text:
USS Du Pont

Three ships of the United States Navy have borne the name USS Du Pont, in honor of Rear Admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont.

 * USS Du Pont (TB-7), a Porter-class torpedo boat, launched in 1897, renamed Coast Torpedo Boat No. 3 in 1918, and sold in 1920.
 * USS Du Pont (DD-152), a Wickes-class destroyer, launched in 1918 and sold in 1947.
 * USS Du Pont (DD-941), a Forrest Sherman-class destroyer, launched in 1956 and sold in 1993.

title: USS Du Pont


text: Category:400s BC births

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

title: Category:400s BC births


text: Category:Rob Dougan albums

title: Category:Rob Dougan albums


text:
Talk:Primaquine

Untitled
related to Chloroquine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WucCP133, Dgarcia24, Maryam.havaei, Lizethrivera0720. Peer reviewers: NedaNassr, Lois.chung, Floal1, Collierpharmd, Hwhittemore13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Radical cure
I have removed the bits about primaquine not being effective against the erythrocytic stages of malaria as untrue. Primaquine is very effective against the erythrocytic stages of malaria, but is always given with chloroquine because the effect against hypnozoites is potentiated by quinine or chloroquine. I have referenced this statement in the article. --Gak 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear from this context whether it is necessary to take chloroquine with primaquine once the blood stage treatment has completed. For example, suppose one finished chloroquine 10 days ago and no longer has symptoms or re-exposure. Does one then need to take more chloroquine to potentiate the primaquine in killing liver hypnozoites? And if this would be needed in this case, why would more chloroquine not be needed after 10 days of treatment because presumably the chloroquine is mostly gone from the plasma after 11 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.196.83 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Certainly anecdotal and WP:OR but...in late 70's Peace Corps Volunteers were given a dose of primaquine to be taken 4 days after leaving malarial endemic areas. Since at that time weekly chloroquine was the PC prophylaxis of choice (at least in West Africa), the number of days from the last chloroquine dose could have been as long as 11 days but no more. Juan Riley (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing Edits through 11/17 (UCSF Health Policy Course)
Our group is planning to make the following changes to the page in the next two weeks:
 * Flesh out the lede (3-4 paragraph style)
 * Update adverse reactions section and nest the contraindications section
 * Remove Manufacturing and Availability section, relocate and condense pertinent information to the lede
 * Add a pharmacokinetics section (incorporate Dosing section)
 * Add a Mechanism of Action section

 * Move dosing for continuity and update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgarcia24 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WucCP133 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 * We don't discuss dosing per WP:MEDMOS. Unclear if the information that was under "manufacturing" is true; moved it here until someone verifies it (note - the "testing at prison" if true really belongs under History per MEDMOS).  The refs in this article are all very old.  It could use a complete workover based on recent MEDRS sources for the WP:Biomedical information  content and WP:RS for the rest. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't discuss dosing per WP:MEDMOS.  Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

unsoured
moving this here as it is unsourced per PRESERVE

 * Manufacturing and availability

Primaquine was first tested on humans during the Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Study in 1944. Primaquine was licensed for use in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration in 1952 and is available as a generic drug from a variety of manufacturers.

Primaquine is not licensed for use in the United Kingdom. It is available on a named patient basis only from certain pharmaceutical providers. Primaquine tablets available in the UK contain 7.5 mg primaquine base (13.2 mg phosphate salt). Primaquine tablets available in the US contain 15 mg base (26.3 mg phosphate salt).\

-- 18:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Review for CP 133
1.	STUDENT 1 – Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

Yes, the draft submission on Primaquine reflects a neutral point of view. There is no evidence of editorial bias. The editing group drew information from reliable sources, and there was no original research used to validate statements within the article. --Lois.chung (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

2.	STUDENT 2 – Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…

The source: Baird JK, Rieckmann KH (March 2003). "Can primaquine therapy for vivax malaria be improved?" is not freely accessible and the information cited in the wikipedia page does not appear to be available in the article abstract.

The source: Edgcomb JH, Arnold J, Young EH, et al. (1950). "Primaquine, SN 13272, a new curative agent in vivax malaria; a preliminary report." - I was unable to find online free access to this article. Perhaps because the journal article is very old, there is not online version of it available.

The source: Jacobson LS, Schoemana T and Lobetti RG (2000). "A Survey of Feline Babesiosis in South Africa" - the file that downloads from this source has a different title and different authors than what is stated in the citation. The source is a scientific study (primary literature) that compares effectiveness of various drugs to that of primaquine for treatment of feline babesiosis. However, the study is rather old, and one cannot claim that "Primaquine is used to treat feline babesiosis" from this article, as stated in the Veterinary use section of the Primaquine wikipedia article. This article might be more helpful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20230438

All other sources are freely accessible and as far as I could tell, all information was verifiable.

Collierpharmd (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Excellent catch, will remove this section as the information appears to be inaccurate.WucCP133 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

3.	STUDENT 3 – Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify…

Based on "Wikipedia's manual for medicine-related articles" the edits appear to be consistent with the format indicated in the manual. The page has important information such as: uses, pharmacology/ mechanism of action, and side effects among others. It is also consistent with having the headings and sub-headings by having only the first letter capitalized followed by lower case if it has 2 words or more on both the heading and sub-heading. floal1 —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

4.	STUDENT 4 – Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

I found no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Hwhittemore13 Hwhittemore13 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lois.chung (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

“In Popular Culture”
Would it be appropriate to add this section? I thought I’d do a sentence or two about the M*A*S*H episode that deals extensively with side effects. AutumnAdrift (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Primaquine


text:
New Atlantis

New Atlantis is an incomplete utopian novel by Sir Francis Bacon, published posthumously in 1626. It appeared unheralded and tucked into the back of a longer work of natural history, Sylva Sylvarum (forest of materials). In New Atlantis, Bacon portrayed a vision of the future of human discovery and knowledge, expressing his aspirations and ideals for humankind. The novel depicts the creation of a utopian land where "generosity and enlightenment, dignity and splendour, piety and public spirit" are the commonly held qualities of the inhabitants of the mythical Bensalem. The plan and organisation of his ideal college, Salomon's House (or Solomon's House), prefigured the modern research university in both applied and pure sciences.

