that questions I pose are not being answered and I consider the exercise to be futile. Vsanborn (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you are a recognized authority it's against policy. That others have linked to your blog in the past only shows that they lack a clear understanding of the guidelines for external links. Pevernagie (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated subject, the article on Princess_Charlotte_Augusta_of_Wales is full of citations to "Williams" -- but there's no corresponding book. I haven't been able to spot who "Williams" ought to be in the article's history; perhaps you can do better? Apologies, but I have no Wikipedia ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.224.84 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Found the original full citation and put it on the page again. Pevernagie (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.224.84 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ccw223
I see you've also reverted this editor today. FYI, I have reported this person at WP:AIV. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, that's why I had a look at his/her edits, but you should not have reported him/her (yet), he/she only made three edits this month, the edits he/she made on 25 May are not recent enough to be taken into account as well. If he/she vandalizes other pages just give the user a 3rd and then 4th warning, after which you can report him/her again. Pevernagie (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed one of the admins felt his behavior in the past was serious enough to block him indefinitely, so that chapter is closed. Pevernagie (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Pevernagie, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! Caponer (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza
Hello Pevernagie! I know this is a controversial subject, but the information that I published yesterday on Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza article is verifiable on: Remember that Jean Pailler is the same author of the biography of King Charles I of Portugal. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006.
 * Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisbon: Bertrand, 2006, pp. 17.

Nukes
The section of Pokhran is about reaction to india not Pakistan 86.156.211.170 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The section details how Pakistan reacted. Pevernagie (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

About your edit ... Winning an online cyber game does not make you famous..
World Cyber Games had 78 countries listed as participants last year, and I think you need to revise your position on this subject, eSport is taking a lot more space lately, and the World Cyber Games is one of the biggest worldwide organsation of tournaments, with extensive media coverage. I may be biased because I am a part of the organisation of the Canadian Division, however I do believe that being an accomplished cyberathlete counts as being famous and an upstanding member of the community. Anyhow I will let you decide what to do with that edit.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.210.117 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But does that make it notable enough to be mentioned on wikipedia pages not directly related to the subject itself? I think it is best to restrict the "famous people" heading to people who are notable enough to get their own page, otherwise everyone who had their five minutes of fame is going to want to be included. Pevernagie (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou
Thanks for the message, but I wanted to comment to you points that they are not clear for me. The discussion about the title is due to a former commentary in which there is speculated that the title of king of Jerusalem emerges separated from the honors and royal Spanish titles, nevertheless such approach is fruit of WP:OR, since there is no reference that this title was separated from the rest honorific titles of the king of Spain, since the title of king of Jerusalem is simply an honorific title and not that of a separated realm.

As indicates your summary to the reversion in the article Spanish king is not the only claimant: if we take the legitimist line of the French Bourbons, these kings bore the title of king of France and Navarre, but not that of Jerusalem, wherefrom does this title come?, The only French king that I know as king of Jerusalem is Louis XII, and he was such simply for becoming king of Naples.

Therefore in agreement to WP:PROVEIT (burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material [...] Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed), you must prove that such pretension exists or it existed dynastically in the French legitimism. Nevertheless, it does not serve for it this page Kings of Jerusalem, as it is indicated in WP:CIRCULAR-WP:SOURCES-Reliable source examples-WP:REFB: Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would result in a self-reference (Wikipedia citing itself) - Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources.

With what, in absence of sources the fact that the duke of Anjou is claimant to the kingship of Jerusalem is simply a hoax, and such expression has the same validity as if he said that he is a claimant to throne of Japan. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the claims of Louis Alphonse come from the Spanish line, then you have a point. Based on the edit summary it appeared as if you were deleting it because you considered Juan Carlos to be the claimant, my bad. Pevernagie (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Hello, forgive my delay in answering, but Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou's issue, has gotten into in those of the kingdom of Jerusalem and I have found a monumental disaster.

