text:
User talk:Galessa

Welcome!

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

Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags
Thanks for uploading Image:Porta retrato shellac NOVA FOTO b.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag.

Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you.

Thanks so much, Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Porta retrato shellac NOVA FOTO b.jpg
Hello. First, please sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Now, here is how to attach a image copyright tag to your image:
 * 1) Go to the page Image:Porta retrato shellac NOVA FOTO b.jpg
 * 2) Click on the "edit this page" tab.
 * 3) After the comment you previously made, enter " " and then save the page.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rose o'neill 3 b.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Rose o'neill 3 b.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rose o'neill 4b.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Rose o'neill 4b.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Galessa


text: Category:Alkyl nitrites

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

title: Category:Alkyl nitrites


text:
File:Monumen Nasional View.jpg

View from the observatory.

title: File:Monumen Nasional View.jpg


text:
Reinforcement criterion

A voting system satisfies join-consistency (also called the reinforcement criterion) if combining two sets of votes, both electing A over B, always results in a combined electorate that ranks A over B. It is a stronger form of the participation criterion, which only requires join-consistency when one of the sets of votes unanimously prefers A over B.

A voting system is join-consistent if and only if it is a point-summing method; in other words, it must be positional voting, score voting, or approval voting.

As shown below under Kemeny-Young, whether a system passes reinforcement can depend on whether the election selects a single winner or a full ranking of the candidates (sometimes referred to as ranking consistency): in some methods, two electorates with the same winner but different rankings may, when added together, lead to a different winner. Kemeny-Young is the only ranking-consistent Condorcet method, and no Condorcet method can be winner-consistent (or satisfy the weaker participation criterion in case of a four-way tie).

Copeland
This example shows that Copeland's method violates the consistency criterion. Assume five candidates A, B, C, D and E with 27 voters with the following preferences:

Now, the set of all voters is divided into two groups at the bold line. The voters over the line are the first group of voters; the others are the second group of voters.

First group of voters
In the following the Copeland winner for the first group of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

 * [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
 * [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

Result: With the votes of the first group of voters, A can defeat three of the four opponents, whereas no other candidate wins against more than two opponents. Thus, A is elected Copeland winner by the first group of voters.

Second group of voters
Now, the Copeland winner for the second group of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

Result: Taking only the votes of the second group in account, again, A can defeat three of the four opponents, whereas no other candidate wins against more than two opponents. Thus, A is elected Copeland winner by the second group of voters.

All voters
Finally, the Copeland winner of the complete set of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

Result: C is the Condorcet winner, thus Copeland chooses C as winner.

Conclusion
A is the Copeland winner within the first group of voters and also within the second group of voters. However, both groups combined elect C as the Copeland winner. Thus, Copeland fails the consistency criterion.

Instant-runoff voting
This example shows that Instant-runoff voting violates the consistency criterion. Assume three candidates A, B and C and 23 voters with the following preferences:

Now, the set of all voters is divided into two groups at the bold line. The voters over the line are the first group of voters; the others are the second group of voters.

First group of voters
In the following the instant-runoff winner for the first group of voters is determined.

B has only 2 votes and is eliminated first. Its votes are transferred to A. Now, A has 6 votes and wins against C with 4 votes.

Result: A wins against C, after B has been eliminated.

Second group of voters
Now, the instant-runoff winner for the second group of voters is determined.

C has the fewest votes, a count of 3, and is eliminated. A benefits from that, gathering all the votes from C. Now, with 7 votes A wins against B with 6 votes.

Result: A wins against B, after C has been eliminated.

All voters
Finally, the instant runoff winner of the complete set of voters is determined.

C has the fewest first preferences and so is eliminated first, its votes are split: 4 are transferred to B and 3 to A. Thus, B wins with 12 votes against 11 votes of A.

Result: B wins against A, after C is eliminated.

Conclusion
A is the instant-runoff winner within the first group of voters and also within the second group of voters. However, both groups combined elect B as the instant-runoff winner. Thus, instant-runoff voting fails the consistency criterion.

Kemeny-Young method
This example shows that the Kemeny–Young method violates the consistency criterion. Assume three candidates A, B and C and 38 voters with the following preferences:

Now, the set of all voters is divided into two groups at the bold line. The voters over the line are the first group of voters; the others are the second group of voters.

First group of voters
In the following the Kemeny-Young winner for the first group of voters is determined.

The Kemeny–Young method arranges the pairwise comparison counts in the following tally table:

The ranking scores of all possible rankings are:

Result: The ranking A > B > C has the highest ranking score. Thus, A wins ahead of B and C.

Second group of voters
Now, the Kemeny-Young winner for the second group of voters is determined.

The Kemeny–Young method arranges the pairwise comparison counts in the following tally table:

The ranking scores of all possible rankings are:

Result: The ranking A > C > B has the highest ranking score. Hence, A wins ahead of C and B.

All voters
Finally, the Kemeny-Young winner of the complete set of voters is determined.

The Kemeny–Young method arranges the pairwise comparison counts in the following tally table:

The ranking scores of all possible rankings are:

Result: The ranking B > A > C has the highest ranking score. So, B wins ahead of A and C.

Conclusion
A is the Kemeny-Young winner within the first group of voters and also within the second group of voters. However, both groups combined elect B as the Kemeny-Young winner. Thus, the Kemeny–Young method fails the consistency criterion.

Ranking consistency
The Kemeny-Young method satisfies ranking consistency; that is, if the electorate is divided arbitrarily into two parts and separate elections in each part result in the same ranking being selected, an election of the entire electorate also selects that ranking.

Informal proof
The Kemeny-Young score of a ranking $$\mathcal{R}$$ is computed by summing up the number of pairwise comparisons on each ballot that match the ranking $$\mathcal{R}$$. Thus, the Kemeny-Young score $$s_V(\mathcal{R})$$ for an electorate $$V$$ can be computed by separating the electorate into disjoint subsets $$V = V_1 \cup V_2$$ (with $$V_1 \cap V_2 = \emptyset$$), computing the Kemeny-Young scores for these subsets and adding it up:
 * $$\text{(I)} \quad s_V(\mathcal{R}) = s_{V_1}(\mathcal{R}) + s_{V_2}(\mathcal{R})$$.

Now, consider an election with electorate $$V$$. The premise of the consistency criterion is to divide the electorate arbitrarily into two parts $$V = V_1 \cup V_2$$, and in each part the same ranking $$\mathcal{R}$$ is selected. This means, that the Kemeny-Young score for the ranking $$\mathcal{R}$$ in each electorate is bigger than for every other ranking $$\mathcal{R}'$$:
 * $$\begin{align}

\text{(II)} \quad \forall \mathcal{R}':{} &s_{V_1}(\mathcal{R}) > s_{V_1}(\mathcal{R}') \\ \text{(III)} \quad \forall \mathcal{R}':{} &s_{V_2}(\mathcal{R}) > s_{V_2}(\mathcal{R}') \end{align}$$

Now, it has to be shown, that the Kemeny-Young score of the ranking $$\mathcal{R}$$ in the entire electorate is bigger than the Kemeny-Young score of every other ranking $$\mathcal{R}'$$:
 * $$s_V(\mathcal{R}) \ \stackrel{(I)}{=}\ s_{V_1}(\mathcal{R}) + s_{V_2}(\mathcal{R}) \ \stackrel{(II)}{>}\  s_{V_1}(\mathcal{R}') + s_{V_2}(\mathcal{R}) \ \stackrel{(III)}{>}\  s_{V_1}(\mathcal{R}') + s_{V_2}(\mathcal{R}') \ \stackrel{(I)}{=}\  s_V(\mathcal{R}') \quad q.e.d.$$

Thus, the Kemeny-Young method is consistent with respect to complete rankings.