Publication history
New Atlantis first appeared in the back of Sylva sylvarum, a rather thorny work of natural history that was published by William Rawley, Bacon's secretary, chaplain and amanuensis in 1626. When Sylva was entered into the Stationers' Register of July 4th, 1626 (three months after Bacon's death), no mention was made of New Atlantis, and it was not until 1670 that it was included on Sylva 's letterpress title page (unlike Historia vitae et mortis which received that accolade in 1651). It was not until 1676 that the two works were published with continuous signatures, with the first edition of the Sylva being 'printed for J. H. for William Lee', while New Atlantis was, according to McKerrow, 'perhaps printed by Mathewes'. After New Atlantis was a two-page piece called Magnalia naturae, which most commentators tend to ignore, probably because it is difficult to link it to either Sylva or New Atlantis with any surety. It was published as an individual text by Thomas Newcomb in 1659, but in general New Atlantis appears to have been a text that no-one quite knew what to do with. Certainly Rawley's letter To The Reader indicates that he was less than clear as to its purpose, even though he later published it in Latin translation within the collection Operum moralium et civilium tomus (1638). In 1659 Thomas Bushell referred to the work in his Mineral Prosecutions, while in 1660 a certain R. H. published a continuation of New Atlantis and in 1662 an explicitly Rosicrucian version appeared as the preface to John Heydon's Holy Guide.

Plot summary
The novel depicts a mythical island, Bensalem, which is discovered by the crew of a European ship after they have lost their way in the Pacific Ocean somewhere west of Peru. The minimal plot serves the gradual unfolding of the island, its customs, but most importantly, its state-sponsored scientific institution, Salomon's House, "which house or college ... is the very eye of this kingdom."

Many aspects of the society and history of the island are described, such as the Christian religion – which is reported to have been born there as a copy of the Bible and a letter from the Apostle Saint Bartholomew arrived there miraculously, a few years after the Ascension of Jesus; a cultural feast in honour of the family institution, called "the Feast of the Family"; a college of sages, the Salomon's House, "the very eye of the kingdom", to which order "God of heaven and earth had vouchsafed the grace to know the works of Creation, and the secrets of them", as well as "to discern between divine miracles, works of nature, works of art, and impostures and illusions of all sorts"; and a series of instruments, process and methods of scientific research that were employed in the island by the Salomon's House.

The interlocutors include the governor of the House of Strangers, Joabin the Jew, and the Head of Salomon's House.

The inhabitants of Bensalem are described as having a high moral character and honesty, as no official accepts any payment from individuals. The people are also described as chaste and pious, as said by an inhabitant of the island:

"But hear me now, and I will tell you what I know. You shall understand that there is not under the heavens so chaste a nation as this of Bensalem; nor so free from all pollution or foulness. It is the virgin of the world. I remember I have read in one of your European books, of an holy hermit amongst you that desired to see the Spirit of Fornication; and there appeared to him a little foul ugly Aethiop. But if he had desired to see the Spirit of Chastity of Bensalem, it would have appeared to him in the likeness of a fair beautiful Cherubim. For there is nothing amongst mortal men more fair and admirable, than the chaste minds of this people. Know therefore, that with them there are no stews, no dissolute houses, no courtesans, nor anything of that kind."

In the last third of the book, the Head of the Salomon's House takes one of the European visitors to show him all the scientific background of Salomon's House, where experiments are conducted in Baconian method to understand and conquer nature, and to apply the collected knowledge to the betterment of society. Namely: 1) the end, or purpose, of their foundation; 2) the preparations they have for their works; 3) the several employments and functions whereto their fellows are assigned; 4) and the ordinances and rites which they observe.

He portrayed a vision of the future of human discovery and knowledge. The plan and organisation of his ideal college, "Salomon's House", prefigures the modern research university in both applied and pure science.

The end of their foundation is thus described: "The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible".

In describing the several employments and functions to which the members of the Salomon's House are assigned, the Head of the college said:

"“For the several employments and offices of our fellows, we have twelve that sail into foreign countries under the names of other nations (for our own we conceal), who bring us the books and abstracts, and patterns of experiments of all other parts. These we call merchants of light.

“We have three that collect the experiments which are in all books. These we call depredators.

“We have three that collect the experiments of all mechanical arts, and also of liberal sciences, and also of practices which are not brought into arts. These we call mystery–men.

“We have three that try new experiments, such as themselves think good. These we call pioneers or miners.

“We have three that draw the experiments of the former four into titles and tables, to give the better light for the drawing of observations and axioms out of them. These we call compilers.

“We have three that bend themselves, looking into the experiments of their fellows, and cast about how to draw out of them things of use and practice for man's life and knowledge, as well for works as for plain demonstration of causes, means of natural divinations, and the easy and clear discovery of the virtues and parts of bodies. These we call dowry–men or benefactors.

“Then after diverse meetings and consults of our whole number, to consider of the former labours and collections, we have three that take care out of them to direct new experiments, of a higher light, more penetrating into nature than the former. These we call lamps.

“We have three others that do execute the experiments so directed, and report them. These we call inoculators.

“Lastly, we have three that raise the former discoveries by experiments into greater observations, axioms, and aphorisms. These we call interpreters of nature.""

Even this short excerpt demonstrates that Bacon understood that science requires analysis and not just the accumulation of observations. Bacon also foresaw that the design of experiments could be improved.

In describing the ordinances and rites observed by the scientists of Salomon's House, its Head said:

"We have certain hymns and services, which we say daily, of Lord and thanks to God for His marvellous works; and some forms of prayer, imploring His aid and blessing for the illumination of our labors, and the turning of them into good and holy uses."

And finally, after showing all the scientific background of Salomon's House, he gave the European visitor permission to publish it:

"And when he had said this, he stood up; and I, as I had been taught, kneeled down, and he laid his right hand upon my head, and said; "God bless thee, my son; and God bless this relation, which I have made. I give thee leave to publish it for the good of other nations; for we here are in God's bosom, a land unknown.""

The name "Bensalem"
"Bensalem" is composed of two Hebrew words: "ben" (בן)—"son", and "salem" or "shalem" (שלם)—"whole" or "complete".