 * Since Louis Alphonse is not a claimant to the Spanish throne due to his grandfather's renunciation, either he is not claimant of the title of Jerusalem that is joined to Spanish one, nevertheless indeed he can be considered a legitimist claimant to the French throne, but such a pretension is not included by that of Jerusalem, and this way, so simply, the pretension to Jerusalem must be eliminated. I have leaned out the article Kings of Jerusalem and its talk page, where apart from a defective style of writing, there is simple genetic speculation, with arguments as "solid" as Why not?, for example, in Brienne claims it appears as claimant Charles-Antoine Lamoral (born 30 September 1946), well then, a secondary source quotes that in 1672 the succession of Brienne and of Cyprus united to the crown of Jerusalem, and the Cypriote succession was in the in the Saboyard line very discreetly . With what, we have a article with wp:or, simply being based on a particular speculation. Trasamundo (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

german pretender
Waarom zijt gij zo bang om onze koning te verliezen aan ons moderrijk? Wij zijn wel degelijk Neder-Duitsers en geen Franzosen, zoals zoveel in België denken. Dus Albert II is als Wettin wel degelijk een pretendent. I-are-baboon (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Again, he is not a German pretender, he is in the line of succession to the Headship of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, but he is not the pretender for the house of Wettin. And I would be very happy if we could somehow get rid of "our" royal family, as I believe it to be a system from medieval times. Pevernagie (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with your beliefs but with facts. I will correct it then to Saxe-Coburg Gotha. I-are-baboon (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is the head of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha. Pevernagie (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Brussels
I believe this actually wasn't vandalism, the editor was most likely changing the spelling to what he/she thought was correct, at least to American spelling standards. Presumably the editor isn't familiar with WP:ENGVAR, so I would therefore say the edit was done in good faith. You may wish to retract this statement. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * very well. Pevernagie (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I try to put template:Brusselsname on the talk page of pages where I use that as the rationale in an edit. It links to the actual conventions. Cheers,  Oreo Priest  talk 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Natalia Brasova
I've moved the discussion to the talk page of the article and requested a third opinion as a first step in re-assessing the section. DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi; could you give your opinion here? Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Fair use rationale for File:Basil Zaharoff.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Basil Zaharoff.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's smoking
You have recently deleted an addition I made to the Wikipedia article about Ayn Rand. I had added the fact that Rand was a lifelong smoker to the sentence about the surgical removal of one of her lungs because of cancer. You found this unconstructive. What is unconstructive about it? Rand WAS a lifelong smoker (see the photograph of her holding a cigarette in the article!), and died of cancer because of this habit of hers. Are you a representative of a tobacco company perhaps? If you are, then I can understand why you would find "scientifically unproven" connections between heavy smoking and lung cancer to be "unconstructive". Otherwise, there is nothing unconstructive about mentioning in an article about Ayn Rand that she was a smoker. Smoking was very much a part of who she was, and if I'm not mistaken, she actually even wrote or said something about this at one time. Many of the heroes of her novels smoke. She was never far from a cigarette herself. Her voice was that of a heavy smoker. To mention that she was a smoker is not unconstructive, especially in reference to her lung cancer. Please refrain from frivolous editing in the future. I intend to put the phrase back in the article, except that I will change the word "lifelong" to "heavy", since after thinking about it, I realize that she probably did not smoke much in the first decade of her life at least. But the fact that she was a "heavy" smoker is absolutely incontrovertible, and hence quite a constructive element in any biography of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.97.117 (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are addressing the wrong user, but for your personal attack on me (even if it is a case of mistaken identity) you just deserved an additional warning. As to your edit, if you were to quote the smoking from her biography, I see no point why it should not be allowed to be put on the page. Pevernagie (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Gemeenschapsonderwijs
I removed your prod. It exists and has an article in Dutch. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed it because of the low quality of the article. If someone could translate the article from Dutch to English, it would have an acceptable quality, what is written on the en.wikipedia.org page is utter gibberish. "they generally receive more money than catholic schools", says what official report? "most beautiful atheneum is the atheneum of Antwerp" again, where does this come from? It has been 4 years, and we are still waiting for sources! Pevernagie (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs work. I requested expert help and will keep an eye on it. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 1
Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 2
Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD A2 tagging
When you tag an article with CSD A2 you are supposed to include the link to the article that exists on the other project. Now given that the user importing these articles is moving them from the Italian Wikipedia with edit summaries along the lines of transwiki for translation and attribution I think that your mass tagging is inappropriate. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, those pages have been in Italian since 2005, how long should one wait for it to be appropriate to tag pages for deletion when they are in another language. Twinkle didn't give me the option of adding comments, so I couldn't include them. The moment I clicked on A2 it went straight to work tagging the page.Pevernagie (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you check the revision history of one example, the article was transwikied in November and the previous history is that of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm glad you've changed to tagging to notEnglish to bring them to the attention of our various translators. I'll grant you, the person who imported the articles should have done that. As for Twinkle not asking for the URL, that appears to be a bug. Will investigage. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop!
Please, please, please stop tagging articles for deletion without providing some context for administrators. I have no idea how to find the 'other language articles' on other projects and links would be most welcome. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All of those pages are 1) in Italian and 2) Copy-pasted from the it.wiki . This has been the case since 2005! About the not including of context, I wasn't given that option by Twinkle, is there way that you can do this with Twinkle? About the many many tagging, I was unsure if they would all be treated if I only tagged one or two, so I went ahead and tagged all pages that were in Italian (again since 2005).Pevernagie (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