Majority Judgment
This example shows that majority judgment violates the consistency criterion. Assume two candidates A and B and 10 voters with the following ratings:

Now, the set of all voters is divided into two groups at the bold line. The voters over the line are the first group of voters; the others are the second group of voters.

First group of voters
In the following the majority judgment winner for the first group of voters is determined.

The sorted ratings would be as follows:

Result: With the votes of the first group of voters, A has the median rating of "Excellent" and B has the median rating of "Fair". Thus, A is elected majority judgment winner by the first group of voters.

Second group of voters
Now, the majority judgment winner for the second group of voters is determined.

The sorted ratings would be as follows:

Result: Taking only the votes of the second group in account, A has the median rating of "Fair" and B the median rating of "Poor". Thus, A is elected majority judgment winner by the second group of voters.

All voters
Finally, the majority judgment winner of the complete set of voters is determined.

The sorted ratings would be as follows:

The median ratings for A and B are both "Fair". Since there is a tie, "Fair" ratings are removed from both, until their medians become different. After removing 20% "Fair" ratings from the votes of each, the sorted ratings are now: {|
 * align=right | Candidate
 * align=right | Candidate

 * align=right | A
 * align=right | B
 * }
 * align=right | B
 * }
 * }
 * }

Result: Now, the median rating of A is "Poor" and the median rating of B is "Fair". Thus, B is elected majority judgment winner.

Conclusion
A is the majority judgment winner within the first group of voters and also within the second group of voters. However, both groups combined elect B as the Majority Judgment winner. Thus, Majority Judgment fails the consistency criterion.

Minimax
This example shows that the minimax method violates the consistency criterion. Assume four candidates A, B, C and D with 43 voters with the following preferences:

Since all preferences are strict rankings (no equals are present), all three minimax methods (winning votes, margins and pairwise opposite) elect the same winners.

Now, the set of all voters is divided into two groups at the bold line. The voters over the line are the first group of voters; the others are the second group of voters.

First group of voters
In the following the minimax winner for the first group of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

 * [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
 * [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

Result: The candidates B, C and D form a cycle with clear defeats. A benefits from that since it loses relatively closely against all three and therefore A's biggest defeat is the closest of all candidates. Thus, A is elected minimax winner by the first group of voters.

Second group of voters
Now, the minimax winner for the second group of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

Result: Taking only the votes of the second group in account, again, B, C and D form a cycle with clear defeats and A benefits from that because of its relatively close losses against all three and therefore A's biggest defeat is the closest of all candidates. Thus, A is elected minimax winner by the second group of voters.

All voters
Finally, the minimax winner of the complete set of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

Result: Again, B, C and D form a cycle. But now, their mutual defeats are very close. Therefore, the defeats A suffers from all three are relatively clear. With a small advantage over B and D, C is elected minimax winner.

Conclusion
A is the minimax winner within the first group of voters and also within the second group of voters. However, both groups combined elect C as the Minimax winner. Thus, Minimax fails the consistency criterion.

Ranked pairs
This example shows that the Ranked pairs method violates the consistency criterion. Assume three candidates A, B and C with 39 voters with the following preferences:

Now, the set of all voters is divided into two groups at the bold line. The voters over the line are the first group of voters; the others are the second group of voters.

First group of voters
In the following the Ranked pairs winner for the first group of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

 * [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
 * [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

The sorted list of victories would be:

Result: B > C and A > B are locked in first (and C > A can't be locked in after that), so the full ranking is A > B > C. Thus, A is elected Ranked pairs winner by the first group of voters.

Second group of voters
Now, the Ranked pairs winner for the second group of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

The sorted list of victories would be:

Result: Taking only the votes of the second group in account, A > C and C > B are locked in first (and B > A can't be locked in after that), so the full ranking is A > C > B. Thus, A is elected Ranked pairs winner by the second group of voters.

All voters
Finally, the Ranked pairs winner of the complete set of voters is determined.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

The sorted list of victories would be:

Result: Now, all three pairs (A > C, B > C and B > A) can be locked in without a cycle. The full ranking is B > A > C. Thus, Ranked pairs chooses B as winner, which is the Condorcet winner, due to the lack of a cycle.

Conclusion
A is the Ranked pairs winner within the first group of voters and also within the second group of voters. However, both groups combined elect B as the Ranked pairs winner. Thus, the Ranked pairs method fails the consistency criterion.

Schulze method
This example shows that the Schulze method violates the consistency criterion. Again, assume three candidates A, B and C with 39 voters with the following preferences:

Now, the set of all voters is divided into two groups at the bold line. The voters over the line are the first group of voters; the others are the second group of voters.

First group of voters
In the following the Schulze winner for the first group of voters is determined.

The pairwise preferences would be tabulated as follows:

Now, the strongest paths have to be identified, e.g. the path A > B > C is stronger than the direct path A > C (which is nullified, since it is a loss for A).

Result: A > B, A > C and B > C prevail, so the full ranking is A > B > C. Thus, A is elected Schulze winner by the first group of voters.

Second group of voters
Now, the Schulze winner for the second group of voters is determined.

The pairwise preferences would be tabulated as follows:

Now, the strongest paths have to be identified, e.g. the path A > C > B is stronger than the direct path A > B.

Result: A > B, A > C and C > B prevail, so the full ranking is A > C > B. Thus, A is elected Schulze winner by the second group of voters.

All voters
Finally, the Schulze winner of the complete set of voters is determined.

The pairwise preferences would be tabulated as follows:

Now, the strongest paths have to be identified:

Result: A > C, B > A and B > C prevail, so the full ranking is B > A > C. Thus, Schulze chooses B as winner. In fact, B is also Condorcet winner.

Conclusion
A is the Schulze winner within the first group of voters and also within the second group of voters. However, both groups combined elect B as the Schulze winner. Thus, the Schulze method fails the consistency criterion.

title: Reinforcement criterion


text:
User talk:PedroL2~enwiki

Welcome!

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

Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called PedroL2. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name PedroL2~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:PedroL2~enwiki


text:
Talk:Exodus International

Unavailable video, original research
Editor has been repeatedly adding an unreferenced claim that a certain video is unavailable online. This is clear WP:OR. The defense for readding it was "Find the video and link to it if you think it's available. I'd love to watch", which seems to suggest that Wikipedia should not limit ourselves to things we can show to be true, but should include things that we cannot prove not to be true. The article will not suffer if we don't make the claim one way or the other, so there's really no reason to make the unsourced claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The video clip is embedded in the Box Turtle Bulletin page, above the transcript. Here's a direct youtube link: . Cheers, gnu 57 06:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, gnu57! The supposed embedded clip still doesn't show up on my computer; others of the series do, but that one doesn't. But the YouTube link works! I'll add it to the refs. YoPienso (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Exodus International


text:
USS Sands (DD-243)

The first USS Sands (DD-243/APD-13) was a Clemson-class destroyer in the United States Navy during World War II. She was the first ship named for Benjamin F. Sands and his son, James H. Sands.

Construction
Sands was ordered from the New York Shipbuilding Corporation on 29 December 1917, and was laid down on 22 March 1919 at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation's, Camden, New Jersey shipyard. The ship was launched on 28 October 1919, sponsored by Miss Jane McCue Sands. Sands was commissioned on 10 November 1920.

1920s
Following commissioning, Sands remained at Philadelphia to fit out for European duty. On 14 December the destroyer departed from Philadelphia; steamed to Melville, Rhode Island, for torpedo outfit; then proceeded to New York. On 3 January 1921, she sailed for Europe. She arrived at Brest on the 16th and, for the next seven months, conducted runs between French and British ports. In mid-August, she steamed for the Baltic; called at various ports on that sea, despite the still present danger of mines, and returned to Cherbourg on 27 September. Three weeks later, she cleared the French coast and headed for the eastern Mediterranean-Black Sea area. There, fighting between Greeks and Turks in coastal Asia Minor; between Turks and Armenians on the Anatolian plateau; and between Red and White forces in Russia had created problems including disease, poverty, and famine.