Thus the name could be interpreted as meaning "Son of Wholeness", or "Complete Son".

Interpretations
New Atlantis is a story dense with provocative details. There are many credible interpretations of what Bacon was attempting to convey. Below are a couple that give some sense of the rich implications of the text.

Bensalem's conversion to Christianity
Early in the story, the governor of the House of Strangers relates the incredible circumstances that introduced Christianity to the Island:

"“About twenty years after the ascension of our Saviour it came to pass [c. A.D. 50], that there was seen by the people of Renfusa (a city upon the eastern coast of our island, within sight, the night was cloudy and calm), as it might be some mile in the sea, a great pillar of light; not sharp, but in form of a column, or cylinder, rising from the sea, a great way up toward heaven; and on the top of it was seen a large cross of light, more bright and resplendent than the body of the pillar. Upon which so strange a spectacle, the people of the city gathered apace together upon the sands, to wonder; and so after put themselves into a number of small boats to go nearer to this marvellous sight. But when the boats were come within about sixty yards of the pillar, they found themselves all bound, and could go no further, yet so as they might move to go about, but might not approach nearer; so as the boats stood all as in a theatre, beholding this light, as a heavenly sign. It so fell out that there was in one of the boats one of the wise men of the Society of Salomon's House (which house, or college, my good brethren, is the very eye of this kingdom), who having awhile attentively and devoutly viewed and contemplated this pillar and cross, fell down upon his face; and then raised himself upon his knees, and lifting up his hands to heaven, made his prayers in this manner:

"'Lord God of heaven and earth; thou hast vouchsafed of thy grace, to those of our order to know thy works of creation, and true secrets of them; and to discern, as far as appertaineth to the generations of men, between divine miracles, works of nature, works of art and impostures, and illusions of all sorts. I do here acknowledge and testify before this people that the thing we now see before our eyes is thy finger, and a true miracle. And forasmuch as we learn in our books that thou never workest miracles, but to a divine and excellent end (for the laws of nature are thine own laws, and thou exceedest them not but upon great cause), we most humbly beseech thee to prosper this great sign, and to give us the interpretation and use of it in mercy; which thou dost in some part secretly promise, by sending it unto us.'

“When he had made his prayer he presently found the boat he was in movable and unbound; whereas all the rest remained still fast; and taking that for an assurance of leave to approach, he caused the boat to be softly and with silence rowed toward the pillar; but ere he came near it, the pillar and cross of light broke up, and cast itself abroad, as it were, into a firmament of many stars, which also vanished soon after, and there was nothing left to be seen but a small ark or chest of cedar, dry and not wet at all with water, though it swam; and in the fore end of it, which was toward him, grew a small green branch of palm; and when the wise man had taken it with all reverence into his boat, it opened of itself, and there were found in it a book and a letter, both written in fine parchment, and wrapped in sindons of linen. The book contained all the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, according as you have them (for we know well what the churches with you receive), and the Apocalypse itself; and some other books of the New Testament, which were not at that time written, were nevertheless in the book. And for the letter, it was in these words:

"'I, Bartholomew, a servant of the Highest, and apostle of Jesus Christ, was warned by an angel that appeared to me in a vision of glory, that I should commit this ark to the floods of the sea. Therefore I do testify and declare unto that people where God shall ordain this ark to come to land, that in the same day is come unto them salvation and peace, and good-will from the Father, and from the Lord Jesus.'

"There was also in both these writings, as well the book as the letter, wrought a great miracle, conform to that of the apostles, in the original gift of tongues. For there being at that time, in this land, Hebrews, Persians, and Indians, besides the natives, everyone read upon the book and letter, as if they had been written in his own language. And thus was this land saved from infidelity (as the remain of the old world was from water) by an ark, through the apostolical and miraculous evangelism of St. Bartholomew." And here he paused, and a messenger came and called him forth from us. So this was all that passed in that conference.""

The traditional date for the writing of St. John's Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation) is the end of the 1st century AD. It is not only the presence of the full canon of Scripture long before it was completed or compiled, but also the all-too-convenient proximity of the scientist who will attest to its miraculous nature of this wonder that lends the story an air of incredibility.

Later the Father of Salomon's House reveals the institution's skill at creating illusions of light:

""We represent also all multiplications of light, which we carry to great distance, and make so sharp as to discern small points and lines. Also all colorations of light: all delusions and deceits of the sight, in figures, magnitudes, motions, colors; all demonstrations of shadows. We find also divers means, yet unknown to you, of producing of light, originally from divers bodies.""

He also boasts about their ability to fake miracles:

""And surely you will easily believe that we, that have so many things truly natural which induce admiration, could in a world of particulars deceive the senses if we would disguise those things, and labor to make them more miraculous.""

Renaker points out in the Latin translation of the second passage (which was published as part of Operum moralium et civilium tomus in 1638 by William Rawley, Bacon's amanuensis, secretary and chaplain, who was also behind the publication of New Atlantis in 1626) is stronger and literally translates to "we could impose on men's senses an infinite number of things if we wanted to present these things as, and exalt them into, a miracle." While this has been read as Bacon's suggesting that the story if not the "miracle" itself was an invention emanating from Salomon's House, this is perhaps not a safe inference. The relevance of the Brother of Salomon's House to the story of the island's conversion to Christianity is more an indication that the institution itself has reached a point in its knowledge from which it can ascertain whether an occurrence is natural or not. It is this knowledge (and its humble application) that allows for the revelation itself to be delivered.

The skill of creating illusions coupled with the incredibility of the story of the origin of Bensalem's Christianity makes it seem that Bacon was intimating that the light show (or at least the story of its occurrence) was an invention of Salomon's House.

The presence of "Hebrews, Persians, and Indians" in Bensalem at the time implies that Asian people were already in the first century engaged in sailing across the Pacific—which is historically inaccurate, but might have seemed plausible at the time of writing.

Who rules Bensalem?
The Father of Salomon's House reveals that members of that institution decide on their own which of their discoveries to keep secret, even from the State:

""And this we do also: we have consultations, which of the inventions and experiences which we have discovered shall be published, and which not; and take all an oath of secrecy for the concealing of those which we think fit to keep secret; though some of those we do reveal sometime to the State, and some not.""