stop deleting fukung article
it is not unambiguous promotion or advertising, in fact there is none whatsoever. It is simply an explanation for a previously unexplained website, one that is increasingly and arguably very popular already, and deserves background information on this website. Please restore the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterluse (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide the page this was posted on? As I do not have the slightest clue as to which page you are refering. Pevernagie (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe he is referring to this, which I am also dealing with on my talk page. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:200 Belgian Francs front.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:200 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:200 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:200 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:500 Belgian Francs front.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:500 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:500 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:500 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:1000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2000 Belgian Francs front.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:2000 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:2000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:10000 Belgian Francs front.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:10000 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:10000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:10000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1000 Belgian Francs front.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:1000 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UnionFrancophones.gif
Thanks for uploading File:UnionFrancophones.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:L'île des mers gelées.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:L&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nadia Naji moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Nadia Naji. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Nadia Naji for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nadia Naji is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nadia Naji until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pevernagie


text:
Aim (musician)

Andrew Turner, known by the recording name Aim, is a British musician, DJ and producer.

Aim's sound is a blend of funky electronic music and hip hop beats, a sound which typified the Grand Central Records label. Much of his work is instrumental, though his records include collaborations with other artists who provide vocals, including Stephen Jones of Babybird, Diamond D, Souls of Mischief, YZ, QNC and Kate Rogers.

Aim has also worked as remixer, mixing songs for a variety of artists including Ian Brown, Saint Etienne, The Charlatans, Lil' Kim, Thunderbugs, Archive, Down to the Bone, Texas and former label-mates Rae & Christian.

Career
Turner's first musical output was in a fledgling indie band called The Chelsea Flower Show. His father was a jazz drummer and instrument shop owner and after the demise of the band, Turner followed in his father's footsteps, opening a record shop called Speed Limit Records. It was here that he began to hone his skills on the decks, helping him to embark upon a serious music career. Enthused by the burgeoning rave scene in the North West of England and regular trips to the Haçienda nightclub, with Gripper he co-hosted several successful club and rave nights in his hometown, including Yummy and Euphoria, and has continued to DJ regularly ever since. This includes at London's famous Fabric, for which he did a CD as part of the Fabric Live series.

He was discovered by Mark Rae, after handing him a demo tape in Manchester, and signed to Grand Central. So far he has released three full-length studio albums – Cold Water Music, Hinterland and Flight 602, plus an album collecting together his early singles, and two DJ mix albums.

In 2004, Aim produced the fellow ex-Grand Central artist, Niko's debut album, Life on Earth.