Assigned to provide dispatch service to support American Relief Committee efforts, and to protect American nationals and interests, Sands arrived at Allied-occupied Istanbul on 11 November. Nine days later, she fueled at the Standard Oil docks at Selvi Bournu, then commenced her first cruise. Into late December, she steamed off Samsun and Trebizond, observing as Greeks were deported from those areas. After returning briefly to Istanbul, she steamed to Alexandretta, whence she continued on to Cilicia. There she called at Mersin, site of an American mission and relief distribution center, and remained through most of January 1922. On 3 February, she was back at Istanbul; and, on the 8th, she got underway for Novorossiysk. From the 8th to the 19th, she supported relief work in that city, then proceeded to Samsun where, with one interruption to retrieve a drifting barge near Inebole, she remained until 8 March. Two days later, she returned to Constantinople; and, on the 18th, she shifted to Selvi Bournu to assist in firefighting efforts in the oil storage area. With the fires under control, she put back into Istanbul and, on the 22d, got underway to again call at Mersin. By 7 April, she had retransited the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmara. On 8 May, she passed through the Bosporus. From the 9th to the 22d, she was at Odessa, whence she shifted to Theodosia and then continued to Novorossisk. In early June, she was at Trabzon; and, on the 4th, she arrived at Samsun where, for several days, she steamed off the harbor entrance as Greek and Turkish forces exchanged fire.

Sands returned to Istanbul on 9 July and soon afterward sailed for Gibraltar and the United States. From August into November, she underwent overhaul at Philadelphia. By late December, she had joined the Scouting Fleet at New York; and, on 3 January 1923, she departed from that city for winter maneuvers in the Caribbean. In February, she participated in Fleet Problem I, an exercise designed to test the defenses of the Panama Canal. During March and April, she conducted operations in the Greater Antilles; and, in May, she moved back to the east coast. In July, after overhaul, she headed north to the New England coast. In the autumn, she commenced operations off the mid-Atlantic seaboard; and, in January 1924, she again sailed south for winter maneuvers.

1930s
Through the decade and into the 1930s, Sands maintained a similar schedule. On 10 November 1930, however, after completing exercises off southern New England, she proceeded to Philadelphia, where she began inactivation. She was decommissioned on 13 February 1931 and was berthed at League Island until ordered activated in the summer of 1932.

Recommissioned on 21 July, the destroyer moved to Norfolk, Virginia; and, in August, she sailed for the west coast. On 8 September, she arrived at her new base, San Diego, California, and commenced operations off the southern California coast. With the new year, 1933, she steamed to Hawaii for fleet exercises, and, in mid-February, returned to California. During the spring, she operated off the coast of Washington; and, in July, she resumed exercises out of San Diego. Three months later, she joined Rotating Destroyer Squadron 20 and remained in reserve through the winter. Activated in April 1934, she joined Destroyer Division 9 and got underway for the Caribbean and fleet exercises. By mid-November, she was back in southern California, where she remained, with one interruption – Fleet Problem XVI in the North Pacific (May 1935) – until April 1936. She then returned to the east coast; participated in exercises in the Caribbean and off New England; and steamed back to San Diego in October. For the next two years, she operated primarily in the southern California area, with exercises in the Hawaiian Islands during the spring and autumn of 1937 and the spring of 1938. On her return in April 1938, she operated locally into the summer, then prepared for inactivation.

Sands was decommissioned at San Diego on 15 September 1938. Within a year, however, war broke out in Europe and the destroyer was ordered activated for Neutrality Patrol duty.

Recommissioned on 26 September 1939, Sands departed the west coast on 13 November and, a little over a month later, took up patrol duty in the Caribbean. She remained there into the spring of 1940, then moved north for patrol and escort duty off the eastern seaboard from the Virginia Capes to the Maritime Provinces. Before the end of the year, she returned to the Pacific and resumed operations off California.

World War II
With the entry of the United States into World War II, Sands commenced coastal escort work, which continued into the spring of 1942. Then, as the Japanese moved into the western Aleutian Islands, she shifted to Alaska and, through the summer, escorted convoys and conducted patrols from the mainland to ports in the eastern Aleutians. By fall, the Allies were taking the offensive, and Sands was needed for a different mission. On 28 October, she sailed south. Two days later, she was redesignated APD-13; and, on 5 November, she arrived at San Francisco for conversion to a high speed transport.

1943
Sands departed from San Francisco on 21 December. Steaming west, she reached Pearl Harbor at the end of the year; conducted exercises into January 1943; and, on the 8th, resumed her Pacific crossing. On the 22d, she arrived at Espiritu Santo and, as a transport and as an escort, began moving reinforcements and supplies into the Guadalcanal-Tulagi area. On the 29th, she was detached from duties at Tulagi and ordered to accompany USS Navajo (AT-64), toward Rennell Island to assist USS Chicago (CA-29). Rendezvousing the next morning, the tug took the damaged cruiser in tow, and Sands joined Chicago's escort of five destroyers in a circular screen. The eight ships then began making their way to Tulagi. At 1620, the formation was attacked by Japanese torpedo planes. Navajo began evasive maneuvers. Antiaircraft guns on Sands and the destroyers were fired at the intruders, but Chicago was hit by another torpedo and, 20 minutes later, sank.

Sands, with nine wounded by the explosion of a 20 millimeter shell, picked up over 300 survivors and steamed for Espiritu Santo. Arriving on 1 February, she conducted amphibious exercises from the 4th to the 10th; completed another escort run to Guadalcanal and back by the 14th; and, on the 15th, with more marines embarked, steamed back to the Solomon Islands. Five days later, she departed Tulagi; crossed over to Koli Point; and, on the 21st, moved on to the Russell Islands; that night, she landed her assault troops unopposed; then returned to Tulagi, from where she made two more transport runs to the assault area before the 26th.

After the occupation of the Russells, Sands continued to carry troops and supplies and to escort convoys in the New Caledonia-New Hebrides-Solomons area. With spring, she was transferred to the 7th Amphibious Force. On 14 May, she departed the New Hebrides; and, on the 20th, she arrived at Townsville, Australia, with an LST convoy.

Through the summer, she performed escort and patrol missions along the Queensland coast and completed numerous transport missions to move Allied forces up to, and along, the northern coast of the Papuan peninsula. By September, the forces were ready to move against Japanese positions on the Huon Peninsula and contest control of Vitiaz and Dampier Straits.

On 2 September, Sands embarked units of the 9th Australian Division, veterans of the North African desert and, two days later, landed them east of Lae. On the 5th, she retired, returning a few days later to shell the Japanese garrison at Lae as Allied forces closed on that village from the jungle and from mangrove swamps. At mid-month, she resumed transport and escort duties along the coast; and, on the 22d, she landed troops just north of Finschhafen.

Reinforcement-escort runs and amphibious exercises along the coast, from Port Moresby to the Huon Peninsula and between Papua and offshore islands, occupied October and November. In early December, at Goodenough Island, she loaded units of the 112th Cavalry Regiment for the assault on New Britain. On the 15th, she offloaded the troops into rubber landing boats which were to take them onto the Amalut Peninsula. The Japanese, however, opened fire before the boats reached the beach. Covering units, not knowing if the troops had landed, held their fire for fear of hitting the cavalrymen. Twelve of the 15 boats, riddled by Japanese fire, sank. Most surviving troops swam seaward. Sands and the escorting destroyer opened fire, silencing the coastal guns. The search for survivors began, and all but 16 were rescued.