This would seem to imply that the State does not hold the monopoly on authority and that Salomon's House must in some sense be superior to the State.

In the introduction to the critical edition of New Atlantis, Jerry Weinberger notes that Joabin is the only contemporary character (i.e., living at the time of the story) described as wise—and wise in matters of government and rule at that. Weinberger speculates that Joabin may be the actual ruler of Bensalem. On the other hand, prejudice against Jews was widespread in his time, so the possibility cannot be excluded that Bacon was calling Joabin wise for the same reason that he felt the need elsewhere to call him "the good Jew": to make clear that Joabin's character was benign.

Social ritual of the Bensalemites
While Bacon appears concerned with the House of Salomon, a portion of the narrative describes the social practices of the Bensalemites, particularly those surrounding courtship and family life. An example of these rituals is the Adam and Eve pools. Here betrothed send surrogates to observe the other bathing to discover any deformities. Here Bacon alludes to Sir Thomas More’s Utopia (1516), where More describes a similar ritual. However, the crucial difference is rather than surrogates, the young couple observe each other naked. Bacon’s character Joabin remarks on this difference: “I have read in a book of one of your men, of a Feigned Commonwealth, where the married couple are permitted, before they contract, to see one another naked.”

Prayers

 * (See Bacon's Prayers in Wikisource).

In describing how the scientists of New Atlantis worked, Bacon wrote:

"We have certain hymns and services, which we say daily, of Lord and thanks to God for His marvellous works; and some forms of prayer, imploring His aid and blessing for the illumination of our labors, and the turning of them into good and holy uses."

In Bacon's Theological Tracts, there are two prayers, named "The Student's Prayer" and "The Writer's Prayer" which may be a demonstration of how scientists could pray as described in The New Atlantis.

Influences
New Atlantis and other writings of Bacon inspired the formation of the Royal Society. Jonathan Swift parodied them both in book III of Gulliver's Travels.

In recent years, New Atlantis influenced B. F. Skinner's 1948 Walden Two.

This novel may have been Bacon's vision for a Utopian New World in North America. In it he depicted a land where there would be freedom of religion—showing a Jew treated fairly and equally in an island of Christians. It has been argued that this work had influenced others reforms, such as greater rights for women, the abolition of slavery, elimination of debtors' prisons, separation of church and state, and freedom of political expression,   although there is no hint of these reforms in The New Atlantis itself. His propositions for legal reform (which were not, however, implemented in his lifetime), are considered to have formed one of the influences behind the Napoleonic Code, and could therefore have exercised an indirect influence upon the drafting of other liberal constitutions - most notably the American Constitution - that came into being after Bacon’s death.

Francis Bacon played a leading role in creating the English colonies, especially in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Newfoundland in northeastern Canada. His government report on "The Virginia Colony" was submitted in 1609. In 1610 Bacon and his associates received a charter from the king to form the Tresurer and the Companye of Adventurers and planter of the Cittye of London and Bristoll for the Collonye or plantacon in Newfoundland and sent John Guy to found a colony there. In 1910 Newfoundland issued a postage stamp to commemorate Bacon's role in establishing the province. The stamp describes Bacon as "the guiding spirit in colonization scheme" of 1610. Moreover, some scholars believe he was largely responsible for the drafting, in 1609 and 1612, of two charters of government for the Virginia Colony. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: "Bacon, Locke and Newton. I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences". Historian and biographer William Hepworth Dixon considered that Bacon's name could be included in the list of Founders of the United States of America.

It is also believed by the Rosicrucian organisation AMORC that Bacon would have influenced a settlement of mystics in North America, stating that The New Atlantis inspired a colony of Rosicrucians led by Johannes Kelpius to journey across the Atlantic Ocean in a chartered vessel called Sarah Mariah, and move on to Pennsylvania in the late 17th century. According to their claims, these Rosicrucian communities "made valuable contributions to the newly emerging American culture in the fields of printing, philosophy, the sciences and arts".

title: New Atlantis


text:
User talk:Locke Yggdrasill

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

For more information click  here . You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Sam Spade 07:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as A.N.A.L., but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! Andre ( talk ) 00:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

 * This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Rory 0 96 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Never knew you came here. (It's FB incase you didn't relize yet). Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 20:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh...hi
Hi. o_o; You know who it is. ø,¸¸,ThRaShMeIsTeR,¸¸,ø 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brethren Court
I have nominated Brethren Court, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Brethren Court&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. David Fuchs ( talk ) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Locke Yggdrasill


text:
Talk:Chloroquine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maguro6, JwenUCSF-06, 6oooinotna, Tanujap6. Peer reviewers: Grp05rx, BE5ST, Lucky Number 55ish, Thienqn5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Help! This article has been taken over by covid!
This article (albiet not as badly as Hydroxychloroquine) has been taken over by covid. Given the jury has come back and recommends against its use, it only merits a few sentences in this article, but obviously a lot of work went into this and I hate to just delete it.

As a result I'd like to fork some content into a new article for historical interest -> Draft:Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. If you see stuff being deleted, don't worry, that's where it's going. Mvolz (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably too specific to keep its own page. I figure it will end up as part of the page on the social effects/reaction to the pandemic along with other examples of "folk epidemiology" and the phenomena of covid shot hesitancy. It's extremely important to document. It will happen again.--66.190.13.201 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Snyonymy with 2,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid
There is a chemistry question that I am unable to understand here: Talk:2,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chloroquine


text:
User:ACrush

Elsewhere
 * № © w meta m:Special:Mostrevisions
 * № © w en w:Special:Mostrevisions
 * № © w es es:Special:Mostrevisions
 * № © w fr fr:Special:Mostrevisions
 * № © w pt pt:Special:Mostrevisions
 * № © w ru ru:Special:Mostrevisions
 * № © w Fw

COTW Georgia (country) Turkmenistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan

French grammar User:Poccil/French_grammar

title: User:ACrush


text: Category:420s BC births

title: Category:420s BC births


text:
FDS

FDS may refer to:

Business

 * Sarajevo Tobacco Factory (Bosnian: Fabrika duhana Sarajevo), a Bosnian tobacco company
 * FactSet, an American financial data company
 * Federated Department Stores, now Macy's, an American retailer
 * Ferrovie della Sardegna, an Italian railway company

Computing

 * Famicom Disk System (Family Computer Disk System), a video game console add-on
 * Functional Design Specification, a type of requirements document
 * Fire Dynamics Simulator, modelling software

Politics

 * Democratic Social Front (Portuguese: Frente Democrática Social), a political party in Guinea-Bissau
 * Federation of the Left (Italian: Federazione della Sinistra), a political coalition in Italy
 * Force of the South (Italian: Forza del Sud), a defunct political party in Italy
 * Salvadoran Democratic Front (Spanish: Frente Democrático Salvadoreño), a political organization active during the Salvadoran Civil War
 * Sankarist Democratic Front (French: Front Démocratique Sankariste), a political party in Burkina Faso

Other

 * Formerly Used Defense Sites, properties that were under the jurisdiction of the United States Secretary of Defense
 * r/FemaleDatingStrategy, a Reddit community

title: FDS


text:
User:Raylopez99

This page is.

title: User:Raylopez99


text: Category:440s BC births

title: Category:440s BC births


text: Category:450s BC births

title: Category:450s BC births


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:34, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Xiong | talk | contributions)

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

Description
Over the last few weeks, Xiong has been expressing a number of his views related to a multitude of issues. While we all should respect viewpoints, Xiong has been challenging, accusatory, and insulting to the point where productive dialogue does not seem possible. He has also taken a number of disruptive actions which show disregard for community standards and established procedures

It is the signer's hope that Xiong will take this as constructive feedback, stop being disruptive and argumentative, and make the necessary changes to foster a better editing environment.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * Removal of tfd tags
 * On 07:40, 2005 Mar 31, Netoholic nominates Template:Divbox, marking it with the TFD tag as per the procedure on WP:TFD
 * Through a series of reversions, Xiong removed the tag, moving it to the talk page. In his edit summaries, he describes insertion of the tag as "vandalism".
 * This scenario is played out on a number of other templates since that time -- Template:Talkfix Template:Archist
 * 21:13, 2005 May 10 and 23:22, 2005 May 11 on Template:VfDx
 * 10:18, 2005 May 11 on Template:For
 * 23:40, 2005 May 11 on Template:Nu

 * Xiong nominates Template:tfd itself for deletion (see Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted) on 17:07, 2005 Apr 5
 * On this occasion, Xiong adds the text of the TFD notice to the TFD template itself, effectively doubling the visible text. This is seen by many as overly disruptive, and it was removed. Xiong edit warred in order to replace the tag, as he put it - "tagged per inflexible procedure" and "sorry, but policy is policy -- all nominated templates must be tagged -- see TfD policy"

 * Xiong nominates Templates for deletion for deletion (see Votes for deletion/Templates for deletion) on 04:06, 2005 Apr 19

 * How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop - Unwillingness to entertain reasonable suggestions to move this to Wikibooks, both so that it can be expanded and to reduce the overall page size.
 * Wikipedia talk:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop/move
 * User talk:Kevin Rector

 * Refactoring of Talk pages
 * Xiong has recently been expressing that he believes project talk pages should be "archived to history", rather than creating a separate archive page, as is the widely-practiced procedure.  In furtherance of this, he attempted to archive project talk pages "to history", largely blanking those pages even though a number of discussions were still very recent.  Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates ([ history]), Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion ([ history]), Template talk:Divbox ([ history]) (diff)

 * Revert warring
 * In furtherance of his position on archiving talk pages, Xiong violates the WP:3RR by reverting Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates - 1, 2, 3, 4 times
 * In furtherance of his opinion on the tfd tag, he revert wars on several templates (Divbox, Talkfix, Archist, and even tfd itself)

 * Personal attacks, incivility, failure to assume good faith in the actions of others
 * 15:06, 2005 Apr 4 - "Netoholic (is) ... far more dangerous than any common vandal."
 * 05:43, 2005 Apr 10 - "Netoholic ... continues to rampage unchecked. His actions are evil, a menace to the project"
 * 00:13, 2005 Apr 19 - "How can so many smart people be so dumb?" with the edit summary "tool for fools"
 * 21:23, Apr 9, 2005 - "Show me a few heads on pikes, and I will begin to believe you. I need to see some adults around here, unafraid to take abrupt action to protect the fabric of the community against predators and carpetbaggers. ... [Netaholic's] payoff comes in the form of manhours pissed away dealing with his bullshit." - In response to a comment that he should "relax".
 * 19:40, 19 Apr 2005 Ad hominem attacks on those trying to resolve a dispute with him.
 * 04:27, 24 Apr 2005 To cesarb: "Do the research before you vote. If you don't want to be tagged a deletionist fanatic, think before you act.".

 * "Conspiracy" theories
 * On 10:54, 2005 Apr 7, Xiong posts an extremely long section on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) (Talk page) regarding his issues around the management of WP:TFD.
 * On April 10, Xiong made an obtrusive accusatory pronouncement on a number of project and user talk pages (,, , , , and creating a page titled Down the memory hole which was later moved to User:Xiong/Down the memory hole) that his April 7th post had gone "Down the memory hole". Apparently, it was a rather simple error on his part, wherein he meant to post it on Village pump (policy), but instead posted it on the talk page.  Xiong describes what he feels is "pure Orwellian censorship", where his post was "obliterated" by some malicious actor.  See User:Xiong/Minitrue.
 * After a number of users point out the mistake, he replies that he is "not convinced", that it was not an attempt to make him "look foolish by altering history as to eliminate all reference to the complaint", implying that someone invisibly moved his post from the proposals page to the talk page just to make him look foolish. (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Down the memory hole)
 * Note: Xiong struck out his comments, calling his own theory a "paranoid charge". Appears to show that he was indeed convinced, though maybe not immediately.(diff)

 * Re-creation of deleted pages/failure to accept consensus during the deletion process
 * Template:Pfd was recreated by Xiong on 19:08, 2005 Apr 23