Aim left Grand Central Records in early 2005 and formed his own independent record label, ATIC Records, in June 2005, and his own recording studio, Speed Limit Studios. The first album to be released on the label was Aim's Flight 602. It was released on 25 September 2006. Niko has also signed to ATIC and has returned Aim's earlier favour, by providing vocals for the new album. The final single to be released from Flight 602 was the "Birchwood" EP, released on 5 November 2007.

Aim also began a new collaboration, Paperboy, with British musician Rick Walker on guitar and writing duties, and vocals by Justin Helliwell, the singer from The Chelsea Flower Show, the band the pair were members of in their younger days.

To expand beyond the confines of a touring solely as a DJ, Aim began touring with a full live band in the early 2000s. This band consolidated into a 10-piece ensemble, with musicians playing drums, electric double bass, percussion, guitars, keyboards, trumpet, saxophone, synthesizer and vocals provided by Niko. The band's extensive UK tour included an appearance at Glastonbury Festival in 2007.

Aim was performing production duties on ATIC Records artists' albums, including Sevens' debut Defiance in Mind, Crowhead's Born With Teeth and Niko's second album. He was also preparing tracks for his next solo album.

title: Aim (musician)


text: User talk:80.198.202.196

title: User talk:80.198.202.196


text:
William FitzRobert, 2nd Earl of Gloucester

William FitzRobert, 2nd Earl of Gloucester (23 November 1116 – 23 November 1183) was the son and heir of Sir Robert de Caen, 1st Earl of Gloucester, and Mabel FitzRobert of Gloucester, daughter of Robert Fitzhamon, and nephew of Empress Matilda.

Lineage
William FitzRobert was the son of Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of King Henry I of England, during whose reign William was born. Thus William was a nephew of the Empress Maud and a first cousin once removed of King Stephen, the principal combatants of the English Anarchy period. It also meant that William was the great-grandson of the famed William the Conqueror.

Early career
In October 1141, William looked after the Baronial estates, when his father fell into the hands of partisans at Winchester. His father was exchanged for King Stephen, and, during his father's absence from Normandy in 1144, he served as Governor of Wareham. In 1147, he overthrew Henry de Tracy at Castle Cary.

In 1154, he made an alliance with Roger de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hertford, by which they agreed to aid each other against all men except Henry II of England.

FitzRobert granted Neath, a town in Glamorgan, a charter. He was Lord of the manor of Glamorgan, as well as Caerleon, residing chiefly at Cardiff Castle. It was there that, in 1158, he and his wife and son were captured by the Welsh Lord of Senghenydd, Ifor Bach ("Ivor the Little"), and carried away into the woods, where they were held as prisoners until the Earl redressed Ivor's grievances.

Relationship with King Henry II
In 1173, the earl took the King's part against his sons, but, thereafter, he appears to have fallen under suspicion, given that the following year he submitted to the King and in 1175 surrendered to him Bristol Castle. Because his only son and heir, Robert, died in 1166, Earl William made John, the younger son of King Henry II, heir to his earldom, in conformity with the King's promise that John should marry one of the Earl's daughters, if the Church would allow it, they being related in the third degree.

Earl William was present in March 1177 when the King arbitrated between the Kings of Castile and Navarre, and, in 1178, he witnessed Henry's charter to Waltham Abbey. But, during the King's struggles with his sons, when he imprisoned a number of magnates of whose loyalty he was doubtful, Earl William was among them.

Family and children
He was married to Hawise de Beaumont of Leicester, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester and Amica de Gael and had children:
 * 1) Robert fitz William (1151, Cardiff, Glamorganshire – 1166, Cardiff, Glamorganshire).
 * 2) Mabel fitz William, married Amaury V de Montfort, her son Amaury briefly being Earl of Gloucester
 * 3) Amice fitz William, d. 1220. Married Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hertford, their descendants eventually inherited the Earldom of Gloucester.
 * 4) Isabel, Countess of Gloucester. She was married three times:
 * 5) John of England
 * 6) Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex, Earl of Gloucester
 * 7) Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent

The earl died in 1183; his wife Hawise survived him. Since their only son, Robert, predeceased his father, their daughters became co-heirs to the feudal barony of Gloucester.