Eleven days later, Sands returned to New Britain for another assault landing. On the 26th, she landed marines on Cape Gloucester, provided gunfire support as they moved off the beaches, then retired to stage for her next target, Saidor.

1944
On 1 January 1944, the APD again departed Good-enough Island with assault troops embarked. A unit of Task Group 76.1, she transited Vitiaz Strait that night and, at 0735 on the 2nd, landed the troops on the beach at Saidor, 115 miles west of Finschhafen. By 0800, she was out of the transport area. In the afternoon, she returned to Buna roads and, until mid-month, made runs between there and Capes Cretin and Sudest.

On the 18th, Sands arrived at Sydney for a brief respite. On the 28th, she got underway to return to New Guinea with cargo and personnel for Milne Bay, Buna, and Cape Sudest. From 6 to 24 February, she completed another run to Sydney; then, on the 27th, loaded troops at Cape Sudest for transport to the assault beaches at Los Negros Island, Admiralties. Sailing on the 29th, she crossed the Bismarck Sea; arrived off the assault area shortly after 0730 the next day; dispatched her loaded LCP(R)s to the departure line by 0742; then, as the first waves reached the shore, commenced gunfire support operations. At 0835, Sands's boats hit the beach with the 3rd assault wave. The intense crossfire which had caught earlier waves continued as they approached. Poor organization on the beach slowed offloading and assisted the accuracy of the Japanese defenders. Sands suffered two casualties, one killed, one seriously injured, from her boat crews and lost her no. 1 boat.

In mid-afternoon, the APD departed the Los Negros-Manus area. Returning to Cape Sudest, she loaded much-needed reinforcements on 3 March and, the next day, disembarked them on the contested island and took on casualties. On the 5th, she was back at Cape Sudest, from where she resumed escort duty along the coast.

In early April, Sands trained army units in amphibious exercises. On the 18th, she embarked units of the 162nd Infantry and got underway for Humboldt Bay. Steaming with TG 77.2, the Central Attack Group for the Hollandia operation, she arrived in the transport area early on the morning of the 22nd. At 0600, her boats were lowered and loaded. Five minutes later, they were en route to the departure line. At 0735, they returned and were hoisted on board. The APD then took up gunfire support duties.

On the 24th, Sands returned to Cape Cretin, and from there proceeded to Cape Sudest for availability. In May, she resumed escort and transport runs but, at mid-month, interrupted them to return to California.

After an overhaul at Alameda, Sands carried passengers to Pearl Harbor; embarked 126 men of the 81st Division Reconnaissance Company there, and arrived in the Solomons on 24 August to rehearse the Palau operation. Two weeks later, she steamed northwest, arriving in the transport area off Anguar Island on the 15th. Acting as reserve for the Peleliu Island assault, she remained off Anguar during the initial landings on the former island. At mid-morning, she shifted to Peleliu to support the forces ashore. On the 17th, she returned to Anguar and, on the 18th, landed the reconnaissance company on Red Beach. On the 19th, she went alongside USS Harris (AP-8); embarked the 323nd Reconnaissance Company and then, with USS Rathburne (DD-113), proceeded to Ulithi. There until the 25th, she landed her troops without opposition, then got underway to return to Hollandia. Arriving on the 28th, she shifted to Manus on the 29th; equipped her boats with mine-sweeping gear, embarked minesweeping personnel, and, on 10 October, steamed for Leyte with units of Mine Squadron 2.

Despite poor weather and two appendectomies which were performed aboard ship, Sands arrived in the approaches to Leyte Gulf on the 17th. On the 18th, she closed Suluan Island, took off reconnaissance troops landed previously by USS Crosby (DD-164) and transferred them to that ship. On the 19th, she moved up to the assault area and lowered her LCP(R)s to conduct shallow water minesweeping operations. From 1155 to 1410, she covered her boats as they swept the approaches to Red and White beaches near Tacloban. Straddled, but not hit, by Japanese batteries, the boats completed their mission and returned to the APD. Sands then shifted to the Dulag beaches, where her boats conducted further shallow water sweeps.

During the night, Sands patrolled in Leyte Gulf. In the morning, she returned to the Tacloban area to provide gunfire support there. In the afternoon, she shifted to the Dulag area for the same purpose; and, on the 21st, she got underway to return to New Guinea.

1945
During November, the APD conducted a resupply and reinforcement run to Leyte and back, then prepared for the invasion of Luzon. On 27 December, she departed Hollandia for the Palaus and Leyte. On 2 January 1945, she cleared San Pedro Bay. On the 4th, Japanese aerial resistance began. The next day, her task group, 77.2, steamed up the Luzon coast. Land-based Japanese aircraft again attacked. On the 6th, the force arrived off Lingayen Gulf and, despite kamikaze accuracy; the ships entered the gulf and took up their stations. Sands, with other APDs, bombarded Santiago Island. On the 7th, she covered the YMSs as they conducted sweeps, and then closed Orange and Green beaches to cover underwater demolition teams as they removed obstacles from the landing area. On the 8th, she moved to the transport area where she remained, on patrol, until the 13th. She then got underway for Leyte and Ulithi.

The APD arrived in the Western Carolines on the 24th and remained through February. On 1 March, she joined a convoy for Iwo Jima, arrived on the 3rd, patrolled through the 5th, and sailed for Saipan on the 6th, escorting retiring transports. From the Marianas, she sailed to the Solomons, New Caledonia, and the Admiralties, from where she returned to Ulithi to escort reinforcements to the Ryukyus. By mid-June, she had completed three runs to the Okinawa area and had begun her last Pacific crossing. On the 30th, she arrived at Pearl Harbor, and, on 11 July, she returned to San Diego.

Sands remained on the west coast through the end of hostilities. On 29 August, she got underway for Philadelphia, where she was decommissioned on 10 October 1945. Struck from the Navy list on 1 November, she was sold for scrapping to the Boston Metals Company the following spring.

Awards
Sands earned nine battle stars for her World War II service.

title: USS Sands (DD-243)


text:
User talk:EyePopper

Welcome!

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

Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:EyePopper


text:
Wilmer Stultz

Wilmer Lower Stultz (April 11, 1900 – July 1, 1929) was an aviator who made the first non-stop flight between New York City and Havana, Cuba. He flew Amelia Earhart when she became the first woman to make a trans-Atlantic flight. He died in a crash in 1929.

Biography
He was born in Williamsburg, Pennsylvania, on April 11, 1900.

Stultz joined the United States Army Air Force on 22 August 1917 and was assigned to the 634th Aero Supply Squadron, reaching the rank of Sergeant. He was discharged on 31 March 1919. Stultz then joined the United States Naval Air Service in December that year, training at Pensacola, Florida. He served at Hampton Roads, Virginia, testing the F5L flying boat.

He married Mildred Potts of Middletown, Pennsylvania, on August 4, 1919.

On March 5, 1928, Stultz, Oliver Colin LeBoutillier, and Mabel Boll on an improvised seat, made the first non-stop flight in the Columbia between New York City and Havana, Cuba (c. 1300 mi.).

Stultz was the pilot of the Fokker Trimotor "Friendship" on June 18, 1928, when Amelia Earhart became the first woman passenger to cross the Atlantic Ocean by airplane.

Stultz died on July 1, 1929, after he crashed while intoxicated at Roosevelt Field in Mineola, New York. Two passengers were also killed. He was buried in the Presbyterian Cemetery in Williamsburg, Pennsylvania.

Legacy
Stultz Field in Tipton, Pennsylvania, was named in his honor.

title: Wilmer Stultz


text:
Wikipedia:Notes for Japan-related articles

This page is meant to provide a repository of reference notes for those who contribute to Japan-related articles; it is futile for us to debate without referring to reliable sources.