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - Essentially, it can be seen as disruptive to take an action which one has vocally spoke out against.
 * How to archive a talk page
 * Assume good faith, Civility
 * Consensus
 * Edit war, Three-revert rule
 * Writers rules of engagement (filibustering)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Regarding removal of tfd tags -
 * Regarding the appropriateness of moving the illustration guide to Wikibooks - ,
 * Regarding assumption of bad faith and maintaining civility -
 * Regarding community practices related to refactoring long Talk pages -
 * Comments in reply to his posts on Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion
 * Regarding WP:POINT and filibustering: (sections 20. {tfd} tag f**ks up display of tagged template, 21. Let it be, and 21.1. TfD and Xiong)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Netoholic @ 21:34, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Korath (Talk) 23:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) (Note also that of Xiong's "substantive contributions", currently only 77 are to the main article space, and most of them are minor. —Korath (Talk) 03:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC))
 * As an "outsider" to the dispute, I messaged Xiong telling him his behaviour was inappropriate and that he should calm down. He responded "not in your lifetime" and entered into a paranoid rant . This is an instance of disrupting the 'pedia to make a point from a smart contributor with a possible case of MPOV. -- FP 01:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Omegatron 21:53, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) - I have issues with Netaholic's behavior as well, but it will be dealt with independently. Xiong's characterization of anyone who disagrees with him as a pawn of Netaholic or part of a conspiratorial cabal is ridiculous.  His contributions to the encyclopedia itself are minimal compared to his contributions to our combined wikistress levels.  He has a grand idea of what Wikipedia should be, but refuses to take part in the normal discussion/consensus process we use to effect such changes (despite having a few genuinely good ideas).

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * In my opinion, it was disruptive to nominate Template:tfd and Templates for deletion to be deleted themselves. Rhobite 00:32, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * cesarb 01:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Postdlf 02:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Carnildo 05:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can overlook a lot, but nominating the TfD page on VfD was highly inappropriate and Xiong knew that. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems highly disruptive behaviour to me. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have limited direct experience of Xiong's behaviour, but what I do have is represented accurately by the evidence presented here. Thryduulf 19:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've checked out his contributions, and while he has made some good contributions, he has also caused a lot of unnecessary conflict and disruption. Nominating Templates for deletion is a serious case of WP:POINT and it definitely got my attention. --Deathphoenix 03:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * --Angr/comhrá 17:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Sorry, I confused Xiong with Jiang, who was being disruptive a while back but whom I haven't encountered lately. --Angr/comhrá 10:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Xiong openly attacked Starfleet ranks and insignia through two Featured article nominations giving indications that it was a useless article and those connected with it were somehow beneath him. He also referred to people working on the article as "otaku who drool over them" on a talk page about colors on Wikipedia.  This user has violated every aspect of Civility. -Husnock 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * I am the member who is the subject of this RfC. I'll admit to an occasional incivility. Like most of us, I have a very limited amount of time to invest in this project, and I'm not happy to see it wasted away dealing with members who seem to have unlimited time in which to be destructive.

 * Before I respond to the charges point-by-point, I wish to call attention to two points of my own: the instigator of this RfC, Netoholic, is currently in arbitration, and a broad spectrum of community members have lodged evidence against him. He is under a temporary injunction, which he flaunts, and yet which irritates him to seek other means of venting his frustration.

 * I maintain that this user is systematically stalking me throughout the project, disrupting all I do. I have petitioned ArbCom directly for an emergency injunction -- before that, in similar terms, I asked this of 2 or 3 admins directly:

 Request for emergency injunction Netoholic is exploiting the time used by ArbCom in deliberation by stepping up his acts hostile to the community as a whole. I omit specifics in the interest of brevity; evidence mounts on the appropriate page. I ask for an emergency injunction against all editing within this project, outside of the user's own user pseudospace, until this case shall terminate.

To underline what I feel is a necessary, emergency measure against a dire threat to the community, I offer to share this injunction, and bind myself to its limits. — Xiong 熊 talk 04:44, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

 * My request is duplicated here; any member with the power to act is encouraged to do so.

 * I tire of point-by-point rebuttal, and if you do too, and are willing to implement the emergency injunction, then perhaps you'll feel it unnecessary. For the sake of completeness, however:

 * I have indeed challenged Netoholic on several occasions to justify his destructive behavior. He is unable to reply. I do not doubt he finds this inconvenient.

 * Contention for its own sake is evil, but open debate on merits is good. I have always responded clearly to any question put to me. Netoholic has generally responded to my questions with scorn and argument ad hominem.

 * Tagging templates is too complex a topic to go into here; I've expressed my views in other places at great length and with extreme attention to technical details. In short, though, Netoholic is using the tag to vandalize perfectly good templates. He takes whichever point of view suits him at the moment: tags the templates he does not like, removes the tag when he cares not for it. If he is granted that freedom, I assert the identical privilege. The tag-removal-and-replacement war has played out with the participation of many members; I am only one of the parties involved -- though I do agree that Netoholic and I are the principal contenders.

 * I nominated a page for deletion. What of it? My nomination is in good faith; read my argument there if you doubt me.

 * I am willing to entertain a move for the "tutorial formerly named Prince". But let he who proposes the move do the work -- or at least share in it. Of course, Netoholic's demand that the tutorial move is merely another dimension of his vendetta.

 * Note what a clever bit of warcraft it is to tag this tutorial. It is such an arduous task to move the page interwiki, together with all its images, and fix all links in and out, that only a madman would continue to do substantive work on it until the controversy ends. But there is no interwiki move process equivalent, say, to VfD; thus the tag is presumed immortal.

 * If any reviewer of my response finds merit, let him impose upon Netoholic the punishment of carrying out the move he proposes -- with stiff penalties to apply if he botches the job.

 * Many users archive to history; I have begun to do the same. Netoholic blanks his Talk page, and fails to provide a link to the prior version. I invariably link to the prior version. How to archive a talk page ends with the words, ...there are no fixed rules about archiving discussions on Wikipedia. If Netoholic has a preferred method of archival, I do not interfere with him. The content remains in history, with a clear link. He may pull it out at anytime, create a subpage, do what he likes. But I insist on the need to archive over-long pages. Otherwise, they are simply closed to users, like me, with underpowered machines. We can neither read nor comment.

