text:
J. Bruce Ismay

Joseph Bruce Ismay (12 December 1862 – 17 October 1937) was an English businessman who served as chairman and managing director of the White Star Line. In 1912, he came to international attention as the highest-ranking White Star official to survive the sinking of the company's new flagship RMS Titanic, for which he was subject to severe criticism.

Early life
Ismay was born in Crosby, Lancashire. He was the son of Thomas Henry Ismay (7 January 1837 – 23 November 1899) and Margaret Bruce (13 April 1837 – 9 April 1907), daughter of ship-owner Luke Bruce. Thomas Ismay was the senior partner in Ismay, Imrie and Company and the founder of the White Star Line.

The younger Ismay was educated at Elstree School and Harrow, then tutored in France for a year. He was apprenticed at his father's office for 4 years, after which he toured the world. He then went to New York City as the company representative, eventually rising to the rank of agent.

On 4 December 1888, Ismay married Julia Florence Schieffelin (5 March 1867 – 31 December 1963), daughter of George Richard Schieffelin and Julia Matilda Delaplaine of New York, with whom he had five children:
 * Margaret Bruce Ismay (29 December 1889 – 15 May 1967), who married George Ronald Hamilton Cheape (1881–1957) in 1912
 * Henry Bruce Ismay (3 April 1891 – 1 October 1891)
 * Thomas Bruce Ismay (18 February 1894 – 27 April 1954), who married Jane Margaret Seymour, a daughter of Walter Seymour of Ballymore Castle, County Galway, Ireland, in 1922.
 * Evelyn Constance Ismay (17 July 1897 – 9 August 1940), who married Basil Sanderson (1894–1971) in 1927
 * George Bruce Ismay (6 June 1902 – 30 April 1943), who married Florence Victoria Edrington in 1926.

In 1891, Ismay returned with his family to the United Kingdom and became a partner in his father's firm, Ismay, Imrie and Company. In 1899, Thomas Ismay died, and Bruce Ismay became head of the family business. Ismay had a head for business, and the White Star Line flourished under his leadership. In addition to running his ship business, Ismay also served as a director of several other companies. In 1901, he was approached by Americans who wished to build an international shipping conglomerate (the International Mercantile Marine Company) to which Ismay agreed to sell his firm.

Chairman of the White Star Line
After the death of his father on 23 November 1899, Bruce Ismay succeeded him as the chairman of the White Star Line. He decided to build four ocean liners to surpass the RMS Oceanic (1899) built by his father. The ships were dubbed the Big Four: RMS Celtic, RMS Cedric, RMS Baltic (1903), and RMS Adriatic (1907). These vessels were designed more for size and luxury than for speed.

In 1902, Ismay oversaw the sale of the White Star Line to J.P. Morgan & Co., which was organising the formation of International Mercantile Marine Company, an Atlantic shipping combine which absorbed several major American and British lines. IMM was a holding company that controlled subsidiary operating corporations. Morgan hoped to dominate transatlantic shipping through interlocking directorates and contractual arrangements with the railroads, but that proved impossible because of the unscheduled nature of sea transport, American antitrust legislation, and an agreement with the British government. White Star Line became one of the IMM operating companies and, in February 1904, Ismay became president of the IMM, with the support of Morgan.

RMS Titanic
In 1907, Ismay met Lord Pirrie of the Harland & Wolff shipyard to discuss White Star's answer to the RMS Lusitania and the RMS Mauretania (1906), the recently unveiled marvels of their chief competitor, Cunard Line. Ismay's new type of ship would not be as fast as their competitors, but it would have huge steerage capacity and luxury unparalleled in the history of ocean-going steamships. The latter feature was largely meant to attract the wealthy and the prosperous middle class. Three ships of the Olympic-class ocean liner were planned and built. They were in order RMS Olympic, RMS Titanic and RMS (later HMHS). In a move that would become highly controversial, during construction of the first two Olympic-class liners, Ismay authorised the projected number of lifeboats reduced from 48 to 16, the latter being the minimum allowed by the Board of Trade, based on the RMS Olympic's tonnage.

Ismay occasionally accompanied his ships on their maiden voyages, and this was the case with Titanic. Ismay boarded in Southampton. During the voyage, Ismay talked with either (or possibly both) chief engineer Joseph Bell or Captain Edward J. Smith about a possible test of speed if time permitted. After the ship collided with an iceberg 370 miles south-southeast of Newfoundland on the night of 14 April 1912, it became clear that it would sink long before any rescue ships could arrive. Ismay stepped aboard Collapsible C, which was launched less than 20 minutes before the ship went down. He later testified that as the ship was in her final moments, he turned away, unable to watch. Collapsible C was picked up by the RMS Carpathia about 3–4 hours later.

After being picked up by Carpathia, Ismay was led to the cabin belonging to the ship's doctor, Frank Mcgee. He gave Captain Rostron a message to send to White Star's New York office: ""Deeply regret advise you Titanic sank this morning fifteenth after collision iceberg, resulting serious loss life further particulars later". Bruce Ismay."

Ismay did not leave McGee's cabin for the entire journey, ate nothing solid, and was kept under the influence of opiates. Another survivor, 17-year-old Jack Thayer, visited Ismay to try to console him, despite having just lost his father in the sinking.

"[Ismay] was staring straight ahead, shaking like a leaf. Even when I spoke to him, he paid absolutely no attention. I have never seen a man so completely wrecked."

When he arrived in New York, Ismay was hosted by Philip Franklin, vice president of the company. He was summoned by and testified before a Senate committee hearing headed by Republican Senator William Alden Smith the day after the arrival of Carpathia to New York. Ismay was the first witness to testify. A few weeks later, Ismay also testified at the British Board of Trade inquiry (chaired by Lord Mersey).

Criticism
After the disaster, Ismay was savaged by both the American and the British press for deserting the ship while women and children were still on board. Some papers called him the "Coward of the Titanic" or "J. Brute Ismay", and suggested that the White Star flag be changed to a yellow liver. Some ran negative cartoons depicting him deserting the ship. The writer Ben Hecht, then a young newspaperman in Chicago, wrote a scathing poem contrasting the actions of Captain Smith and Ismay. The final verse reads: "To hold your place in the ghastly face / of death on the sea at night / is a seaman's job, but to flee with the mob / is an owner's noble right."

Some maintain Ismay followed the "women and children first" principle, having assisted many women and children himself. Ismay's actions were defended in the official British inquiry, which found "Mr. Ismay, after rendering assistance to many passengers, found 'C' collapsible, the last boat on the starboard side, actually being lowered. No other people were there at the time. There was room for him and he jumped in. Had he not jumped in he would merely have added one more life—namely, his own—to the number of those lost."

Ismay had boarded Collapsible C with first-class passenger William Carter; both said they did so after there were no more women and children near that particular lifeboat. Carter's own behaviour and reliability, however, were criticised by Mrs. Lucile Carter, who sued him for divorce in 1914; she testified Carter had left her and their children to fend for themselves after the collision and accused him of "cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities to the person". London society ostracised Ismay and labelled him a coward. On 30 June 1913, Ismay resigned as president of International Mercantile Marine and chairman of the White Star Line, to be succeeded by Harold Sanderson.

Ismay announced during the United States Inquiry that all the vessels of the International Mercantile Marine Company would be equipped with lifeboats in sufficient numbers for all passengers. Following the inquiry, Ismay and the surviving officers of the ship returned to England aboard RMS Adriatic (1907).

Titanic controversy
During the congressional investigations, some passengers testified that during the voyage they heard Ismay pressuring Captain Smith to increase the speed of Titanic in order to arrive in New York ahead of schedule and generate some free press about the new liner. The book The White Star Line: An Illustrated History (2000) by Paul Louden-Brown states that this was unlikely, and that Ismay's record does not support the notion that he had any motive to do so.

Ismay was widely vilified in the United States after the sinking of Titanic due to the hostility shown in the yellow press controlled by William Randolph Hearst, who had fallen out with Ismay.