Religion

 * "Among the major explanations of this type was Ruth Benedict's designation of Japanese society as a "shame society," as against the West's being a "guilt society," and of Japanese morality as "situational" and not based on universal principles. Benedict also noted the unusual combination of great aesthetic sensitivity [...] Among many Westerners a monotheistic-centered view had been prevalent, which associated high levels of commitment with an orientation toward some transcendental realm, above all toward a God who is beyond the mundane world, and assumed such commitment would therefore be either very weak or entirely absent among so-called pagan religions. Japan appeared to contradict this picture. Its religions--above all Shinto, but also the mixture of Shinto, Buddhism, and Confucianism that characterized Japan--seemed to lack a strong transcendental dimension or orientation. Some Western scholars identified such religions as pagan, while others claimed that it was difficult to find any religion in the Western sense in Japan. This lack of any transcendental dimension in Japanese religion has been asserted [...] The very strong sense of commitment found among the Japanese to be oriented, as Ballah put it, to an "empty center"--itself a rather thought-provoking phenomenon." (S. R. Weisman 7)
 * S. R. Weisman, "An Ancient Shrine Is Testing a New Emperor," New York Times (excerpted in S. N. Eisenstadt 459n.50)
 * The new emperor is coming to the Grand Shrine of Ise, where he is still worshiped as a god. [...] But to understand Japan, they would do well to come here [...] Here a lone horse, retired from service to the emperor or crown prince, sometimes stands guard. The horse, too, is seen as a god, which stable hands must exercise by running alongside, and never atop. Here the sun goddess, from whom the emperor is supposedly descended, is nourished with the four essential foods: rice, salt, water and abalone.

 * This is the center of Shinto, Japan's nature-worshiping and tribal religion that predates Buddhism, Confucianism and Christianity. Here in concrete form are the contradictions that often baffle outsiders: permanence in renewal, renewal in destruction, sacredness in the ordinary.

 * Even here, the Japanese do not take their religion too seriously. Some elderly tourists dip their hands into the sacred Isuzu River, gazing at hills of dark pines feathered with young green maples. Then, patting their hands dry with handkerchiefs, they laugh as their tour guide, a young woman holding the inevitable tour banner, cracks a joke she clearly cracked a hundred times before. A priest, Masayuki Nakanishi, [...] walked along the pebbled path. [...] In his suit and tie, he looks like a typical Mitsubishi employee, and he says he sees himself that way: a typical Japanese with a job at the shrine, a schoolteacher wife, four children. Shinto, unlike some sects of Buddhism, has no moral code and demands no ascetic living; it wants to be part of everyday life, to be everyday life. "We'd like you to think that these hills themselves are gods," Mr. Nakanishi said. "The Japanese image of god is not one built into a house. It's one that is diffused into nature itself." [...] "Just one stone is enough to be a shrine." [...] Mr Nakanishi says, the emperor is an individual who nonetheless embodies a divinity passed down from generation to generation. "By becoming emperor, he carries the divinity of Amaterasu," he said. "Each emperor has his own character, but the divinity of Amaterasu is conveyed as one." [...] "Some people will say that only before the war did people think the emperor was a god," Mr. Nakanishi said. "This is not so." [...] So the question of emperor worship remains serious business for some Japanese, and to some it is worrisome. [...] The hills are gods, the rice is a god, even the horse is a god, so why not the emperor?

 * "Religious life in Japan is rich and varied, with a long history of interaction among a number of religious traditions. Most of the individual features of Japanese religion are not unique; the distinctiveness of Japanese religion lies in the total pattern of interacting traditions./Many traditional Japanese beliefs and practices hark back to prehistoric customs, and most of these form the core of Shinto, the only major religion indigenous to Japan. Indian Buddhism, the Chinese contributions of Confucianism and Taoism (transmitted first through the cultural bridge of Korea), and, much, later, Christianity were introduced to Japan from outside. All these foreign traditions have undergone significant transformations in a process of mutual influence with the native tradition." (Japan 476)
 * "Religion in Modern Japan: After the remarkable changes in national life of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, religion changed drastically./In the 19th century, popular movements formed around pilgrimage associations and charismatic leaders. Such groups often expanded to form the so-called new religions. Until 1945 the government controlled religion closely, but new religious movements continued to arise and expand, and after 1945 they became the most conspicuous development of the religious scene. With urbanization and centralization, folk customs generally and folk religion in particular declined. Such mobility, especially immigration to cities, tended to weaken both local ties and family relationships, in turn impinging upon organized religion." (Japan 480)
 * Ratio of believers (1995). (Japan 476) Source: Agency for Cultural Affairs
 * Shintoism - 54.1%
 * Buddhism - 40.5%
 * Christianity - 0.7%
 * Other religions - 4.7%
 * NationMaster say the Japanese "observe both Shinto and Buddhist 84%, other 16% (including Christian 0.7%)"

 * Religion. Source: Lonely Planet Guide to Japan
 * "In many respects, the term 'religion' can be misleading for Westerners when it is applied to either Japan or China. In the West and in Islamic culture, religion is connected with the idea of an exclusive faith. Religions in Japan, for the most part, are not exclusive of each other."
 * "Shinto (the native 'religion' of Japan), Buddhism, Confucianism and even Christianity all play a role in contemporary Japanese social life, and are defining in some way of the Japanese world view. If you are sceptical of the inclusion of Christianity, you need only attend a Japanese wedding to find certain Christian elements mingling happily with more traditional practices."


text:
Josef Papp

Josef Papp (c. 1933 – April 1989) was an American engineer who was awarded U.S. patents related to the development of an engine, and also claimed to have invented a jet submarine. He was born in Tatabánya, Hungary and died in Daytona Beach, Florida.

Papp was issued several U.S. patents for these inventions, including his noble gas fuel mixture.

The engine continues to be considered by many scientists as a hoax. Papp's poor physics theoretic background is demonstrated in the abstracts of the patents, which had been criticized by Richard Feynman. Supposedly — no confirmation has been found in contemporary sources and — Papp presented to an audience, including Feynman, an ill-fated demonstration in 1966, in which his engine exploded, killing one man (never identified in later accounts) and seriously injuring two others. Feynman is said to have written an article for "LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics" (reproduced in text form by the Museum of Hoaxes) asserting that Papp was a fraudster and the explosion an attempt by Papp to avoid discovery, although he notes that Caltech settled with Papp out of court.

title: Josef Papp


text:
Michael Murphy (actor)

Michael George Murphy (born May 5, 1938) is an American film, television and stage actor. He often plays unethical or morally ambiguous characters in positions of authority, including politicians, executives, administrators, clerics, doctors, law enforcement agents, and lawyers. He is also known for his frequent collaborations with director Robert Altman, having appeared in twelve films, TV series and miniseries directed by Altman from 1963 to 2004, including the title role in the miniseries Tanner '88. He had roles in the films Manhattan, An Unmarried Woman, Nashville, The Year of Living Dangerously, Phase IV, The Front, Shocker, Magnolia, Cloak & Dagger, Salvador, Away from Her, Strange Behavior, Fall, X-Men: The Last Stand, M*A*S*H and Batman Returns, among others.

Early life
Murphy was born in Los Angeles, California, the son of Georgia Arlyn (née Money), a teacher, and Bearl Branton Murphy, a salesman. After serving in the U.S. Marine Corps near the end of the Korean War, Murphy attended the University of Arizona and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

He taught English and drama at University High School (Los Angeles) before pursuing an acting career.

Career
Murphy is best known for his performances as Jill Clayburgh's adulterous husband Martin in Paul Mazursky's An Unmarried Woman (1978), as Woody Allen's morally ambiguous best friend Yale in Manhattan (1979), as ethically enigmatic lawyer Alan Kligman in Magnolia (1999), and as the star of Garry Trudeau and Robert Altman's HBO miniseries Tanner '88.

Murphy worked frequently with Altman, including as Captain Ezekiel Bradbury "Me Lay" Marston V, in M*A*S*H (1970), as Det. Lt. Frank Shaft in Brewster McCloud (1970), as John Triplette in Nashville (1975), and as the title character in Tanner '88 (a role he reprised in the 2004 follow-up miniseries Tanner on Tanner). Other Altman films and television series in which Murphy appeared include the World War II TV series Combat! (in which Murphy appeared in 1963, on the show's second of its five seasons), Countdown (1968), That Cold Day in the Park (1969), McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971), The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (1988) and Kansas City (1996).

Other notable film roles include What's Up, Doc? (1972), The Front (1976), The Class of Miss MacMichael (1978), The Year of Living Dangerously (1982), My Letter to George (1986), Salvador (1986), Private Parts (1997), Silver City (2004), According to Greta (2009), White House Down (2013), They Came Together (2014). His television roles include guest appearances on Bonanza, Baretta, The Sixth Sense, Law & Order, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Judging Amy, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Family Law, 12 O'Clock High, Life Stories, Salty, Here Comes the Brides and L.A. Law.

Though usually cast in supporting roles and character actor parts, Murphy has not been relegated solely to such work. He has also had leading turns in a variety of theatrical films including Phase IV (1974), Strange Behavior (1981), Hot Money (1983), Shocker (1989), The Island (1998) and the 2014 film Fall--in an acclaimed performance that garnered him a 2015 Canadian Screen Award nomination for Best Actor--as well as starring turns in television films like Bell, Book and Candle (1976), 3 by Cheever: O Youth and Beauty! (1979), Countdown to Looking Glass (1984), Tailspin: Behind the Korean Airliner Tragedy (1989), The Ultimate Lie (1996), Breaking the Surface: The Greg Louganis Story (1996) and In the Dark (2003), in addition to others.

Murphy has narrated numerous documentaries, including many episodes of the PBS historical documentary series The American Experience, and the public television travel series Weekends with Yankee. He has appeared in Canadian film and television, including the dramady series This Is Wonderland, for which he was nominated for three Gemini Awards, winning twice, successively, in 2004 and 2005, and nominated for a third in 2006. He has also appeared in the television films Sleeping Dogs Lie (1998), The Life and Crimes of William Palmer (1998), H2O (2004), and theatrically-released features including Folks! (1992), Childstar (2004), Away from Her (2006) and The Trotsky (2008).

Personal life
Murphy was married to Canadian actress Wendy Crewson from 1988 until their divorce in January 2009. They have two children, Maggie (born 1989) and John (born 1992).

Murphy currently resides in Cape Elizabeth, Maine.

Selected filmography

 * Double Trouble (1967) as Morley
 * Countdown (1968) as Rick
 * The Legend of Lylah Clare (1968) as Mark Peter Sheehan
 * That Cold Day in the Park (1969) as The Rounder
 * The Arrangement (1969) as Father Draddy
 * The Lawyer (1970) as Intern in Legal Office (uncredited)
 * Count Yorga, Vampire (1970) as Paul
 * M*A*S*H (1970) as Capt. Ezekiel Bradbury "Me Lay" Marston V
 * Brewster McCloud (1970) as Det. Lt. Frank Shaft
 * McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971) as Sears
 * The Crooked Hearts (1972) as Officer Frank Adamic
 * What's Up, Doc? (1972) as Mr. Smith
 * The Thief Who Came to Dinner (1973) as Ted
 * The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman (1974) as Quentin Lerner
 * I Love You...Good-bye (1974) as Alec Shield
 * Phase IV (1974) as Dr. James R. Lesko
 * Nashville (1975) as John Triplette
 * The Making of "The Front" (1976) as Self
 * The Front (1976) as Alfred Miller
 * Bell, Book and Candle (1976) as Alex Brandt
 * The Great Bank Hoax (1977) as Reverend Manigma
 * An Unmarried Woman (1978) as Martin Benton
 * The Class of Miss MacMichael (1978) as Martin Best
 * 3 by Cheever: O Youth and Beauty! (1979) as Cash Bentley
 * Manhattan (1979) as Yale
 * Strange Behavior (1981) as John Brady
 * The Rules of Marriage (1982) as Alan Murray
 * The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) as Pete Curtis
 * Hot Money (1983) as Burt / Tom
 * Talk to Me (1984) as Ross
 * Countdown to Looking Glass (1984) as Bob Calhoun
 * Cloak & Dagger (1984) as Rice
 * My Letter to George (1986) as Reverend Wilson
 * Salvador (1986) as U.S. Ambassador Thomas Kelly
 * Tanner '88 (1988) as Fmr. U.S. Congressman Jack Tanner
 * The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (1988) as Captain Blakely
 * Shocker (1989) as Det. Lt. Don Parker
 * The Making of "Shocker" (1989) as Self
 * Tailspin: Behind the Korean Airliner Tragedy (1989) as Richard Burt
 * Folks! (1992) as Ed
 * Batman Returns (1992) as The Mayor
 * Dead Ahead: The Exxon Valdez Disaster (1992) as U.S. EPA Administrator William Reilly
 * Clean Slate (1994) as Dr. Doover
 * Bad Company (1995) as William V. 'Smitty' Smithfield (uncredited)
 * The First 100 Years: A Celebration of American Movies (1995) (uncredited - archive footage from Nashville and Manhattan)
 * Truman (1995) as Dinner Speaker (uncredited)
 * Breaking the Surface: The Greg Louganis Story (1996) as Pete Louganis
 * Kansas City (1996) as Henry Stilton
 * Special Report: Journey to Mars (1996) as Dean Rumplemeyer
 * The Ultimate Lie (1996) as Malcolm McGrath
 * Robert Altman: Giggle and Give In (1996) as Self
 * Private Parts (1997) as Roger Erlick
 * The Irish in America: Long Journey Home (1998) as Narrator
 * The Island (1998) as President John F. Kennedy
 * The Life and Crimes of William Palmer (1998) as Smith
 * Indiscretion of an American Wife (1998) as Russell Burton
 * Sleeping Dogs Lie (1998) as Edgar Tratt
 * Magnolia (1999) as Alan Kligman, Esq.
 * The Art of War (2000) as Politician (uncredited)
 * The Only Living Boy in New York (2000) as Rudy
 * Enlisted: The Story of "M*A*S*H" (2000) as Self
 * Twentieth Century Fox: The Blockbuster Years (2000) (uncredited – archive footage from An Unmarried Woman)
 * Tart (2001) as Mike Storm
 * The Day Reagan Was Shot (2001) as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver
 * American Experience – Mount Rushmore (2002) as Narrator
 * Live from Baghdad (2002) as Tom Johnson
 * American Experience – Transcontinental Railroad (2003) as Narrator
 * Footsteps (2003) as Robbie
 * In the Dark (2003) as George Speller
 * Tricks (2004) as Arthur
 * Childstar (2004) as Reed Harrison
 * American Masters – Julia! America's Favorite Chef (2004) as Narrator
 * Silver City (2004) as U.S. Senator Judson Pilager
 * Tanner on Tanner (2004) as Fmr. U.S. Congressman Jack Tanner
 * Behind the Scenes: Tanner on Tanner (2004) as Self
 * The Path to 9/11 (2004) as U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen
 * H2O (2004) as U.S. Ambassador Conrad
 * This is Wonderland (2004-2006) as Judge Maxwell Fraser
 * Tilt (2005) as Jimmy Malloy
 * Heights (2005) as Jesse
 * Mayday (2005) as Captain Randall Williams
 * American Experience – Las Vegas: An Unconventional History, Part I (2005) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Las Vegas: An Unconventional History, Part II (2005) as Narrator
 * X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) as Warren Worthington II
 * Away From Her (2006) as Aubrey
 * Playing House (2006) as Hubbard
 * The Wind in the Willows (2006) as Judge
 * American Experience – Jesse James (2006) as Narrator
 * American Experience – The Gold Rush (2006) as Narrator
 * Caring for Your Parents (2008) as Narrator
 * Depression: Out of the Shadows (2008) as Narrator
 * The Quality of Life (2008) as Charles Greenborne
 * American Experience – Kit Carson (2008) as Narrator
 * A War in Hollywood (2008) (archive footage – from The Front)
 * Not Quite Hollywood: Deleted Scenes (2008) (archive footage - Self)
 * The Trotsky (2009) as Frank McGovern
 * According to Greta (2009) as Joseph
 * American Experience – Wyatt Earp (2010) as Narrator
 * Angle of Attack: How Naval Aviation Changed the Face of War (2011) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Billy the Kid (2011) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Panama Canal (2011) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Dinosaur Wars (2011) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Triangle Fire (2011) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Custer's Last Stand (2012) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Grand Coulee Dam (2012) as Narrator
 * Great Scot Beer (2012) as Randy
 * White House Down (2013) as Vice President Alvin Hammond
 * The Making of "Nashville" (2013) as Self
 * American Experience – Silicon Valley (2014) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (2014) as Narrator
 * American Experience – The Rise and Fall of Penn Station (2014) as Narrator
 * Altman (2014) as Self
 * Fall (2014) as Father Sam Ryan
 * They Came Together (2014) as Roger
 * American Experience – Edison (2015) as Narrator
 * American Experience – The Forgotten Plague (2015) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Last Days in Vietnam (2015) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Bonnie & Clyde (2016) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Mine Wars (2016) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Murder of a President (2016) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Space Men (2016) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Tesla (2016) as Narrator
 * American Experience – The Battle of Chosin (2016) as Narrator
 * Close Encounters with Vilmos Zsigmond (2016) as Self
 * McCabe & Mrs. Miller: Way Out on a Limb (2016) as Self
 * American Experience – The Race Underground (2017) as Narrator
 * Indian Horse (2017) as Father Quinney
 * Two Plains & a Fancy (2018) as Rancher
 * American Experience – The Circus: Part 1 (2018) as Narrator
 * American Experience – The Circus: Part 2 (2018) as Narrator
 * American Experience – Sealab (2019) as Narrator
 * American Experience – The Feud (2019) as Narrator
 * Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese (2019) as The Politician, Fmr. U.S. Congressman Jack Tanner
 * American Experience – The Man Who Tried to Feed the World (2020) as Narrator
 * A Vampire in L.A. (2022) as Self

title: Michael Murphy (actor)


text:
User talk:Renamed user 83600173542

Sorry, but it seems that nobody has ever, ever given you the formal welcome message yet. So, if you don't mind, here it is...

Welcome!

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

Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertising
Please read Wikipedia is not an advertisement board. Thank you. Deleuze 18:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Voyager
We shouldnt really have anyway nitpicks, plot holes etc, leave that to Memory Alpha. Havent seen that ep in sometime but perhaps she had a dermal regenerator, see how it could not be a episode flaw etc? :) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks, didn't know about memory alpha, looking at some episodes they don't cover many nitpicks, but that is probably a better place. Icefox 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of Divebomb for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Divebomb, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Divebomb until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Renamed user 83600173542


text:
Talk:Dantari

VfD
On April 11, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was merge. See Votes for deletion/Dantari for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dantari


text:
Liberal intergovernmentalism

Liberal intergovernmentalism is a political theory in international relations developed by Andrew Moravcsik in 1993 to explain European integration. The theory is based upon and has further developed the intergovernmentalist theory and offers a more authentic perspective than its predecessor with its inclusion of both neo-liberal and realist aspects in its theory.

Theory
Liberal intergovernmentalism was created to be a "grand theory"--that is, a synthesis of mid-range theories. Liberal intergovernmentalism argues that it is impossible to explain the concept of the European Union with a single factor and believe that different approaches or theories are needed to genuinely understand the complexity of the EU. It was originally created to explain broad evolution of regional integration, though it applies also to many everyday decisions.

In his book The Choice for Europe (1998), Moravcsik describes EU integration from 1957 to 1992 as follows: "EU integration can best be understood as a series of rational choices made by national leaders. These choices responded to constraints and opportunities stemming from the economic interests and relative power of powerful domestic constituents, the relative power of states stemming from asymmetrical interdependence, and the role of institutions in bolstering the credibility of interstate commitments." Moravcsik himself, Frank Schimmelfennig and others have subsequently observed that LI explanations need not be limited to economic interests, but that these were simply the social interests most relevant for explaining the period covered in that book. Subsequent work has extended the model.

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) views states as the main political actors in political interactions, and sees the EU as an international institution that can be studied by viewing states as the main actors in a situation of anarchy, where each state achieves their goal through negotiations and bargaining. Yet there are two important caveats. First, while states are the main political actors, LI is a liberal not a realist theory, and thus all states are understood as representative institutions acting to advance the pre-strategic preferences of some (usually biased) coalition of domestic social groups with a stake in the way social, cultural or economic interdependence is managed. So, while states are superficially the primary actors or "transmission belts" whereby social interests are aggregated, advanced and enforced, the most fundamental actors in LI remain transnationally active individuals and social groups. Second, LI posits, following conventional regime theory, that states delegate or pool sovereignty in regional institutions in order to coordinate their policies and establish credible commitments. This the critical third step in the theory. So while states ultimately are in anarchy (as Brexit shows), at any given moment, they are often making decisions within an institutionalized international environment and they create such institutions in the expectation that they will shape state behavior.

Liberal intergovernmentalism has demonstrated its usefulness with its methods of organizing and constructing empirical studies. Studies of the scholarly literature, however, show that it serves as a "baseline" theory of integration: that is, it is the theory that most empirical studies either confirm or use as a basic control in order to define anomalies. However, liberal intergovernmentalism has also been heavily criticized. A general criticism of liberal intergovernmentalism is that it focuses on the theory of grand bargaining and major decisions, and that it has no way of explaining everyday decision-making procedures. Many critics point out that Moravcsik's early work focuses on the treaty-amending moments and member-states economic interests, rather than the everyday policy agendas that represent the majority of EU policies. However, Moravcsik responds that the theory obviously has utility in explaining everyday decisions: few analysts today would deny that the European Council and Council of Ministers remain the EU's most important decision-making bodies (perhaps more so than 25 years ago), that the starting point for analyzing the Council's behavior is to understand the nature and intensity of state preferences and the relative influence of different states. Indeed, recent years have witnessed the emergence of a so-called "New Intergovernmentalism," which reasserts the primacy of LI. Furthermore, Moravcsik's scholarship is criticized for never put forward a detailed liberal intergovernmentalist account of the powers of the European Court of Justice, although a (modified) liberal intergovernmentalist account of European legal integration is certainly possible.

title: Liberal intergovernmentalism


text:
User talk:Applefan84

Sorry, I apologize, but it seems like nobody has given you a formal greeting to Wikipedia yet. So if you don't mind...

Welcome!

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

Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using town names for venues
As per your argument -- "Cherry Hills has an Englewood address (4125 S University Blvd). Englewood is standard town name for that ZIP code. Using town name is consistent for all venues."

In that case...

California State University, Northridge, although it's in Northridge should be Los Angeles just because?

We don't say that Angeles National Golf Club is in Sunland because we like being obscure. We say it's there instead of Los Angeles because Sunland is its mailing address!

 * This isn't Cherry Hills Village. Edina is a city, and a big one at that.
 * "As noted in the discussion regarding Cherry Hills, using the default town name for the ZIP is unbiased and standardized. It is non-judgmental."
 * My point is that the golf course is not in the city of Minneapolis. It is in the city of Edina. I could understand if Edina didn't exist, but it is a big town.
 * It says Edina!
 * --fpo 18:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the Olympic Club isn't just a golf course. It looks as though you looked at the article, you see what more it is. I will come up with another compromise at Talk:U.S. Open (golf) soon... --fpo 00:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Folks: we need to discuss this matter in a more complete manner than the notes that we are able to leave behind on the "History" page. This is the problem, as I see it. When, in a publication for general consumption such as this one, you note where something is located, there is an inherent message that you have made a good-faith effort to make that location as identifiable as possible. Picking a location that is overly localized or obscure insults the intelligence of the reader, while picking a location that is too far away merely to have a notable landmark is inaccurate. Furthermore, in recent decades in the United States, affluent suburban communities have made it an increasing habit to dissociate themselves from urban cores by playing up obscure local boundaries when referring to community identities. My solution to this is to use the USPS default town name for a given ZIP code. Whatever biases the USPS uses to establish these references, they are not driven by race, culture, or class. Furthermore, it allows us to avoid making a subjective judgment about what towns are adequately well-known to be referred to as the primary reference in a location chart, such as in the U.S. Open article. It is standard and consistent for all venues.

title: User talk:Applefan84


text:
Keraunography

Keraunography or keranography is the belief that lightning, when striking an object (generally a human body), can leave markings which constitute a photographic image of surrounding objects. It is generally considered a myth: lightning can leave markings, but they are not photographic.

Origins
Like most folklore, it is impossible to trace the origins of keraunography. However, it seems to have attracted scientific and media attention in England in the early 19th century, and by Victorian times the term "keraunography" had been coined to describe numerous unconnected events. With increasing scientific understanding of electricity and the popularity of photography, the time was right in the 19th century for keraunography, which seems to combine both concepts, to enter the public consciousness. However, it is likely that anecdotal accounts of keraunography had existed long before there was a word for it.

Relationship to other myths
Lightning, being a dramatic and often-seen (yet mysterious and poorly understood) aspect of nature, has since ancient times been the subject of mythology and folklore regarding its origins, effects, and various ways to ward it off. As mentioned previously, the 19th century were a breeding ground for myths about electricity and photography. Sympsychography, by which brain waves are used to produce a photographic image, was a deliberate joke, but no less taken as truth by members of the public. Also possibly related to keraunography is the mistaken belief that the last image a dying person sees is burned into their retina, like a photograph taken at the time of death.

Modern perception
Although to some degree science has still not fully explained all the behaviours of lightning, very few people currently accept keraunography as truth. It is evident that lightning strikes do indeed produce burn marks, and like any basically random shape (clouds, birthmarks, inkblots, etc.) it is human nature to see shapes in them. The lightning often leaves skin marks in characteristic Lichtenberg figures, sometimes called lightning flowers; they may persist for hours or days, and are a useful indicator for medical examiners when trying to determine the cause of death. Although humans being struck by lightning is of course rare, it is nonetheless possible that over a wide period of time, certain cases of burn marks would exist which could be said to resemble objects nearby the point of the lightning strike. However, these cases are almost certainly the product of coincidence rather than evidence of any photographic property of lightning. No supposed case of keraunography has been investigated by modern science, and unless further evidence is presented, it remains a strange object of 19th-century British folklore.

Keraunographic markings
Keraunographic markings (also known as Lichtenberg figures or ferning patterns) are signs of a lightning strike injury on the skin. They can appear on a number of other materials, including wood and grass.

title: Keraunography


text:
Mark Lester

Mark Lester (born Mark A. Letzer; 11 July 1958) is an English former child actor who starred in a number of British and European films in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1968 he played the title role in the film Oliver!, a musical version of the stage production by Lionel Bart based on Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist. Lester also made several appearances in a number of British television series. In 1977, after appearing in the all-star international action adventure film The Prince and the Pauper, he retired from acting. In the 1980s, he trained as an osteopath specialising in sport injuries.

Early life
Mark Lester was born in the city of Oxford to actress Rita Keene Lester and actor and producer Michael Lester (originally Michael Boris Letzer). His father is Jewish and his mother Anglican. Lester was educated at three independent schools: at Corona Theatre School in Ravenscourt Park in West London, followed by Tower House School, a boys' preparatory school near Richmond Park (also in West London), and at Halliford School in Shepperton in Surrey.

Early performances
Lester initially had small roles in several British television series, including The Human Jungle and Danger Man. In 1964, at the age of six, Lester was cast in Robert Dhéry's film Allez France! (1964) (English title The Counterfeit Constable) with Diana Dors.

He also appeared in Spaceflight IC-1: An Adventure in Space (1965), played a small part as the second schoolboy in Fahrenheit 451 (1966) and had a larger role in Our Mother's House (1967).

Oliver! and child stardom
In 1967, at the age of eight, Lester was cast in the title role in the film version of Lionel Bart's musical Oliver! (1968). The multiple Academy Award-winning adaptation of Charles Dickens' novel co-starred Jack Wild, Ron Moody, Harry Secombe, Shani Wallis and Oliver Reed and was directed by Carol Reed. Since Lester could not sing, his singing was dubbed by Kathe Green, daughter of the film's music arranger Johnny Green.

Lester received critical acclaim for his portrayal of a dysfunctional and withdrawn only child in Run Wild, Run Free (1969), starring opposite John Mills, released by Columbia who financed Oliver!. He played a disturbed child in the first regular episode of Then Came Bronson ("The Runner") and also guest starred on The Ghost & Mrs. Muir. Columbia wanted to sign him to a long-term contract but Lester's parents refused.

Lester had leading roles in Eyewitness (1970), a British thriller with Susan George shot on Malta; The Boy Who Stole the Elephant (1970), a TV movie for Disney; and the horror film Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? (1971), with Shelley Winters.

He was reunited with Wild in Melody (1971), which depicted schoolchildren in love, based on a script by Alan Parker. Tracy Hyde played the role of Melody in the film, which used music from the Bee Gees and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young.

Lester starred in a film version of Black Beauty (1971). He was announced for a version of Treasure Island but it was never made. After this period, his acting roles in the UK would begin to wane. This coincided with a decline in the British film industry.

European films
Lester remained in demand for films outside England: What the Peeper Saw (1972) with Britt Ekland; Senza ragione (1973), in Italy with Franco Nero; Little Adventurer (1973), a Japanese film; Scalawag (1973), a pirate film with Kirk Douglas shot in Yugoslavia; and the costume drama La Prima volta sull'erba (English title The First Time on the Grass, 1974), which was nominated for the Golden Bear prize at the 25th Berlin International Film Festival.

Lester ended his film career playing the dual role as Edward VI of England and Tom Canty in the all-star film The Prince and the Pauper (US title: Crossed Swords, 1977) starring Raquel Welch, Charlton Heston, Rex Harrison, George C. Scott, and Oliver Reed, who had played Bill Sikes in Oliver!. After this, he said, "I bought myself a Ferrari and set off through Europe for 18 months."

Later life
At the age of 28, he took his A-Levels, passing Chemistry and Biology. He became an osteopath, studying at the British School of Osteopathy, and in 1993, Lester opened the Carlton Clinic, an acupuncture clinic in Cheltenham.

He is a patron of the theatre charity The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America.

Personal life
Lester has four children with his first wife, Jane, whom he married in January 1993 and divorced in 2005. In 2006 he married his second wife, Lisa, a psychiatric nurse. They divorced in 2009.

title: Mark Lester