 * I will cop to revert warring -- invariably with Netoholic as my adversary, with or without his sparewheels.

 * Netoholic is a menace to our community -- the evidence is so overwhelming that ArbCom is drowning under the weight. I have gone out of my way to assume good faith on the part of others who appear to act as part of his clique. Nothing whatever is to be gained by assuming good faith on the part of an obviously disruptive element; he exploits this window of good will to continue his rampage. It is way past time to deal with him in summary fashion.

 * Don't know if it is a violation of community standards to be frightened -- I do admit I was badly upset on a couple of occasions when Netoholic and his crew took high-handed actions. At one point, I was surely convinced that anything I posted anywhere, critical of Netoholic, would be deleted -- not blanked, but deleted entirely. This was an overreaction, and I went around retracting it. Just because they're out to get you, doesn't mean you're not paranoid. Conspiracy is too strong a term; Netoholic's clique is not so secret or well-organized -- and insufficiently powerful for the sort of total obliteration I feared.

 * Somewhat amusing to see Writers rules of engagement cited; Netoholic has violated every principle on that page. I am charged with "filibustering" -- frankly, I don't see how that is possible on a wiki. We are not going to run out of server space, and regardless of the length of my comments, we will never hit the bottom of the page. My comments never delay any process; it may take me hours to compose a clear response, but it is inserted at the touch of a button, and nobody is required to wait. On occasion, I discover an edit conflict, and am scrupulous to ensure that all comments are preserved.

 * What really has Netoholic annoyed is that I make points to which he is unable to respond. He plays in technical areas, knowing full well that few members have the background to understand all the consequences of his actions. I color in that technical background, often with lucid illustration, and ask specific questions of him. He throws out a one- or three-line accusation, often ad hominem, usually on a superficial matter; and I comprehensively rebut his "point".

 * All that said, there is nothing that annoys me more than a party to a conflict who insists on his own total innocence, and then paints the other party in pure black. I have, on more than one occasion, said that Netoholic is a smart guy, and could be a useful asset to the Wikipedian Community and our Project -- if only he could control his tenacious and fluid attacks on whatever he perceives to be opposition. Meanwhile, I am ashamed to say that I have indeed been derailed, by his vendetta, from my substantive contributions.

 * I am a graphic artist, so for me the simplest illustration is often a visual one. Here are the faces the two of us present to the commmunity. Guess who is who.

Image:Ferrigno as Hulk.jpg

 * It is my earnest hope that some wise Old Head will simply take it upon himself to immediately terminate this conflict, and forbid both Netoholic and myself from edits outside of our own user pseudospaces for the duration of his RfA case (and, perhaps, for my RfC, too). Since my contributions to the project are largely substantial, I admit this will not inconvenience me -- I can continue to develop my work offline, if need be. Perhaps Netoholic will also discover the joys of substantive contribution. In any case, peace will prevail. — Xiong 熊 talk 02:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Response to Korath

 * I respond to Korath's notation that I have only made 77 contributions in mainspace. Can't say if it's true or not, but I agree that he and Netoholic have done a lot to derail me. In any case, I consider the tutorial formerly known as Prince to be my best work. Or, for another example, the tactful negotiations leading up to the licensing of Image:AsimovOnThrone.png. Not all work is measured in keystrokes. — Xiong 熊 talk 07:15, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Response to Omegatron
He has a grand idea of what Wikipedia should be, but refuses to take part in the normal discussion/consensus process...

 * I do indeed have a grand idea: that Wikipedia is a project belonging to humanity, whose goal is the formation of an encyclopedia: a storehouse of factual knowledge. But then, I get that straight from the foundation issues and similar well-respected policies (WP:NOT, Text of the GNU Free Documentation License); they may be rather muddy texts in places, but the meaning is clear: Wikipedia is not a playground, a battleground, an MMORPG, or a game of Nomic or Mao. We do not qualify members according to age, but we are all expected to act like adults. That means replying directly to questions and avoiding the argument ad hominem, among other things. It means playing by the rules and most of all, using common sense at all times.

 * I am most willing to discuss changes to process. What really gets my goat is when certain users subvert process for their own immediate and personal ends. The most blatant example of this tomfoolery was the amendment of TfD process to support the indefinite retention of the {tfd} tag on Template:Divbox. This drastic amendment was performed minutes after I quite properly -- at the conclusion of process -- removed the disruptive tag and moved discussion to the template's Talk page. I wrote up the underhanded shenannigans in some detail in a text now resident at User:Xiong/Minitrue. Thus far, nobody has attempted to defend the subversion.

 * The clique of users who support Netoholic in his vendetta are not so well-coordinated as to form a cabal; not so powerful; nor so secret. But the same names come up again and again, in history after history, as they do here. Judge for yourself. — Xiong 熊 talk 04:30, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Response to TenOfAllTrades

 * I ask: If the page, Templates for deletion is healthy, can it not withstand review? And if it ails, is not that review demanded? I did not blank the offending page and replace it with Image:Autofree.png.

 * I seriously doubt that any member who participated in VfD actually took the time and trouble to look at the nominated page. I am nearly certain that no member invested effort to improve the page, for it is now the same muddle it was. — Xiong 熊 talk 18:46, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

 * Xiong, you've been here long enough to know that VfD isn't the place to discuss policy. Whether TfD ought to be reviewed is immaterial to that point.  You're still welcome to start a proper discussion through TfD's Talk page, the Village Pump, and/or RfC—and all of those suggestions have been made to you before.  Bear in mind it is also possible that a consensus already exists within the community that TfD is largely acceptable as it is.
 * I would encourage you to refrain from accusing editors of not reading the pages that they vote on on VfD. Since you have seen my comments on TfD, it follows that I very likely have read the page.  The same can be said about many other contributors to that VfD discussion.  I understand that you may be frustrated right now, but throwing about accusations of bad faith is not helpful. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sanger on Slashdot
...in a very long dispute with any trollish type, it is only a matter of time before some epithet gets bandied about, since they are so darned useful (and accurate) when applied to trollish types.