Following from the Hearst press depiction of Ismay, every subsequent film about Titanic has depicted Ismay as a villain, starting with the 1943 Nazi propaganda film Titanic where he is depicted as a corrupt British businessman who forces Captain Smith to sail Titanic recklessly at full speed into ice-infested waters in order to set a transatlantic speed record. A similar portrayal followed in the 1996 miniseries Titanic. In James Cameron's 1997 film, Ismay is often villainized due to the film's inclusion of a scene based on the eyewitness account of First Class passenger Elizabeth Lines, who after the sinking stated in a deposition that she overheard Ismay urging Captain Smith to arrive in New York ahead of schedule in order to beat the transatlantic crossing time of Titanic sister, RMS Olympic. The scene takes place in the exact location, day, and time that Lines recalled overhearing Ismay and Smith's alleged conversation, with the character of Elizabeth Lines seen in the background, but does not specify it is Olympic crossing time that Ismay is hoping to beat.

Over the years, Lines's account has been questioned by historians, with some expressing doubt that it occurred. Louden-Brown, one of several consultants to the Cameron film, has stated that he thought the antagonistic characterization of Ismay was unfair, and he tried to challenge this, but regardless of Louden-Brown's opinions, it was included in the film. Louden-Brown said, "Apart from being told, 'under no circumstances are we prepared to adjust the script', one thing they also said is 'this is what the public expect to see'." Additionally, Julian Fellowes' 2012 miniseries Titanic depicts Ismay as a bigot who orders a group of non-British crew members locked below to drown during the sinking. A Titanic-themed episode of the science fiction television series Voyagers! portrayed Ismay dressing as a woman in order to sneak into a lifeboat.

Lord Mersey, who led the 1912 British inquiry into the sinking of Titanic, concluded that Ismay had helped many other passengers before finding a place for himself on the last lifeboat to leave the starboard side.

Later life
Though cleared of blame by the official British inquiry, Ismay never recovered from the Titanic disaster. Already emotionally repressed and insecure before his voyage on Titanic, the tragedy sent him into a state of deep depression from which he never truly emerged. He kept a low profile afterwards. He lived part of the year in a large cottage, Costelloe Lodge, in the townland of Derrynea (near Casla) in Connemara, County Galway, Ireland which he bought from Henry Rudolph Laing of Cadogan Gardens, London, in January 1913, less than a year after the sinking. The purchase also included the fishing rights for the river and lake adjoining it. Paul Louden-Brown, in his history of the White Star Line, writes that Ismay continued to be active in business, and that much of his work was for The Liverpool & London Steamship Protection & Indemnity Association Limited, an insurance company founded by his father. According to Louden-Brown:

"Hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid out in insurance claims to the relatives of Titanic victims; the misery created by the disaster and its aftermath dealt with by Ismay and his directors with great fortitude, this, despite the fact that he could easily have shirked his responsibilities and resigned from the board. He stuck with the difficult task and during his twenty-five-year chairmanship hardly a page of the company's minutes does not contain some mention of the Titanic disaster."

Ismay maintained an interest in maritime affairs. He inaugurated a cadet ship called Mersey used to train officers for Britain's Merchant Navy, donated £11,000 to start a fund for lost seamen, and in 1919 gave £25,000 (approximately equivalent to £ in ) to set up a fund to recognise the contribution of merchant mariners in the First World War.

After the tragedy, Ismay's wife Florence ensured the subject of Titanic was never again discussed within the family. His granddaughter, historian and author Pauline Matarasso, likened her grandfather to a "corpse" in his later years:

"Having had the misfortune (one might say the misjudgement) to survive – a fact he recognised despairingly within hours – he withdrew into a silence in which his wife made herself complicit – imposing it on the family circle and thus ensuring that the subject of the Titanic was as effectively frozen as the bodies recovered from the sea."

In his personal life, Ismay became a man of solitary habits, spending his summers at his Connemara cottage and indulging in a love of trout and salmon fishing. When in Liverpool, he would attend concerts by himself at St George's Hall or visit a cinema, at other times wandering through the Liverpool parks and engaging transients in conversation. A family friend observed the spectre of Titanic was never far from Ismay's thoughts, saying that he continually "tormented himself with useless speculation as to how the disaster could possibly have been avoided." At a Christmas time family gathering in 1936, less than a year before Ismay's death, one of his grandsons by his daughter Evelyn, who had learned Ismay had been involved in maritime shipping, enquired if his grandfather had ever been shipwrecked. Ismay finally broke his quarter-century silence on the tragedy that had blighted his life, replying: "Yes, I was once in a ship which was believed to be unsinkable."

Death
Ismay's health declined in the 1930s, following a diagnosis of diabetes, which worsened in early 1936 when the illness resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. He was subsequently largely confined to a wheelchair. On the morning of 14 October 1937, he collapsed in his bedroom at his residence in Mayfair, London, after suffering a massive stroke, which left him unconscious, blind and mute. Three days later, on 17 October, J. Bruce Ismay died at the age of 74.

Ismay's funeral was held at St Paul's Church, Knightsbridge, on 21 October 1937, and he is buried in Putney Vale Cemetery, London. He left a very considerable personal estate, which, excluding property, was valued at £693,305 (approximately equivalent to £ in ). In March 1939, his wife Florence conveyed the property in Connemara unto their son George Bruce Ismay (including the fishery rights extending from the sea to the Lake of Glenicmurrin via the River Casla). After his death, Florence renounced her British subject status in order to restore her American citizenship on 14 November 1949.

Julia Florence Ismay, née Schieffelin, died 31 December 1963, aged 96, in Kensington, London.

Portrayals

 * Ernst Fritz Fürbringer (1943) (Titanic)
 * Lowell Gilmore (1955) (You Are There: The Sinking of the Titanic (TV episode, 22 May 1955)
 * Frank Lawton (1958) (A Night to Remember)
 * Ian Holm (1979) (S.O.S. Titanic) (TV film)
 * Sam Chew, Jr. (1982) (Voyagers!) (Voyagers of the Titanic)
 * Roger Rees (1996) (Titanic) (TV miniseries/2 parts)
 * Jonathan Hyde (1997) (Titanic) (film)
 * David Garrison (1997) (Titanic) (Broadway musical)
 * David Haines (2006) (Titanic) (Broadway musical – Canadian premiere)
 * Eric Braeden (1999) (The Titanic Chronicles) (TV documentary)
 * Ken Marschall (2003) (Ghosts of the Abyss) (documentary)
 * Christopher Wright (2005) (Titanic: Birth of a Legend) (TV documentary)
 * Mark Tandy (2008) (The Unsinkable Titanic) (TV documentary)
 * Christopher Villiers (2011) (The Curiosity: What Sank Titanic?) (TV series)
 * James Wilby (2012) (Titanic) (TV series/4 episodes)
 * Gray O'Brien (2012) (Titanic: Blood and Steel) (TV series/12 episodes)
 * Julien Ball (2012) (Iceberg – Right Ahead!) (London stage play)
 * Michael Maloney (2012) (Sherlock Holmes: The Adventure of the Perfidious Mariner) (audio play)
 * Derek Mahon ("After the Titanic") (poem)
 * Sam Turich (2023) (Unsinkable) (film)

title: J. Bruce Ismay


text:
User:Kraziness

Kraziness, or Karl Spurzem, is an excessively bored college freshman majoring in Film and New Media at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. A general nerd and part-time "artist", he maintains a website visited regularly by few.

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

title: User:Kraziness


text:
Papal slippers

The Papal slippers (pantofole papali) are a historical accoutrement worn by the Pope. The papal slippers were a form of episcopal sandals worn by bishops. However, unlike the (rarely seen) episcopal sandals, which change with the liturgical colour, the papal slippers were always red.

Usually elaborate, papal slippers were made by hand with red satin, red silk, and gold thread; they featured an embroidered cross garnished with rubies and the soles were made of leather. Until the first half of the 20th century, it was customary for pilgrims having an audience with the Pope to kneel and kiss one of his slippers.

The pope traditionally wore the slippers inside the papal apartments, while red leather papal shoes were worn outdoors. Pope Paul VI discontinued the use of the papal slippers but continued to wear the red outdoor papal shoes, which were abandoned by Pope John Paul II in favour of cordovan brown leather walking shoes made in his native Poland.

Pope Benedict XVI restored the use of the red outdoor papal shoes, similar to those worn by Paul VI. However, it would seem that the papal slippers were not restored as photographs of Benedict showed him wearing red shoes inside the confines of the Vatican.

title: Papal slippers


text:
User:MoMo

Hi!

title: User:MoMo


text:
La usurpadora (1998 TV series)

La Usurpadora (English: The Usurper; international title: Deceptions) is a Mexican romantic drama telenovela produced by Salvador Mejia Alejandre and originally broadcast on Canal de las Estrellas from February 9 to July 24, 1998.

It starred Gabriela Spanic and Fernando Colunga, and was based on La Intrusa, a novela originally broadcast in Venezuela which was itself a remake of Radio Caracas Televisión's 1971 telenovela La Usurpadora, which starred Marina Baura and Raúl Amundaray. This was one of the last telenovelas to feature Libertad Lamarque, who here portrayed the character of Abuela Piedad Bracho, until Carita de ángel.

Inspired by the book The Scapegoat, it revolves around a pair of twin sisters who were separated when they were young, and as adults the good sister is forced to act as a "replacement" for her wealthy twin who wants to temporarily leave her husband and his family to enjoy a life of luxury with multiple lovers. The telenovela had huge success in Mexico with ratings of 38.4 and has been exported and dubbed in various languages across the world.

It was the first on-screen collaboration between Colunga and Spanic, who both later worked in Soy tu Dueña.

Plot
Paola and Paulina are twins who were separated at birth. Paulina is a good-hearted and honest woman who lives in poverty and is engaged to a simple man, Osvaldo (who's seeing another woman). Paola, on the other hand, is a rich, frivolous and evil woman who has many lovers, including her brother-in-law, Willy. She is married to Carlos Daniel Bracho, a wealthy man.

When the twins cross paths by chance, Paola attempts to convince Paulina into taking her place at the Brachos' house, so she can take a year-long vacation with her new lover, Alessandro. At first, Paulina refuses because she can't leave her deathly ill mother; but she's later blackmailed and threatened with jail after Paola puts her bracelet in Paulina's purse and accuses her of theft. Abandoned by her fiancé Osvaldo who leaves her to be with his mistress and left with nothing after the death of her mother, Paulina submits to Paola's plan. She is, however, unaware of the destruction the Bracho household was under (thanks to Paola) and decides to work throughout the year righting all wrongs. Paulina (posing as Paola) strives to convince everyone that she has "changed" and become a "new person". During the year, Paulina falls in love with Carlos Daniel. She cures Piedad from alcoholism, saves the Bracho factory from financial ruin, and cuts ties with all of Paola's lovers. No matter how hard she tries, she can't make peace with Estefania (Carlos Daniel's sister) because the real Paola had an affair with Willy, Estefania's husband. Nonetheless, she continues to try to make amends.

Paulina, being the honorable and decent woman that she is, refuses to be intimate with Carlos Daniel, telling him that she needs a year due to her "illness". Carlos Daniel, unaware she is not really Paola, resents her and falls back into the arms of Gema, Paola's frenemy, who's always trying to seduce Carlos Daniel, encouraged by Estefania.

Meanwhile, the real Paola is in Monaco partying with Alessandro. One night after a party, Paola, scared because she had previously dreamt this would happen, gets in a car crash with Alessandro in the passenger seat. They end up in a hospital in Monaco, where she spends months and recovers after multiple surgeries, although her lover Alessandro ends up paralyzed and is reliant on a wheelchair. Paola, no longer interested in him, plans her return to Mexico to take back her place as the real Paola Bracho.

Paola's plan is discovered and Paulina escapes from Mexico, but Carlos Daniel's son, Carlitos, tries to find Paulina, who he thinks is his real mother. With a broken foot, he falls from a hill, hits his head on a rock, and loses his memory. An old lady finds him and cures him.

Paola returns and restarts wreaking havoc: she finds out that Carlitos and Paulina are missing. Eventually, Paulina hears about Carlitos and returns to the Bracho House. Paola goes to travel the world with her famous lover Douglas Maldonado, so Paulina pretends to be Paola again because Carlos Daniel's grandmother Piedad doesn't want Paulina to go to jail. Paulina tells the whole family that Carlos Daniel hated Paulina at first, but after finding Carlitos, they both share their secret love for each other. Gema and Willy contact the Police. Willy beats Estefania up and she is hospitalized. Estefania doesn't turn Paulina to the authorities, after Paulina donates blood to her and her baby. Estefania later reconciles with Paulina.

On the same day, Paola eventually returns, pretending to be paralyzed and trying to take her place back. The next day, Paulina is arrested. While in prison, Paulina and Carlos Daniel discover a mysterious letter by Paulina's mother, written before she died. In the letter, it is explained that Paola and Paulina are twins, but were separated at birth. Paola is caught standing on her feet, putting on make-up, by her nurse Elvira. Paola tells her she will give her money to keep her mouth shut. When Paola finds out that Paulina is her twin, she gets furious. Many men come forward to help hire a lawyer for Paulina so she can be free. Later, Paulina is cleared of all charges. Paola decides to go to the Bracho house with Elvira. Paulina takes Carlitos to her hotel to avoid Paola, so Paola stays in a wheelchair to prove that she is disabled.

Returning to her old ways, Paola inflicts damage on the family and on Paulina. Later, the whole Bracho family is horrified to see Paola walk. Elvira tells the whole family the truth about Paola never being paralyzed. Paola overhears this, so she and Willy set out to get revenge on Paulina, Carlos Daniel and Paulina's lawyer because she was set free. They also plot to kill Elvira for being a traitor. Paola takes Elvira away to kill her but, while in the car travelling at a high speed, Paola reveals to Elvira that she overheard her snitching and she is going to die because of it. Elvira tries to stop the car but they lose control whilst speeding up and the car hits a wall, rolling violently down a hill, where it explodes. Carlos Daniel arrives to the Bracho house. Farmers discover the wreckage of the car and Elvira's corpse. Paola however is found alive in a critical state. Everyone later finds out about Paola's car accident.

Paola is transferred to a Central Hospital. There, she tells everyone the truth about her plan with Willy. The police arrests Willy and he's sentenced to 8 years in prison. Paola is forgiven by her sister and her husband, and dies. Paulina is finally free to marry Carlos Daniel, and peace is finally restored at the Bracho house.

Production
Gabriela Spanic has a twin sister in real life, Daniela Spanic, who is a Venezuelan model. Daniela was approached by the producers of the show to appear in one scene where Paola and Paulina physically fight, as the sequence would have been too difficult to achieve by camera trickery.

La usurpadora was nicknamed "The Queen of the Ratings" while broadcast for Univision in 1999.

La usurpadora wasn't the first of Spanic's telenovelas playing twins; she had already played two identical women in Como tú, ninguna, but they were non-relatives as in La usurpadora. She played the roles just in the last stage of the story. Gabriela later starred in Televisa's 2001 La Intrusa, where she once again took on roles similar to La usurpadora, except from the fact that both sisters were good characters.

Impact
La Usurpadora has become one of the most exported Televisa telenovelas, has been licensed by 125 countries in and dubbed into 25 languages.

Remake
A remake, ¿Quién eres tú? (Who Are You?), premiered on the UniMás network (formerly TeleFutura) as part of its relaunch. It starred Laura Carmine and Julian Gil. It premiered on January 7, 2013, but was removed from the network's lineup a week later due to poor ratings. It was replaced in its timeslot by a rebroadcast of Rosario Tijeras. Only ten episodes were aired on UniMás. Although the network has not made an official statement as to the telenovela's fate, it is presumed it has been cancelled.

Sequel
La Usurpadora was followed by a two-hour special, Más allá de... La usurpadora, which is set a year after the events of the original telenovela. Again produced by Salvador Mejia Alejandre and directed by Beatriz Sheridan, it starred many familiar cast members, including Gabriela Spanic and Fernando Colunga, and introduced a new character, Raquel, played by Yadhira Carrillo.

Synopsis
Paulina and Carlos Daniel are blissfully happy with their new baby girl, Paulita. Problems arise when Paulina falls ill and consults a doctor who tells her that she has cancer and will die in a few months. Paulina keeps her illness a secret from her family, but asks Raquel, Paulita's caregiver, to marry Carlos Daniel after she dies. Raquel, who has been secretly in love with Carlos Daniel, is delighted. When Paulina lets Abuela Piedad in on her secret, Abuela Piedad insists that her family deserves to know. Paulina has a panic attack, and sees a vision of Paola in a mirror, telling her that she will see her in hell for robbing her of her family. When Carlos Daniel learns of her illness, he comforts Paulina and they decide to make the best of the time they have remaining together.

Raquel cannot wait to take over Paulina's role, so she puts poison in Paulina's wine. Paulina drinks and immediately faints, but Raquel faints as well. Both women are taken to the hospital, where they learn that Paulina is not sick, but is in fact pregnant. However, Raquel has accidentally swallowed the poison; she seeks forgiveness and eventually makes a full recovery.

Back at the Bracho home, Carlos Daniel and Paulina reveal the happy news to everyone. Overjoyed, the family takes a picture and it says "And they lived happily for the rest of their lives". The credits roll and the audience cheers.

title: La usurpadora (1998 TV series)


text:
Municipalities of Tamaulipas

Tamaulipas is a state in Northeast Mexico that is divided into 43 municipalities. According to the 2020 Mexican census, it is the fourteenth most populated state with inhabitants and the sixth largest by land area spanning 80249.3 km2.

Municipalities in Tamaulipas are administratively autonomous of the state according to the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico. Every three years, citizens elect a municipal president (Spanish: presidente municipal) by a plurality voting system who heads a concurrently elected municipal council (ayuntamiento) responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents. The municipal council consists of a variable number of trustees and councillors (regidores y síndicos). Municipalities are responsible for public services (such as water and sewerage), street lighting, public safety, traffic, and the maintenance of public parks, gardens and cemeteries. They may also assist the state and federal governments in education, emergency fire and medical services, environmental protection and maintenance of monuments and historical landmarks. Since 1984, they have had the power to collect property taxes and user fees, although more funds are obtained from the state and federal governments than from their own income.

The largest municipality by population is Reynosa, with 704,767 residents (19.97% of the state population), while the smallest is San Nicolás with 926 residents. The largest municipality by land area is San Fernando which spans 6918.8 km2, and the smallest is Ciudad Madero with 48.4 km2. The newest municipality is Río Bravo, established in 1961.

title: Municipalities of Tamaulipas


text:
User talk:Joo

Note to ALL visitors to this page
Please post new messages on TOP (above all other messages) instead of at the bottom. The page is too long to scroll down. :p

Helpfulness references
Hi, Joo! Thanks for your changes to the Helpfulness article back in 2005, they were really valuable.

You mentioned a paper called Krueger et al (2001) which I'm having trouble finding. Can you please post a reference in the References section? Thanks again for the changes you did make! Gred Sixteen (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Temasek Review
Regarding your edits on Singaporean general election, 2011, please be advised that Wikipedia does not consider Temasek Review to be a reliable source and you should not use it as citations. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Temasek Review is generally NOT considered a reliable source. But surely if the website said it is endorsing Tan Jee Say, it can be believed? Or it still cannot be believed? Lol! Anyway, okay, I've changed the source to Straits Times. By the way, what's this Tor thing that Wikipedia keep trying to block me from editing? joo 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, since there is a Straits Times source to say that TRE endorsed TJS, then we should use that over TRE. As for Tor, see WP:TOR. It shouldn't really be affecting you, but if it is, you should request an IP block exemption. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Whomp 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. Whomp 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reorganization is deleting cited material
It's okay to reorganize but you can't delete cited text. If you were editting as an anonymous IP, that is why you received a warning. I expect you to revert as you deleted cited material again. --Morenooso (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did I delete cited material? Not my intention. I've been counter-checking my edits with the original version. If you could point them out, I'll re-add them. I'll also re-check. joo (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Every time you see and type over it, that is a deletion. You destroyed a number of references. It is best to just revert as you have also inserted commentary. --Morenooso (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you cite one specific example? I don't remember typing over joo (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's stay here on your talkpage. Please revert your edit now. --Morenooso (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a lot to undo. I think all the references are still there. Please give me one specific example of a missing reference or cited text. joo (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

==April 2010== Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Catholic sex abuse cases. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR advice
I don't know if you logged out or in to accomplish your edits. Please see 3RR advice. --Morenooso (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I logged in to be identified. I could edit without logging in. I still don't understand anything other than this 3RR threat. I see that you have reverted the edit. I repeat: The contents have not been changed on the whole. Why do you have to kill the elephant to take out a fly? joo (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a technical writer by profession for more than 10 years. Please give me a specific example of where important content has disappeared or changed drastically upon my re-organization.
 * If you don't understand how to edit without deleting cited material, then you are killing the elephant to use your metaphor. I don't make threats; I just give advice. Editors have been known to conveniently "log out" to make edits or reverts. You were asked quite nicely several times to revert yourself. Since you didn't, I took care of it for you. Please learn to insert material with citations without deleting cited material. --Morenooso (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, give one specific example of deleted cited material. joo (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Cited references appear as per what I wrote above
When you type over a   you deleted references. You really need to learn how to edit on Wikipedia as if you are writing for a college professor who gave you a paper with citations and asked you to add material. Deleting his citations will not impress the professor. Please see WP:FIRST. If you don't recognize that you did that, then again, you need to stop and compare what you did and learn how to edit properly.--Morenooso (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Grooaaan! You are still talking in the generic sense. I understand you. I've inserted   many times. Please give me one specific text or ref which I've changed or deleted. joo (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've told you you can review on your own. It's pretty obvious when look at the history and compare differences.--Morenooso (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. As mentioned many times, I've counter-checked both original and the re-organized version. Anyway, to make it easier for you to follow the changes, I'll make the changes incrementally now. joo (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do it without deleting references. --Morenooso (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't. I believe I didn't either. joo (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now why you thought I've deleted references or cited materials. I had merely deleted duplicate text. joo (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You done much better doing it incrementally. This makes it easier for all to follow. And, if you think I am rough as a Page Patroller, you will see much harder editors than me. --Morenooso (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a "heads-up" you are editting a highly controversial article which at this time draws lots of attention. Some of the harder editors will cite WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR or Recentism in reverting long or big edits. You're always better off doing it the way you just did as it becomes more transparent for all to follow. --Morenooso (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. Granted that you're doing your job in stopping massive changes that are difficult to follow. Peace. :) joo (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I could see this time around you were doing well and did not want to break your train of thought by patting you on the back. I truly believe you did a great re-write this time around. It's not so much massive changes but those usually will get reverted for one reason or another based upon what I have seen and all the various Wikipedian policies out there.--Morenooso (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Btw, isn't "damage control" an opinion or a perception rather than fact? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#cite_note-102 and click ^)
 * If I understand you correctly (and, I'm watching my ballgame amongst other things), if the original editor had just stated, The Vatican has gone into full damage control - then yes that would be opinion, WP:OR or WP:NPOV. However, because the editor found a reliable source that can probably be found in other similar newspapers or online content, I think that reference is okay. It just depends on how you use the reference. If you put undue weight on a reference, then yes that reference could be deleted but should first be discussed on the article talkpage to get WP:CONSENSUS. --Morenooso (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The AP report title and the Wikipedia 'quote' says the Vatican backed off from linking paedophilia with gays. But within the AP report, "A Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the statement was aimed at clarifying Cardinal Bertone's remarks and should not be seen as the Holy See distancing itself from them." joo (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this section "Vatican Responses"? How come the wordings are not fact-based but seem to have devolved into media perceptions of the Vatican responses? joo (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on how deeply you go into the citation. The original editor may have been just trying to convey that the Vatican was had gone into full damage control - please notice those words appear directly in the cited material as the editor used direct quotes, i.e., "full damage control mode". In essence, it was using the article title to connotate what I said initially in this response (right now in this paragraph). Now, you as a subsequent reader/editor might note there is a disconnect or valid point that not covered by the direct quote. In that case, you could add the one-liner about Bertone and use the same citation for your counterpoint. --Morenooso (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And your edit summary can be what makes or breaks your edit. Be snarky, and others will try to take you down. Put a nice smooth even line like: Clarified what was said in the citation and your counterpoint becomes almost bulletproof. --Morenooso (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just did so. How is my comment, "wording change to reflect nPoV; truer quote of what Vatican spokemen actually said; also words like "damage control" and "blame" suggest a point of view that's against the Vatican." Need to run. Thanks for your advice.

New train of thought
In this diff, some editors will say that you editoralized by saying the Associated Press. While it can be always be inferred by one person that "the libel press" said this or "the reporter got it wrong", putting that into an article edit can lead to problems with NPOV and you being reversed. I wonder if anyone will notice. --Morenooso (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that the reporter got it wrong, but "AP claimed". In fact though, the AP report title really did not reflect the Vatican statement. joo (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you're leading the reader to a judgment. In response to the AP claimed a smart editor would put and begin the dismantlement process. I recognize the next editor up and mostly likely he will do some healthy edits on your material. I would advise you to just watch what he does. Don't try to revise, edit or revert what the editor does. --Morenooso (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. Will first watch. joo (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The template connotates to other editors, who really said that? You could try to say the reporter said that but you would need another WP:RS source saying the first reporter said that. That is part of the convoluted Wikipedian process. Editoralizing in an article usually gets reverts. Kick back, relax and see if you'd be a good flexible. --Morenooso (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, the editor at bat got reverted in thisDIFF which kind of proves I know this article and its players. --Morenooso (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, how does feel to know that you warmed up the fireplace (so to speak)? This article dominates half my Watch list today. --Morenooso (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have kept you so busy. This is the first time that I've edited an article so intensively. The issues involved look so convoluted that I need to organize the contents properly to see more clearly. joo (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about keeping me busy. I have other interests here on Wikipedia. I try to keep up with the changes as best I can but the fire keg is lit. --Morenooso (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's this User:Haldraper guy who kept cutting the Criticisms of Media Coverage section until the content left is quite inane. Could someone do something about this? He has ignored my multiple attempts so far to engage him in discussion over changes.

Catholic Sex Abuse Cases
What are you trying to accomplish by adding nonsense about NAMBLA and quoting hate groups such as the Family Research Institute? Why all that anti-gay propaganda?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 * @Dvd-junkie: (1) You need to put my name in proper wiki formatting (as I've put here) before I can see your message.  (2) The NAMBLA reference is not nonsense. It is a fact (documented on Wikipedia itself at NAMBLA and at the jstor reference I gave) and a significant fact that NAMBLA was a member group (for 10 years!) of ILGA a homosexual organization that has consultative rights to the UN and European Commission. If NAMBLA (the pedophile group) is not homosexual, what was it doing inside ILGA? And for 10 years?  (3) How is Family Research Institute a hate group? Who defines it as a hate group? And not worthy of having its views and research being represented here? Even if it is, aren't Dawkins and Hitchens are reacting out of hate? They should be removed as well then.  (4) You have removed references to research studies made by more than the Family Research Institute. You've also removed (a) the Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy study, (b) the Erickson, Walbek, Sely study, (c) the K. Freud and R. I. Watson study, (d) the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate study, (e) the Archives of Sexual Behavior study. Please explain your deletions on the Talk page of the Catholic sex abuse cases page. joo (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing legitimate studies is not good practice. There need to be very good reasons for such actions.  Xan  dar   21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, Dvd-Junkie has removed the references again. joo (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Monica Applewhite
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Monica Applewhite, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=6376. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Monica Applewhite
A tag has been placed on Monica Applewhite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Xtzou ( Talk ) 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Monica Applewhite
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Monica Applewhite, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=6376, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Monica Applewhite and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Monica Applewhite, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Monica Applewhite with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Monica Applewhite. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Monica Applewhite saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've contacted Dr Monica Applewhite. Still awaiting her reply on this. joo (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

catholic sex abuse cases
Hey,Joo, I just wanted to give you a heads up. I'm just going to up and delete IP 71's recent new section, which of course would include your responses to it. I feel like deleting his attempted soap boxing on the talk page instead of feeding him might be better. No hard feelings against you.Farsight001 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the heads up, Farsight. No problem. joo (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Additionally, please remember to sign all your posts.--Morenooso (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on Catholic sex abuse cases. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Morenooso (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Haldraper_deleting_relevant_materials_despite_other_editors.27_objections I've tried to engage Haldraper in discussions but to no avail. joo (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Morenooso : WP:NPA says, "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I've presented evidence. joo (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'm going to report Haldraper on WP:ANEW joo (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. And as per the affected talkpage, I told you that I would go there when I am ready. I am not to that point just yet and will do on my own time and volition. Is that understood? --Morenooso (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, understood. I've just reported him there. joo (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you have a responsibility to let the other editor know in a private manner on his talkpage that you took him to that noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. What's the tag to put? While edit warring itself is a problem, it's important to consider whether the editor has good reasons for the reverts. Haldraper has been changing his reasons all the time. E.g. First he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section. Then he wrote that her quote is not about inaccuracy. Then he put an OR tag above Applewhite's quote. And that tag asked for references. When I've sourced enough references to support Applewhite's quote, he removed all the references saying that a quote do not need references. Then he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section and deleted Jenkins quote about only one pedophile among thousands of priests there. Surely, this kind of behavior deserves some censure/action? joo (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A discussion about you is taking place at WP:ANEW
Please see this DIFF as actions concerning your edits are taking place at that noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if this was me, I would take a moment to reflect upon this situation. You may not have been fully aware that your actions too could be considered to be edit-warring. And, while you may disagree either with my analysis or post, you may want to consider that as per the generic 3RR advisory substitute warning given to you that you have a responsiblity to be considerate of your edits and reverts as they may affect other editors. Be fully prepared as edit-warring is a bright line that most NEUTRAL admins will not tolerate. If this was me again and got blocked (I do not know you will but you should be prepared for just about anything), take it as a WP:COOL off and take some time off to clear your head and not think about the matter. --Morenooso (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking for censure usually is not a good move but I could be wrong. And potentially, you could be adding more fuel to the fire so to speak. I would advise a low, humble approach and profile. --Morenooso (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A low, humble approach and profile sounds just like what someone in my church would advise. :p I'm going to sleep now. Thanks for the advice. Appreciate this. joo (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears an admin has reviewed the WP:ANEW report. Now is the time to maintain a low profile. --Morenooso (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your post of diffs
The talkpage is not the place for this. In addition, admins will review WP:ANEW and all the contribs of the editors involved. You're not helping yourself in my humble estimation. Even on WP:ANEW, address content and not the other editor by name. That could be viewed as a WP:NPA. --Morenooso (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know we are not supposed to post diffs in the talk page. Okay, won't do that again. As for WP:ANEW, I cannot describe what happened without naming the person who did them. How do you do that? joo (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On WP:ANEW, guess what? It's going to be like a tennis match with only two people involved. Everyone else, unless there is a post by a different editor, can figure out who the tennis players are. That may be the place for diffs but even that can be dicey because an editor could be viewed as now edit-warring there if you catch the drift or analogy. In essence, you've made your case, now move on as somebody in a blue uniform might say. As for the talkpage, editors should be looking or have the article under Watch and reviewing history diffs. Wikipedia doesn't need a replay on the talkpage unless it's really a slow day with a "Z" in it. I don't think any of the days of the week have a "Z"; ergo, no. --Morenooso (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Huey45's report on ip71 has been archived without any discussion or resolution, I have my doubts really about how admins resolve (or don't resolve) reported problems. I'm going to post my report on my talk page then. Plus I've reported him at WP:ANI and WP:Editor assistance and yet so far no action has been taken. :( joo (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It can take as much as a week to review all the edits, contribs, warnings, talkpages, article, article talkpage, etc. No admin is in a rush to judge unless an extraordinary situtation exists as obvious edit-warring or vandalism. Admins are subject to review of their actions. Just like an editor, who values being able to edit Wikipedia, they enjoy that privilege and being able to administer Wikipedia. They don't want to be under review because they acted in haste. That was part of my editted posts (just the admin review post about why the article admins *possibly* were not engaged) and perhaps not clear to you. And each new post to WP:ANEW will set back the final judgment. As you can see if you have that page under Watch, which makes the section below unnecessary IMHO or would be better as a separate userpage, admins have begun editting the headers. In fact, one new admin editted the talkpage which indicates he/she *may* have felt some action was necessary. You can what was editted out which should a reminder and big hint to you. The best advice I can give is to be very mellow. With the article under dispute, I would make no more than two edits to it in any 24 hour period to avoid a 3RR situation. Granted, if you were to make "pure new edits" that do not revert material than you could probably edit it at will. Still, because edit-warring is being discussed at WP:ANEW, editting-at-will is not a good idea IMHO. Additionally, I would surmise that the majority of your edits come mostly to this article. It's better to have a wide variety of edits or articles contributed to but again that that may be my opinion. --Morenooso (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 * One week is very long. I need to KIV the issues on my Talk page then. Frankly, I have no hidden agenda. And I don't believe in putting on a show of being interested in other articles. Still, tahnks for the advice, Morenooso. joo (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Now that Haldraper has edited the disputed section and text again, is he blocked by now? Or is 3RR merely a warning? joo (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Disappeared/Archived incidence reports

 * Just checked WP:ANI and found that my report and Farsight's comment have disappeared without the issue being resolved. Good thing I've captured screenshots of what other editors have said about Haldraper's behavior. joo (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The report is still on WP:ANEW in the section you created it in unless you started a report somewhere else I don't know about. History never is gone on Wikipedia unless deleted by an admin. Even then, admins can still call up deleted articles and their history. You can see the WP:ANEW history by clicking on the History tab which is this DIFF. Then to see the history per your last post or that of the responding editor, you find the last time stamp that corresponds to what you are looking for. In your case that is May 6 at 00:27. Clicking on that time stamp will bring up the info you posted ala this HISTORYdiff. You can always set your report up in a userfile on your userpage which is much better.
 * To set up a userfile, on your userpage user:Joo, type /anyfilename . This will create the file, anyfilename there which is blank. The go to the WP:ANEW board and click the Edit tab as you did to create the section below. Copy all the info and then paste it into anyfilename on your userpage. Save and watch and you will have the info where you can retrieve it with minimal clicks. --Morenooso (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Until the case is resolved, it should not "disappear" or be archived. Open reports are left open until an admin makes a determination. And if I'm not around, you could ask the admin that has been posting on the article talkpage about its status but I wouldn't do that if I was you. One of the reasons I told you about editting other articles is that admins can get to know you. I have had several situations lately where a serious accusation or two were made against me. I looked on my Watchlist to find an admin I knew. Then I went on the admins' talkpages, explained my concern, asked them to review the situation and said, "Block me if true." I would rather get blocked (not really) by an admin I know versus an admin who gets to know you because he/she is blocking you. There is no good block in my mind but again, if I had to be blocked, I'd rather have it done by someone I know. I've done this four times in the last month. Know how times I got blocked? Zero! On the converse side, I'd told these admins I expect no quarter and them to be fair which I pretty know they will be. If it's a blockable offense, they're going to do it and my asking to be blocked will only expedite the matter. Fortunately, I'm still editting. --Morenooso (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a userfile you just archived into. Maybe I'm blind. --Morenooso (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. I am blind. --Morenooso (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are on my user page. Was editing (and not saving yet) just now. Thanks for the instructions on how to do this. btw, it's not like I can't wait for Haldraper to be punished. But he apparently needs to face some consequences before he'll adjust his disruptive behavior. joo (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know as I haven't see the edit. It is in bad form to ask about another editor being blocked especially as some of your edits have been called into question. While this is your talkpage, I am sure others are watching it. I would think that the admin who editted your talkpage is now watching the article to help determine what will be done in terms of whatever needs to be done. My best advice to you is to lay low, do no more than two edits a day and do not revert anyone. --Morenooso (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about 3RR? Hasn't Haldraper violated 3RR by now? Still nothing has happened? joo (talk)
 * Again, I don't know. I haven't reviewed the article as I have several irons in the fire (articles that I have under Watch that need attention. I really don't have time to play policeman on that article because a number of editors post stuff to it like dogs overscenting a pole. That's why it's hard for admins to wade through your report and make a determination - so much stuff happened, is happening and IMHO going over-the-top. On disputed articles, I tend not to revert because I could get sucked into the 3RR action if that determination is made. You really need to relax. Let the admins do their thing. Complicate the matter by continuing to edit the article (don't know if you have), make accusations at different noticeboards (which from your userpage appears you have) and you just throw the initial determination further and further back. I'll be real honest with you. I had a long day today and I am only focused on articles that matter to me or that pop up current in my Watchlist. Csa isn't in my top 500 right now. Sorry as I have over 1900 articles on Watch. --Morenooso (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1900 articles! Is this a full-time job? joo (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
The next time you address an entire thread to a user, instead of to content, I will delete it. Instead for saying, "Why did Joe Doe delete this?", I recommend you use a more edit-oriented question like, "Why was this material deleted?" If you have issues with the behavior of specific editors then raise it on their user talk pages or on the appropriate noticeboard. See WP:TP and WP:TPG.  Will Beback   talk    21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will Beback: Noted. Morenooso has already pointed this out to me. However, I have already raised the issues on Haldraper's talk page and a few noticeboards. Nothing has happened yet other than various warning notices. In fact, Haldraper did it again. He reverted my last edit. And no action apparently has been taken against him although I've seen the 3RR notice on his talk page several times. joo (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After going through Haldraper's talk page, I see that he has a history of 1) deleting stuff, 2) making improper edits esp. on Catholic pages, and 3) Not discussing. He has been blocked twice. This time however, nothing seems to have happened to him. joo (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion for you
You may wish to visit WikiProject Catholicism and see if there is an article you might be interested in building. You have great edit skills and easily could build a desired article or two. Plus, there are articles in Stub status on WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment that you could flesh out and possibly make into a full-featured article. If click on the table to the lower middle right, you will what Stub articles are available for editting that can be developed by someone with your skills. Plus there might be an Eastern perspective you could bring to Catholic or Christian articles concerning Papal or Church relations in your geographic area. Take a look. You may find something that you could do wonders to. If you do, please let me know and I will follow your work (in a good way). Cheers.--Morenooso (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This URL shows Stub class High interest articles waiting to be developed further. 16 exist. I bet you could knock one out in one hour flat. --Morenooso (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Morenooso, so far my experiences on Wikipedia has been negative. I'm not motivated to do more on Wikipedia, especially with people like Haldraper around - who delete whatever they don't like and refuse to discuss properly. And it's quite ironic, isn't it? You say that I have great edit skills. Haldraper already has a history of improper deletions and edits and of being blocked twice. Yet, so far it seems to me that both you and the other admin had been busy warning me (and not Haldraper). Plus the status of my WP:ANEW report is now Stale. If you were in my shoes, would you bother to edit another Wikipedia article? joo (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I too was in your shoes. I felt blunted and stepped away from Wikipedia for almost a year. But, I realized I wanted to be a part of this project. I hope you will want to stay which is why I have been trying to give you tips. I am sorry if my advice has been bad or ill received. --Morenooso (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your tips, really. :) joo (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, look at you with your user page!!! Get involved with those wikiprojects. I still think you could find some stub articles in the various wikiprojects, bring them out of stub status and maybe get a DYK nomination. --Morenooso (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not now. A few months later maybe. joo (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Morenooso, why can't I see any Edit button on the Catholic Sex Abuse Cases article? joo (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, from the Discussion page, I see that the article is now locked for all editors. joo (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nobody Ent 13:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANEW

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nobody Ent 13:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:Editor assistance/Requests

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nobody Ent 13:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user subpage at User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add  to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI
User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joo


text:
Jean Lemaire de Belges

Jean Lemaire de Belges (c. 1473 – c. 1525) was a Walloon poet, historian, and pamphleteer who, writing in French, was the last and one of the best of the school of poetic 'rhétoriqueurs' (“rhetoricians”) and the chief forerunner, both in style and thought, of the Renaissance humanists in France and Flanders.

Biography
He was born in Hainaut (Hainault), the godson and possibly a nephew of Jean Molinet, and spent some time with him at Valenciennes, where the elder writer held a kind of academy of poetry. Lemaire in his first poems calls himself a disciple of Molinet. In certain aspects he does belong to the school of the grands rhétoriqueurs ("rhetoricians"), but his great merit as a poet is that he emancipated himself from the affectations of his masters. This independence of the Flemish school he owed in part perhaps to his studies at the University of Paris and to the study of the Italian poets at Lyon, a centre of the French Renaissance. In 1504 he was attached to the court of Margaret of Austria, duchess of Savoy, and afterwards Regent of the Netherlands. For this princess he undertook more than one mission to Rome where he came into contact with the culture of the Italian Renaissance; he became her librarian and a canon of Valenciennes.

To Margaret were addressed his most original poems, the burlesque Épîtres de l'amant vert, of 1505 (see 1505 in poetry). The amant vert (green lover) of the title is a green parrot belonging to his patroness. This latter piece was subsequently utilised in the sublimely melancholic Soubz ce tumbel (Within this tomb) by Pierre de la Rue. It is an intense elegiac farewell to Margaret's 'green lover'. "Within this tomb, which is a harsh, locked cell, Lies the green lover, the very worthy slave Whose noble heart, drunk with true, pure love, Losing its lady, cannot bear to live."

Lemaire gradually became more French in his sympathies, eventually entering the service of Anne of Brittany, wife of Louis XII, and supporting Louis's ambitions to create a church relatively independent of the Pope. His prose Illustrations de Gaule et singularitez de Troye (1510–1514), largely adapted from Benoît de Sainte-Maure, is a novel-like history that connects the House of Burgundy with Hector.

Lemaire probably died before 1525. Étienne Pasquier, Pierre de Ronsard and Joachim du Bellay all acknowledged their indebtedness to him. In his love for antiquity, his sense of rhythm, and even the peculiarities of his vocabulary he anticipated the humanist movement led by Du Bellay and Ronsard, the Pléiade.

Works
A 4-volume edition of his works, edited by Jean Stecher, was published in Leuven in 1882-1891.

Prose

 * 1510–1514: Illustrations de Gaule et singularitez de Troye

Poetry

 * 1504 or 1505: La courrone margaritique, on the death of Philibert II, Duke of Savoy, the second husband of Archduchess Margaret of Austria
 * 1505: Épîtres de l'amant vert
 * 1507: Les Chansons de Namur, written in support of a popular revolt
 * 1511: La Concorde des deux langages, referring to the French and Italian languages, urging cultural unity

Epîtres de l'Amant vert
While a poet in residence at the court of Margaret of Austria, Jean wrote two rhymed letters extolling his patroness. The first epistle is a witty parody of the Ovidian farewell love letter, the second of the tradition of Virgil's Aeneid and Dante's Divine Comedy. The letters, written to defend the value of French poetry, were written around 1505, published around 1510-1511, and hide his own private subject under the guise of a green parrot.

title: Jean Lemaire de Belges


text:
Paleo-Hebrew alphabet

The Paleo-Hebrew script (הכתב העברי הקדום), also Palaeo-Hebrew, Proto-Hebrew or Old Hebrew, is the writing system found in Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions, including pre-Biblical and Biblical Hebrew, from southern Canaan, also known as the biblical kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah. It is considered to be the script used to record the original texts of the Bible due to its similarity to the Samaritan script; the Talmud states that the Samaritans still used this script. The Talmud described it as the "Livonaʾa script", translated by some as "Lebanon script". However, it has also been suggested that the name is a corrupted form of "Neapolitan", i.e. of Nablus. Use of the term "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" is due to a 1954 suggestion by Solomon Birnbaum, who argued that "[t]o apply the term Phoenician [from Northern Canaan, today's Lebanon] to the script of the Hebrews [from Southern Canaan, today's Israel-Palestine] is hardly suitable". The Paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician alphabets are two slight regional variants of the same script.

The first Paleo-Hebrew inscription identified in modern times was the Royal Steward inscription (KAI 191), found in 1870, and then referred to as "two large ancient Hebrew inscriptions in Phoenician letters". Fewer than 2,000 inscriptions are known today, of which the vast majority comprise just a single letter or word. Millard, A. (1993), [http://www.jstor.org/stable/23967100 Reviewed Work: Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Corpus and Concordance by G. I. Davies, M. N. A. Bockmuehl, D. R. de Lacey, A. J. Poulter], The Journal of Theological Studies, 44(1), new series, 216–219: "...every identifiable Hebrew inscription dated before 200 BC... First ostraca, graffiti, and marks are grouped by provenance. This section contains more than five hundred items, over half of them ink-written ostraca, individual letters, receipts, memoranda, and writing exercises. The other inscriptions are names scratched on pots, scribbles of various sorts, which include couplets on the walls of tombs near Hebron, and letters serving as fitters' marks on ivories from Samaria.... The seals and seal impressions are set in the numerical sequence of Diringer and Vattioni (100.001–100.438). The pace of discovery since F. Vattioni issued his last valuable list (Ί sigilli ebraici III', AnnaliAnnali dell'Istituto Universitario Orientate di Napoli 38 (1978), 227—54) means the last seal entered by Davies is 100.900. The actual number of Hebrew seals and impressions is less than 900 because of the omission of those identified as non-Hebrew which previous lists counted. A further reduction follows when duplicate seal impressions from different sites are combined, as cross references in the entries suggest... The Corpus ends with 'Royal Stamps' (105.001-025, the Imlk stamps), '"Judah" and "Jerusalem" Stamps and Coins' (106.001-052), 'Other Official Stamps' (107.001), 'Inscribed Weights' (108.001-056) and 'Inscribed Measures' (109.001,002).... most seals have no known provenance (they probably come from burials)... Even if the 900 seals are reduced by as much as one third, 600 seals is still a very high total for the small states of Israel and Judah, and most come from Judah. It is about double the number of seals known inscribed in Aramaic, a language written over a far wider area by officials of great empires as well as by private persons. The earliest known examples of Paleo-Hebrew writing date to the 10th century BCE.

Like the Phoenician alphabet, it is a slight regional variant and an immediate continuation of the Proto-Canaanite script, which was used throughout Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Phoenician, Hebrew, and all of their sister Canaanite languages were largely indistinguishable dialects before that time. The Paleo-Hebrew script is an abjad of 22 consonantal letters, exactly as the other Canaanite scripts from the period.

By the 5th century BCE, among Judeans the alphabet had been mostly replaced by the Aramaic alphabet as used officially by the Achaemenid Empire. The "Square" variant now known simply as the Hebrew alphabet evolved directly out of this by about the 3rd century BCE, although some letter shapes did not become standard until the 1st century. By contrast, the Samaritan script is an immediate continuation of the Proto-Hebrew script without intermediate non-Israelite evolutionary stages. There is also some continued use of the old Hebrew script in Jewish religious contexts down to the 1st century BCE, notably in the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Origins

The Paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician alphabets developed in the wake of the Bronze Age collapse, out of their immediate predecessor script Proto-Canaanite (Late Proto-Sinaitic) during the 13th to 12th centuries BCE, and earlier Proto-Sinaitic scripts.

The earliest known inscription in the Paleo-Hebrew script is the Zayit Stone discovered on a wall at Tel Zayit, in the Beth Guvrin Valley in the lowlands of ancient Judea in 2005, about 50 km southwest of Jerusalem. The 22 letters were carved on one side of the 38 lb stone, which resembles a bowl on the other. The find is attributed to the mid-10th century BCE. The so-called Ophel inscription is of a similar age, but difficult to interpret, and may be classified as either Proto-Canaanite or as Paleo-Hebrew. The Gezer calendar is of uncertain date, but may also still date to the 10th century BCE.

The script on the Zayit Stone and Gezer Calendar are an earlier form than the classical Paleo-Hebrew of the 8th century and later; this early script is almost identical to the early Phoenician script on the 9th-century Ahiram sarcophagus inscription. By the 8th century, a number of regional characteristics begin to separate the script into a number of national alphabets, including the Israelite (Israel and Judah), Moabite (Moab and Ammon), Edomite, Phoenician and Old Aramaic scripts.

Linguistic features of the Moabite language (rather than generic Northwest Semitic) are visible in the Mesha Stele inscription, commissioned around 840 BCE by King Mesha of Moab. Similarly, the Tel Dan Stele, dated approximately 810 BCE, is written in Old Aramaic, dating from a period when Dan had already fallen into the orbit of Damascus.

The oldest inscriptions identifiable as Biblical Hebrew have long been limited to the 8th century BCE. In 2008, however, a potsherd (ostracon) bearing an inscription was excavated at Khirbet Qeiyafa which has since been interpreted as representing a recognizably Hebrew inscription dated to as early as the 10th century BCE. The argument identifying the text as Hebrew relies on the use of vocabulary.

From the 8th century onward, Hebrew epigraphy becomes more common, showing the gradual spread of literacy among the people of the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah; the oldest portions of the Hebrew Bible, although transmitted via the recension of the Second Temple period, are also dated to the 8th century BCE.

Use in the Israelite kingdoms

The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was in common use in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah throughout the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. During the 6th century BCE, the time of the Babylonian exile, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was gradually replaced by the use of the Imperial Aramaic alphabet. The letters of Imperial Aramaic were again given shapes characteristic for writing Hebrew during the Second Temple period, developing into the "square shape" of the Hebrew alphabet.

The Samaritans, who remained in the Land of Israel, continued to use their variant of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, called the Samaritan script. After the fall of the Persian Empire, Jews used both scripts before settling on the Assyrian form.

The Paleo-Hebrew script evolved by developing numerous cursive features, the lapidary features of the Phoenician alphabet being ever less pronounced with the passage of time. The aversion of the lapidary script may indicate that the custom of erecting stelae by the kings and offering votive inscriptions to the deity was not widespread in Israel. Even the engraved inscriptions from the 8th century exhibit elements of the cursive style, such as the shading, which is a natural feature of pen-and-ink writing. Examples of such inscriptions include the Siloam inscription, numerous tomb inscriptions from Jerusalem, the Ketef Hinnom scrolls, a fragmentary Hebrew inscription on an ivory which was taken as war spoils (probably from Samaria) to Nimrud, the Arad ostraca dating to the 6th-century BCE, the hundreds of 8th to 6th-century Hebrew seals from various sites, and the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll discovered near Tel Qumran. The most developed cursive script is found on the 18 Lachish ostraca, letters sent by an officer to the governor of Lachish just before the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. A slightly earlier (circa 620 BCE) but similar script is found on an ostracon excavated at Mesad Hashavyahu, containing a petition for redress of grievances (an appeal by a field worker to the fortress's governor regarding the confiscation of his cloak, which the writer considers to have been unjust).

Decline and late survival

After the Babylonian capture of Judea, when most of the nobles were taken into exile, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet continued to be used by the people who remained. One example of such writings are the 6th-century BCE jar handles from Gibeon, on which the names of winegrowers are inscribed. Beginning from the 5th century BCE onward, the Aramaic language and script became an official means of communication. Paleo-Hebrew was still used by scribes and others.

The Paleo-Hebrew script was retained for some time as an archaizing or conservative mode of writing. It is found in certain texts of the Torah among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to the 2nd to 1st centuries BCE: manuscripts 4Q12, 6Q1: Genesis. 4Q22: Exodus. 1Q3, 2Q5, 4Q11, 4Q45, 4Q46, 6Q2, and the Leviticus scroll (11QpaleoLev). In some Qumran documents, the tetragrammaton name of the Israelite deity, YHWH, is written in Paleo-Hebrew while the rest of the text is rendered in the adopted Aramaic square script that became today's normative Jewish Hebrew script. The vast majority of the Hasmonean coinage, as well as the coins of the First Jewish–Roman War and Bar Kokhba's revolt, bears Paleo-Hebrew legends. The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet fell completely out of use among Jews only after 135 CE.

Samaritan alphabet
The paleo-Hebrew alphabet continued to be used by the Samaritans and over time developed into the Samaritan alphabet. The Samaritans have continued to use the script for writing both Hebrew and Aramaic texts until the present day. A comparison of the earliest Samaritan inscriptions and the medieval and modern Samaritan manuscripts clearly indicates that the Samaritan script is a static script which was used mainly as a book hand.

Talmud
The Talmudic sages did not share a uniform stance on the subject of Paleo-Hebrew. Some stated that Paleo-Hebrew was the original script used by the Israelites at the time of the Exodus, whereas the Aramaic square script was brought from Assyria and introduced for writing Torah scrolls in the post-exilic period, while others believed that Paleo-Hebrew merely served as a stopgap in a time when the ostensibly original script (the Assyrian Script) was lost. According to both opinions, Ezra the Scribe (c. 500 BCE) introduced, or reintroduced the Assyrian script to be used as the primary alphabet for the Hebrew language. The arguments given for both opinions are rooted in Jewish scripture and/or tradition.

A third opinion in the Talmud states that the script never changed altogether. Rabbi Eleazar from Modiin, the sage who expressed this opinion, based his opinion on a scriptural verse, which makes reference to the shape of the letter vav. He argues further that, given the commandment to copy a Torah scroll directly from another, the script could not conceivably have been modified at any point. A different version of the debate in the Jerusalem Talmud refers to the circular shapes of the letters Ayin in Paleo-Hebrew and Samekh in square script on the stone tablets as miracles according to the respective sages arguing for one script or the other. This third opinion was accepted by some early Jewish scholars, and rejected by others, partially because it was permitted to write the Torah in Greek.

Contemporary use
Use of Proto-Hebrew in modern Israel is negligible, but it is found occasionally in nostalgic or pseudo-archaic examples, e.g. on the ₪1 coin ( "Judea") and in the logo of the Israeli town Nahariyah (Deuteronomy 33:24 "Let Asher be blessed with children").

Archaeology
In 2019, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) unearthed a 2,600 year-old seal impression, while conducting excavations at the City of David, containing paleo-Hebrew script, and which is thought to have belonged to a certain "Nathan-Melech," an official in King Josiah's court.

Table of letters
Phoenician or Paleo-Hebrew characters were never standardised and are found in numerous variant shapes. A general tendency of more cursive writing can be observed over the period of c. 800 BCE to 600 BCE. After 500 BCE, it is common to distinguish the script variants by names such as "Samaritan", "Aramaic", etc.

There is no difference in "Paleo-Hebrew" vs. "Phoenician" letter shapes. The names are applied depending on the language of the inscription, or if that cannot be determined, of the coastal (Phoenician) vs. highland (Hebrew) association (c.f. the Zayit Stone abecedary).

Unicode
The Unicode block Phoenician (U+10900–U+1091F) is intended for the representation of, apart from the Phoenician alphabet, text in Palaeo-Hebrew, Archaic Phoenician, Early Aramaic, Late Phoenician cursive, Phoenician papyri, Siloam Hebrew, Hebrew seals, Ammonite, Moabite, and Punic.

title: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet


text:
Category:Lists of American people

This category includes articles that are lists of Americans, people who are now living, or once lived, in the United States.

title: Category:Lists of American people


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Something by country

Some categories have subcategories as "category:Something by country" or "category:Xers by nationality", while some do not. Should it be standardised that all category:Something of Foo or category:Xers of Foo/category:Fooish xers be categorised under "category:Something by country" or "category:Xers by nationality"? Or should all "category:Something by country" or "category:Xers by nationality" be deleted? — Instantnood 17:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Examples:
 * category:Islands vs. category:Peninsulas/category:Peninsulas by nation,
 * category:Rivers vs. category:Lakes/category:Lakes by country, and
 * category:Trade unionists vs. category:Economists by nationality/category:Economists — Instantnood 19:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * No to both. Gene Nygaard 20:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you think they shouldn't be deleted, then should they be created for all categories of the same sort? (e.g. category:Islands by country created as a subcategory of category:Islands) — Instantnood 21:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Those the two things you proposed. Those are the two things I say no to.  Different factors are involved in different categories, including number of elements.  Lakes are usually in one country or shared by a couple; rivers are often in several countries.  You are also being dishonest about Category:Trade unionists which has had subcategories by country created on an as-needed basis; there is no reason just to make them for all countries.  Gene Nygaard 22:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why can't "category:Fooian trade unionists" be arranged under "category:Trade unionists by nationality"? — Instantnood 13:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether it can or not is totally irrevant to both points you were making here. Gene Nygaard 16:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No to both. We should and do have some standards for naming of categories, but categories should not be made just because other categories like them exist; let the weight of content and need drive category formation and not adminstrative rules.  This particular discussion has shown up in multiple forms and I personally don't think a blanket one-rule-for-all is the way to go. Courtland 21:19, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree. But some sort of guidelines seem necessary. The situation has now ended up with category:Islands vs category:Peninsulas/category:Peninsulas by nation, and category:Rivers vs. category:Lakes/category:Lakes by country, which is clearly confusing. — Instantnood 21:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are using the "Categories for deletion" resource as a forum for hashing out guidelines, then, rather than as a place to propose and discuss deletions of categories? Courtland 22:48, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * Umm. If the decision is not to delete these categories, we should proceed to elsewhere to discuss on whether they should be created for cases alike. — Instantnood 13:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed; suggestions? Courtland 17:45, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
 * First thing to agree on is the suggestion "we should proceed to elsewhere". Abandon this discussion which is going nowhere and send it to the archives. Gene Nygaard 17:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * no to both, I agree with everything Courtland said. Thryduulf 00:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose No such sweeping change required. Sensitivity to context it more important. Wincoote 01:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * no to both, I agree with everything Thryduulf said. -Kbdank71 14:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea in principle but wouldn't currently work in practice. See the WikiProject on categorization. Radiant_* 08:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


text: Category:Head and neck

title: Category:Head and neck