Response to Radiant et al re Netoholic
I'm willing that my actions stand or fall on their merits -- and where I've been extreme, let me be censured. But actually this RfC does bear very heavily on Netoholic -- and while the bulk of my war has been against him, his war has been against a broad cross-section of the community.

Netoholic brought this RfC against me as part of his personal vendetta; brought some support with him; and, as chickens in a barnyard will, some come to peck where they think they see blood. It is all a sideshow, though. What Netoholic ought to have done, quite properly, is demand that I be included in his ArbCom case as an involved party. Then I would be immediately subject to ArbCom ruling.

We've both been bad, but he bit me first -- and if you can pull him off and sit on him and his sparewheels, I think you'll find me a rather reasonable and agreeable fellow. — Xiong 熊 talk 23:53, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

 * Okay. Please stop, take a deep breath, and calm down. You have just admitted to making 'war' against Netoholic, which sounds to me like a Very Bad Thing. "He bit me first" is no excuse for biting back - turn the proverbial other cheek and stick with Civility and Wikiquette. This RfC is not a vendetta of anyone against you. This RfC points out that several people are unhappy with your methods. I do believe you want to change Wikipedia for the better. Very good. So set up a discussion page and poll for new policy - I've done it thrice already and it works. Radiant_* 08:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * First, you pull him off my back. Then, tell me to calm down -- you needn't bother, though; I'll calm down on my own. As long as he is actively attacking me -- and that's within the last 24 hours -- I will not suffer blows gladly. I am not a Christian. I may not forgive-and-forget, but I do pass quickly over past insults -- I have other things to keep me busy. Make Netoholic get on his side of the bed, and then see if you still find my actions objectionable. — Xiong 熊 talk 17:59, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Response to Deathphoenix
Does this mean you aren't open to criticism about anything related to China? -- I do not edit at all in any China-related article, so I don't think there is any cause. If I should edit in some China-related fashion, of course my edit is subject to the same scrutiny as any other -- of course I own nothing; in most cases, I know nothing about China.

There's a lot of background here, and to keep it short, I'll just say I really don't want to be dragged into any battle between Chinese, on Chinese topics. Okay? — Xiong 熊 talk 18:10, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I just saw that as a potential sign of being open or closed to crticism in other areas, as well as article ownership. I feel very strongly about (or against, in this case) article ownership. --Deathphoenix 19:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only substantial position I have even taken on China-related matters is Don't make war on China-related matters all over the project. And I'm fairly intolerant of criticism on this position. When it becomes well-defended policy, I may consider contributing my unusual perspective on things Chinese; and at that time, I expect my edits to be subject to the same criticism as any other. — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:01, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

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

Thoughout Wikipedia history, there have been a number of disputes that have resulted in ForestFires, that is, where the dispute overflows whatever bounds are set for it and engulfs far more pages than it deserves. It seems to me that this is one such dispute. I believe that it is premature to give this dispute much consideration until the AC has resolved the matter of Netoholic presently before it, something that should complete soon.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) TTLightningRod 17:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3)  Blank Verse   ∅   08:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --Jondel 05:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this,
 * 1) Radiant_* 14:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) - I do not think that Xiong's apparent poor relation with Netoholic is relevant. There are some users that have legitimate complaints against Xiong regarding his behavior on TfD in particular; while Netoholic did start this RfC, three others have endorsed it and five others have agreed with his summary. It would not be fair to stigmatize them as the 'Netoholic cabal' (TINC). Radiant_* 14:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) Whatever Xiong's dispute with Netoholic, there's no good reason to nominate TfD on VfD. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Netoholic, while he is under arbitration, has not been ostracised, and is still part of the community. He has a perfect right to bring this RFC, and I quite agree with him about Xiong's behaviour. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't care if Willy on Wheels made this RFC - it's still valid, and obviously it's something to be acted upon. ugen 64 06:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Until the ArbCom issue a rulling or temporary injunction on Netoholic that prevents him bringing RfC's (as they have done with other users, e.g. CheeseDreams, his interaction with the commitee is irrelevant to this discussion. Thryduulf 20:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I don't think it's valid to defend yourself in an RfC by attacking the nominator when the points you are using aren't valid to the discussion (ie, Netoholic's arbitration case has nothing to do with his conflict with Xiong). If this RfC is decertified because of that, I'm sure there are plenty of people (such as the other three users certifying this RfC) who would be willing to recreate/renominate this RfC (just to be clear: I meant Xiong defending himself). --Deathphoenix 03:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #2
I feel that the conflict between Netoholic and Xiong is bad for both users and bad for Wikipedia, and bad especially for the WP:TFD page where the battles tend to center. Both of these users deserve some of the blame for this situation, and both have at times acted in an irresponsible manner. Regardless of who started it and why, it must stop.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Firebug 06:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary, but with reservations (sign with ~ :
 * 1) Yes, the conflict between Netoholic and Xiong is a Bad Thing, and yes it ought to stop, but I feel this is an over-simplification of the issue. The beahviour exhibited by Xiong that led to this RfC is wider than his interaction with Netoholic, evidenced by the other users also certifying above. Thryduulf 09:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #3
This is a minor point, so I don't know if it belongs in its own outside view entry. There is one small sentence in Xiong's user page that got me thinking:

 * I'm new to Wikipedia editing and open to criticism about anything unrelated to China.

Does this mean you aren't open to criticism about anything related to China? If so, this means you believe that you are an infallible expert on matters relating to China and are unwilling to hear any criticism wrt to it. This usually indicates a leaning towards "owning" any edits that you make, and IMO, this sort of thing goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. You do not own any articles or edits. Once you make it, it's no longer yours. In addition, you can't close your mind to criticism in any area, because this creates more conflict. No matter what you know, there's always at least one person who knows a little more than you (if only in one specific niche subject). That person you dismiss for making a change to your edit on China history might be a ninety year old Chinese historian who studied the ancient texts for the past seventy years. You never know.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Deathphoenix 14:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) This is far fetched. Assume good faith! There are many good reasons why someone would not want to discuss a certain topic. Maybe he has been burnt by discussions about China, maybe he has friends there whom he does not want to compromise, maybe he was being facetious, or maybe he just loves China.  Sebastian (talk) 07:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * See above. He's answered my concerns. --Deathphoenix 11:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong