text:
Category:Femina Miss India winners

Winners of the Femina Miss India crown.

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

title: Category:Femina Miss India winners


text: User talk:63.64.14.230

title: User talk:63.64.14.230


text:
Defence Intelligence Organisation

The Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) is an Australian government military intelligence agency responsible for strategic intelligence and technical intelligence assessments, advising defence and government decision-making on national security and international security issues, and the planning and conduct of Australian Defence Force operations. The DIO does not collect intelligence or conduct covert action, but works on defence economics, transnational terrorism, and WMD.

The DIO is an agency of the Australian Intelligence Community and is part of the Defence Intelligence Group (DIG) with the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO). The head of DIO is the Director of the Defence Intelligence Organisation, currently Major General Matthew Hall.

Joint Intelligence Bureau
In the post-World War II period, the military intelligence and strategic assessments functions were shared between the Navy, Army and Air Force intelligence directorates and the Joint Intelligence Bureau (JIB) from 1947 to 1969. JIB was responsible for geographic, infrastructure and economic intelligence – mainly in Australia's region. In 1957, JIB's responsibilities were expanded to include scientific and technical intelligence.

Joint Intelligence Organisation
In 1969, most of the foreign assessment elements of the three armed services were merged to form the Joint Intelligence Organisation (JIO). The Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security (also called the first Hope Commission) in 1977 recommended the establishment of the Office of National Assessments (ONA) as an independent statutory agency to provide all-source assessments on international political, strategic and economic developments to the Prime Minister and to assume the foreign intelligence assessment role of JIO. JIO was then reoriented to focus more closely on defence intelligence and strategic interests. The second Hope Commission endorsed these arrangements in 1984. In 1989, counterterrorism was added to JIO's responsibilities.

Overview
A review of Defence intelligence in 1989 by Major General John Baker led to the establishment in 1990 of the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) as the sole strategic level, all-source intelligence assessment agency for the Department of Defence. Baker became the first Director of DIO in 1990 until 1992.

DIO is the strategic-level, all-source intelligence assessment agency for the Department of Defence. It is not an autonomous body; unlike ONA, DIO is a subordinate organisation within the Department of Defence with no separate statutory mandate or direct budget line. The organisation's character and purpose is defined by its position within the Defence portfolio.

DIO is an integrated civilian–military organisation, with the majority of staff being public servants recruited through either the defence graduate program or direct entry.

Operations
DIO's assessments focus on the Asia-Pacific region and cover strategic, political, defence, military, economic, scientific and technical areas. DIO's intelligence products help inform decisions about Australia's military activities at home and abroad, defence acquisition processes, force readiness decisions, strategic policy, international relations and defence scientific developments.

DIO also maintains close links with intelligence agencies of other allied countries. In addition, it maintains links with intelligence agencies of a range of other countries to foster dialogue and the exchange of information and as a contribution to defence relationships with regional countries.

Australian troops deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq were briefed by DIO on enemy weapons and forces.

Directors
The position of Director of the Defence Intelligence Organisation is a two-star rank position.

title: Defence Intelligence Organisation


text: User talk:217.205.57.110

title: User talk:217.205.57.110


text:
Type 052 destroyer

The Type 052 (NATO/OSD Luhu-class destroyer is a class of destroyers developed in the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The Type 052 was an intermediate between the obsolescent Type 051 and the modern Type 052B destroyers. They were the first PLAN destroyers powered by gas turbines, and the first PLAN ships with modern combat direction systems (CDS). They were also part of the first generation of PLAN warships armed with surface-to-air missiles in the form of the short-range Crotale (called HQ-7 in Chinese service.)

The Type 052 used subsystems imported from the United States and the European Union. The embargo after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre ended the supply of and support for those subsystems, limiting production to two ships and likely affecting their operating efficiency due to system integration issues. Afterward, China turned to Russia and Ukraine for technology.

Programme
The Type 052 was the first PLAN warship where the CDS was designed before the ship. The CDS, possible the ZKJ-6 based on the Italian IPN-10 or IPN-20, began development in 1983 and underwent land-based testing in December 1986. Two ships were ordered in 1985, but delayed by export orders to Thailand. The first, Harbin, was laid down in November 1990 and commissioned in July 1994. Qingdao was commissioned in March 1996.

In 2003, Harbin was refitted with a low radar profile 100mm gun turret in 2003; Qingdao followed in 2005.

A major refit began in 2010 for Harbin and Qingdao in 2011 which included changes to sensors and weapons, gas turbine replacement, and some hull work.

Machinery
The ships were completed with different gas turbines due to the embargo; Harbin with two General Electric LM2500s from the United States, and Qingdao with two Zorya-Mashproekt DA80s from Ukraine.

Sensors
The original sensors included the Type 518 air search radar, the Type 362 search radar, and the French DUBV-43 variable depth sonar. These were replaced during the 2010 refit with the Type 517 radar, the Type 362 radar, and a linear towed array sonar respectively.

Weapons
The ships are armed with an octuple HQ-7/Crotale launcher, and a total of 32 missiles. France agreed to sell the missile systems in 1986, and they were delivered after October 1990.

Four Type 76A twin 37 mm guns were installed at construction. They were removed during 2010 refit, and the aft pair replaced by a pair of Type 730 CIWS.

Other
The CDS installed on the Type 052 is unclear. One ship may have received the Thomson-CSF TAVITAC; the PRC bought two TAVITACs from France in the 1980s. The TAVITAC may be known as, or modified into, the ZKJ-5 CDS in PRC service. The other ship may have received the ZKJ-6.

The quarterdecks were built open, and enclosed during the 2010 refit.

The ships may have had severe survivability issues like earlier PLAN warships. Observations by foreign visitors to Harbin in March 1997 suggested limited damage control capability and crew safety features.

Operational history
Qingdao participated in the PLAN's first cruise to circumnavigate Earth in 2002. German technicians were flown in to repair its diesel engines during the cruise.

title: Type 052 destroyer


text:
Viceroys in China

Zongdu (Tsung-tu; ; Manchu: ; usually translated as Governor-General or Viceroy) were the managers supervising provincial governors in Ming and Qing China. One viceroy usually administered several provinces and was in charge of all affairs of military, food, wages, rivers, and provincial governors within their region of jurisdiction. Viceroys was appointed by and directly reported to the Emperor.

One of the most important was the Viceroy of Zhili (Chihli), since it encompassed the imperial capital. Yuan Shikai, later President of Republican China, held this office.

Ming dynasty
Zhu Yuanzhang, the founding emperor of the Ming dynasty (1368 AD to 1644 AD), continued the provincial system of the Yuan dynasty but separated Xingsheng into 13 Cheng Xuan Bu Zheng Shi Si, aimed to spread the central government policies. However, later the Ming government found out they needed a coordinator to deal with the conflict between several provinces or suppress rebellion.

The viceroy system began in 1441, the 6th year of Zhengtong period, when the minister of war was assigned to cope with the rebellion in Yunnan. From the late 15th century, the Ming central viceroys were assigned with increasing frequency. In the 5th year of Chenghua emperor (1469 AD), the viceroy of Liangguang (Guangdong and Guangxi) was assigned permanently.

Only the secretary of the Grand Council can be appointed to be a viceroy. In the 8th year of Zhengde emperor (1510 AD), the viceroy of Xuanda was appointed to defend the Great Wall against annual Northern Yuan Mongol invasions.

In 1550 AD, the 33rd year Jiajing emperor, viceroy of Zhezhi was set up to cope the threat from the Japanese wokou.

When it came to the 1600s, the Manchu rose from the northeast of China, Nurhaci, the khan of Later Jin, announced his rebellion against the Ming Dynasty in the 1610. In 1626, the 6th year of Tianqi, in the Battle of Ningyuan, Yuan Chonghuan defeated Nurhaci and defended Ningyuan from the Manchu. Nurhaci would die several months later. Yuan Chonghuan was in succession to become viceroy of Jiliao. As Yuan Chonghuan defended Ningyuan and Jinzhou from the Manchu invasion for many times, Hong Taiji, the following khan of Nurhaci, bypassed Ningyuan and Jinzhou and broke through the Great Wall and reached the capital.

In 1630 the 3rd year of Chongzhen era, Yuan was arrested for betraying the Ming dynasty and sentenced to death. Before his death, Yuan wrote a poem:"'A life's work always ends up in vain; half of my career seems to be in dreams. I do not worry about lacking brave warriors after my death, for my loyal spirit will continue to guard Liaodong.'"In the same time, the viceroy of Shaan-Gan, Hong Chengchou, was assigned to deal with the peasant uprising headed by Gao Yingxiang (Chuang King) and Li Zicheng (General Chuang later inherited Gao's nickname and his forces) in northwest China. In order to suppress the peasant uprising, the Ming government set up the viceroy of five provinces including Henan, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Huguang and Sichuan, Lu Xiangsheng was appointed to it and soon defeated Gao Yingxiang and his 300,000 troopys with just an army of 20,000. Before Lu could suppress all the remains of peasant uprising, he was appointed to be the viceroy of Xuanda to protect the north border of the empire to defend against the Manchus. In 1638, the 11th year of Chongzhen, Lu died for his country in the battle against the Manchus after facing a case of food shortage for seven days.

Some people believe the death of the Ming dynasty was sealed after Hong Chengchou, the viceroy of Jiliao during 1639 and 1641, failed the Battle of Song-Jin and lost nearly half of Ming's army. Though Hong Chengchou was highly regarded by Chongzhen emperor, he surrendered to the Qing. In 1644, the last emperor of Ming, Chongzhen emperor Zhu Youjian hanged himself in Beijing outside the Forbidden city when Li Zicheng marched into Beijing.

List of viceroys
The regional viceroys, along with subordinate provinces, during the Qing dynasty were:
 * Viceroy of Zhili: Zhili
 * Viceroy of Liangjiang: Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Anhui
 * Viceroy of Min-Zhe: Fujian, Zhejiang, Taiwan
 * Viceroy of Huguang: Hunan, Hubei
 * Viceroy of Shaan-Gan: Shaanxi, Gansu
 * Viceroy of Liangguang: Guangdong, Guangxi
 * Viceroy of Yun-Gui: Yunnan, Guizhou
 * Viceroy of Sichuan: Sichuan
 * Viceroy of the Three Eastern Provinces: Fengtian, Jilin, Heilongjiang

Chinese historians often rank the Viceroy of Zhili as the most honorable and powerful, and the Viceroy of Liangjiang as the richest of the eight. Certain provinces were not governed by any regional viceroys. These included the provinces of Shanxi, Shandong and Henan.

Besides the regional viceroys, there were also special types of viceroys, such as Viceroy of Southern Rivers and Viceroy of Eastern Rivers, who were in charge of waterways.

Early Qing dynasty
The Qing dynasty effectively inherited the late Ming system, wherein viceroys combined both military and civilian powers over one or more provinces. While the regularly-appointed Ming viceroys were concentrated on the northern border, against the military threat of the Mongols and Manchus, the Qing dynasty extended the system into other regions in China as well.

The early ruler of Qing dynasty (1644 AD to 1912 AD) basically followed the system of Ming dynasty and established stable provincial boundaries. They created 18 provinces and two or three of them formed the jurisdiction of a viceroy. Unlike Ming, viceroys in Qing dynasty were created according to the military expansion progress (Guy, R, 2010). In 1649, the 5th year of Shunzhi emperor, the viceroy of Zhili was established to strengthen their control to both Zhili, Shandong and Henan. In the meantime, due to the remain threat of Ming dynasty from southwest China, Hong Chengchou was assigned to be the viceroy of Yungui, Huguang and Liangguang, in his term of office, he massacred many people who refused to bend knees to Qing dynasty, additionally, the last emperor of Southern Ming dynasty, Yongli emperor Zhu Youlang, was cast into Myanmar and finally be executed by Pingxi Prince Wu Sangui. After Qing eliminating the remain of Ming dynasty on mainland China, the central government wanted to reduce their power of the Three Feudatories. The viceroy of Yungui, Gan Wenkun, was arranged to take Pingxi Prince Wu Sangui down but was captured and killed when Wu Sangui announced his rebellion to Qing along with other two princes, the Revolt of the Three Feudatories began. After Qing suppresses Wu's rebellion, Kangxi emperor finally tries to take the other remainder of Ming, the Kingdom of Tungning, the viceroy of Minzhe Yao Qisheng and General Shilang finished the task in 1683, the 22nd year of Kangxi emperor (Peterson, Willard J., 2016).

Late Qing dynasty
In 1840, after the viceroy of Liangguang, Lin Zexu eliminated opium imported to China by British businessmen. The British Council declared war to China and the Opium War broke out. After centuries of locking boundaries and officers' unwilling to promote navy's force. Qing's navy failed to Confront with the British steam warship and British army marched towards Nanjing and forced the viceroy of Liangjiang Keying to sign Treaty of Nanking, in this treaty, Qing paid six million silver dollars to Britain, open other four trading points and ceding Hong Kong to Britain (Fairbank, John K., and Kwang-Ching Liu, 1980). Due to the defeat of the first Opium war, conflict between Manchu and Han and population of Qing dynasty has reached its peak, leading to the increase of the Taiping Rebellion based on Christian belief in the year 1850.

At the beginning, the corrupt Green Standard Army and Eight Banners cannot fight against the leader of the rebellion Hong Xiuquan and also cannot stop Hong from forming Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. To cope with the rebellion, the Qing government assigned Zeng Guofan as the viceroy of Liangjiang and trained a new army, Xiang army, to help them, in the meantime, it is the first time that the number of Han viceroys exceeds that from Manchu, shows the fall of Qing's central power (Fairbank, Jokn King, 1978). Zuo Zongtang, another founder of Xiang army, together with Zeng Guoquan, the younger brother of Zeng Guofan and the viceroy of Liangjiang finally took the capital of Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Nanjing and captured Hong Tianguifu, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom's adolescent emperor son of Hong Xiuquan, putting an end to the uprising (Michael and Zhang, 1971). After that, in 1868, Zuo was assigned to be the viceroy of Shaan Gan and put down another rebellion in North China, the Nian rebellion. During the 1870s, Zuo led 120,000 Xiang army, equipped with many advanced weapons, to crush the Muslim rebels in the northeast of China. In 1878, Zuo Zongtang marched to Xinjiang to take down Yakub Beg's rebel and expel Russian intruder from Ili city. Nevertheless, Zuo was also one of the founders of Western Affairs Movement, He built the Fuzhou Naval College and Mawei Arsenal in Fuzhou to learn western advanced equipment when he was the viceroy of MinZhe. According to Fairbank&Jokn King (1978), another founder of Western Affairs Movement is the viceroy of Zhili, Li Hongzhang, who created Huai army to support the role of Qing government during the Taiping rebellion he was also the student of Zeng Guofan.

In 1886, after the Sino-French War, he realized the necessity to train a powerful army and fleet to support Qing dynasty, due to this he created Beiyang Fleet the strongest fleet in East Asia. Eight years after, in order to protect Qing's tributary state Korea from the invasion of Japan, Qing declare war to Japan, Li was chosen to lead army to defend Korea. However, because of the corruption in Qing dynasty and the inherent defects of feudal system Qing lost the war and Li had to sign the treaty of Shimonoseki. In this treaty, Qing was to pay Japan 200 million taels (8000000 kg) of silver as war reparations and ceded LiaoDong Peninsula, Taiwan and its affiliated islands and PengHu islands (Rowe, 2012). Due to his loss, Li was demoted as the viceroy of Liang Guang. In the 1900s, when army of eight foreign countries marched Beijing, the Han viceroys of southeast China remain neutral and still protest against the Empress Dowager (New York Times, 1900). To negotiate with these foreigners, Li Hongzhang was arranged to be the principal Chinese negotiator to sign the Xin Chou Treaty (Boxer Protocol). During the First Sino-Japanese War, the Empress Dowager Cixi found general Yuan Shikai faithful to the Royal family. In the Wuxu Reform, yuan was the first one to protect Empress Dowager Cixi and arrest reform's chief Tan Sitong, Liang Qichao and others and finally executed six of them. After all this events, Yuan finally replaced Li Hongzhang as the viceroy of ZhiLi after Li died in 1901.

In the early 1900s, as Fairbank & Jokn King (1978) cited, Yuan was asked to form a new army Beiyang army to protect Qing dynasty, which was regarded as the largest and best trained army in China (Schillinger, Nicolas 2016). According to Busky (2002), Yuan was relieved of all his posts and retired to his homeland in 1908, before his retirement he was recognised as the most powerful man in China (Douglas Story, 1907). In 1904, the viceroy of Liangjiang, Zhang Zhidong, planned to build the yellow river conservancy by himself and cast aside the central government (New York Times, 1904). The decadent of the central government power became more obvious in the late Qing Dynasty, when the Wuchang uprising took place on October 11, 1911, Beiyang army refused to follow Qing government's order but asking Yuan's return. Yuan believed time was on his side, so he rejected court's order many times until he was satisfied. When he finally agreed to suppress rebellion, almost half of China was out of control of Qing's rule, realizing this situation, Yuan arranged for the abdication of the child emperor Puyi in return for being granted the position of President of the Republic of China.

title: Viceroys in China


text:
User talk:Ganookea

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 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 07:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

El C's talk page
If you cause any more vandalism, you're likely to be blocked from editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * It's an interesting comment, though (within the vandalism), considering that Che continued to work 16-12 hour days, 7 days a week, even after he became a govt. Minister. On sunday, he would work 12 hours doing manual labour in a factory or field. All this, and Che's life is documented brilliantly by the American journalist/biographer, Jon Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, which I read a few months ago. This 800+ page work is masterful, seminal and authoritative. I highly recommend it to Ganookea, Vandalism is easy, unlike research or wit. El_C 08:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ganookea


text:
Besar Island, Johor

Besar Island (Pulau Besar), also known as Babi Besar Island (Pulau Babi Besar) is an island in Mersing District, Johor, Malaysia.

Name
A word of mouth legend tells of a fisherman's wife who was pregnant and craved for seaweed to eat. Upon eating the seaweed, she turned into a mermaid. Her husband was extremely angered by this, and screamed "babi! babi! babi!" ("pig! pig! pig!"; here used as an insult or curse), and called the island "pulau babi" ("pig island") from then on.

Geology
The island, which is surrounded by Rawa, Sibu and Tinggi Island, is characterised by quiet, clean beaches of powdery white sand and crystal-clear azure waters. To preserve the unspoiled marine life, the Government has gazetted it as a marine park to protect around 60 species of marine life from any activities that can harm their natural habitats within 2 nmi around the island.

The island's highest point rises some 845 ft above the sea level. Rich hues of wild vegetation are dappled throughout with the lush greens of the coconut palms and tropical jungles.

Administrative divisions
The island is divided into 6 villages, which are:
 * Atap Zing Village
 * Batu Hitam Village
 * Busong Village
 * Teluk Bakau Village
 * Teluk Kampa Village
 * Teluk Penagat Village

Transportation
The island is accessible by boat from Mersing Town in Johor mainland.

title: Besar Island, Johor


text:
User talk:Specterthearlen

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 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 07:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see from your vandalism of my User page and that of Boothy443 (your only edits so far) that you're at primary school. That's fine, we don't have an age-limit. We do, however, have rules about vandalising Wikipedia. Please accept this block from me. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Specterthearlen


text:
User talk:Hairyhillary

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 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 07:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hairyhillary


text:
User:Wakeforest

,

title: User:Wakeforest


text:
User talk:Wakeforest

Hey, what's up with the Free Republic page? "leave page alone or you'll be blocked?" Who do you think you are? If you disagree, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I will be forced to take this to arbitration. --Jonathan Christensen 07:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you have the ability to block and hardban me, and why should I be blocked or hardbanned? I've posted a comment on that talk page; unless you explain yourself reasonable, I will take this to RfC immediately. --Jonathan Christensen 07:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Impersonating administrator
You will be blocked the next time you impersonate an administrator, or make a threat claiming that you will block and permaban someone. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wakeforest


text:
Talk:James Robinson

From RFC
'''Note: Other relevent comments may exist at Talk:Free_Republic. Consider reading that page, too, before taking any brash action.'''

Please consider discussing before deleting-Casito 07:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete, I redirected after merging all content into the Free Republic page. My apologies for being bold. That said, you are free to chime in on the Talk:Free Republic page if you so wish. --Jonathan Christensen 08:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Repost of the message from the FR discussion forum. All further discussions of this, if any, need to take place here.

 * JC - the only person who seems to be acting unilaterally on this matter is you. You've unilaterally merged the page itself twice now with little to no discussion at all, though others have asked you to discuss that on Talk:Jim_Robinson. Showing up on the talk page and saying the equivalent of "yeah, but i'm gonna do it anyway" is not a discussion. As it stands right now there seem to be three people who favor leaving it as it was with only you proposing to merge it, yet you plow right ahead with the merge unilaterally. As for common wikipedia policy on people who are well known for their websites having separate articles, I direct you to a couple well known examples:

 * The Daily Kos blog and owner Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
 * The Drudge Report and owner Matt Drudge
 * The Little Green Footballs blog and owner Charles Johnson
 * Power Line (blog) and its owners John_H._Hinderaker and Scott_W._Johnson

 * Based upon these precedents, it seems that a separate article here would be both appropriate and in keeping with wikipedia formatting policy. I have restored the previous article and removed your redirect on this basis. I will also post a copy of this comment on the discussion forum there. If you still support a change in which the articles are merged, then YOU need to go over there and make your case for it on that discussion section rather than acting unilaterally and turning talking only after the change you desire is done. Thanks for understanding. Rangerdude 16:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * For the time being, I shall comment here. First, there are several factual errors in your interpretation I would like to point out. For starters, you state that the only person acting unilaterally was me. Hardly! I initially merged the pages in keeping with the WP:BB policy. If others didn't like it, they might have reverted it and tried to discuss it. Did they? Perhaps a look at the summary Wakeforest left when he reverted the Free Republic page will be enlightening:

 * (don't agree leave page alone or you'll be blocked)

 * Oh, but that's not at all unilateral, is it? Here's a brand new user account (Wakeforest had neither a user page or a talk page at the time he made that revert; he created his user page with no meaningful content soon after, and I created his talk page), probably a sock puppet--he shows some knowledge of Wikipedia, if he is seemingly entirely ignorant of proper processes--threatening to block me if I edit the page at all. Why? Because he doesn't agree with me. But that'snot unilateral, is it, Rangerdude? No, of course not.
 * After he made that comment, I decided that the best thing to do would be to discuss it. So I asked a question on his talk page:

 * Hey, what's up with the Free Republic page? "leave page alone or you'll be blocked?" Who do you think you are? If you disagree, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I will be forced to take this to arbitration. --Jonathan Christensen 07:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Oooh, that's pretty unilateral, isn't it? I dunno, I guess Wakeforest had better keep on being nice and accepting, since I was being soooo unilateral. This is what I got in response:

 * Who do I think I am?
 * Not relevant to a little person as yourself.
 * I have warned you once. You won't get a second warning before you are blocked and hard-banned. Wakeforest 07:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Once again, it's clear that Wakeforest is absolutely not being unilateral, isn't it. I mean, isn't it? It isn't? Oh dear, what am I to do?

 * So what does the oh-so unilateral JC do? Why, he asks Wakeforest for an explanation, once again:

 * Since when do you have the ability to block and hardban me, and why should I be blocked or hardbanned? I've posted a comment on that talk page; unless you explain yourself reasonable, I will take this to RfC immediately. --Jonathan Christensen 07:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Damn him and his unilateral ways, asking people to explain themselves not once, but twice! After 25 minutes without any kind of response or action on Wakeforest's part--strange, IMHO, for someone who was just about to hardban me--I once again merged the page, figuring him to be some sort of obscene sockpuppet joke.

 * Now that that is out of the way, we can turn to more relevant matters. First, you claim there are at least three people in favor of keeping it as two seperate articles; in fact, I count at most two, you and wakeforest (who, as I noted earlier, is most likely a sockpuppet--his only edits are reverting the changes I made, creating his user page with a singly comma on it, and threatening me on my user page). Although one other person edited this page soon after Wakeforst reverted it, they have yet to weigh in on either side of the discussion, although I invited them to do so. If or when they do, perhaps you can say three.

 * Second, in all the other cases you cite those pages have information which certainly does not belong on the main site page, and merits a page for that particular person. Although Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is a small page, that biographical material certainly does not belong on his blog's page. Drudge's page has its merits merely in its size, though some of it is surely duplicated on the Drudge Report page. No matter. Charles Johnson's page has other material as well, such as his career as a jass guitarist. This page has no such material; all of it, apart from the two sentences at the top, clearly belongs in the Free Republic article, and even those might be debated.

 * So, I need to go over where now to make my case? Perhaps I need to join the Society of Unilateralists, or the Society of Sock Puppeteers, so that I can make my case more effectively, as Wakeforest obviously seems to have convinced you that way?

 * Please, get a clue about what is actually going on here. Or are you going to threaten to hardban me now for disagreeing with you? --Jonathan Christensen 19:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * JC - Your response to an attempt at discussion is unnecessarily combative in tone. Wikipedia works on consensus, not flame wars. Contrary to your indications, others DID try to discuss the issue here above after you came along and changed the article - see Casito's post to you "Please consider discussing before deleting." Your response was to neglect his request for a explanation of your changes, send him over to the FR discussion page, and go right ahead with those changes unimpeded and without any genuine consideration of the requests that had been made of you. That is the definition of unilateral action. Wikipedia operates around consensus, and quite frankly the consensus to date is NOT with you on this issue. It is plainly evident from your post that you have some sort of previous issue with Wakeforest that I'd prefer not to tread into. Come back when you're mature enough to engage in a polite discussion of the proper placement of this article absent your disposition toward combative rantings and unilateral changes against the consensus. Rangerdude 00:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. This looks to have been unpleasant. Personally I don't see any problem with a redirect; this person is only notable for his involvement with the Website, which has its own page. Information on the author of the Website can go there. I probably would've just put it up for VfD. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this probably goes without saying, but it's not very polite to make threats about banning someone just because you disagree with something they did editorially. (Not to mention pretending to have the power to ban someone in the first place.)  · Katefan0(scribble) 20:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The source of the unpleasantness to date has been JC, who unilaterally changed the article at a time when there was no consensus to do so. Going by how similar website/website author articles have been formed (see the examples I gave above) it seems perfectly proper to split them into two articles in keeping with how other situations like this have been handled. Rangerdude 00:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Creating a redirect in this situation -- as opposed to ridiculously empty threats about banning someone over an editorial disagreement -- seems much less unpleasant. As to the rest, I suppose if someone were invested in the article it would seem unpleasant for someone to create a redirect and merge the information in another article, but Wikipedia asks us to assume good faith.  It also says to be bold.  On the other hand, it was perfectly OK for someone with a disagreement to revert his edit.  So far everybody's playing well together.  The proper thing to do then becomes discussing the redirect/revert on talk pages; unfortunately the person who reverted his edit instead let his or her temper get the better of him and began making empty threats about banning in a laughable attempt to get his way.  As for prior precedents, personally I don't think this person and this publication rise to the same level of notability as something like Drudge Report or Daily Kos.  I don't claim to be the ultimate arbiter of such things, but I've heard of all the others you mentioned -- but not this one.  Perhaps this is best decided as part of a VfD vote where it will attract more opinions, as was my initial thought.  Just my two cents. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:11, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Once again, I do not know why that user threatened a banning or whatever else he did. From the looks of things those two users have past issues. My attention is concerned with this article, and JC's response to several simple and polite requests that he explain himself rather than acting unilaterally was unnecessarily combative and accusitory. His edit was reverted because at least three people, myself included, voiced disagreement with it and with the unilateral manner in which he went about conducting it despite requests to engage the issue in a consensus-oriented discussion. As to your comments on this site author, Free Republic is actually a larger and better travelled website than all of the other examples save Drudge. The "well I haven't heard of him" standard doesn't leave much to go by, and those who have heard of him seem to be recognizing his importance for a separate article. Also, regarding a VfD, I don't think this option should be sought unless more substantive differences are exercised here. Just because some random user comes along and decides to make a major change to a developing article without justifying it doesn't mean we have to immediately poll all of wikipedia to resolve it. Let's use a little common sense here before taking it to a higher level. Rangerdude 16:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think VfD is the commonsense next step unless more people notice the RfC. RfC doesn't always attract a lot of attention. Currently we're stalemated, for instance. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see what you describe as a stalemate. Right now I see (1) a user who is angry over the fact that his attempts to merge the articles were reverted and met objections from not one but several editors, most of whom he's essentially shunned to pursue personal issues with one over events that happened on the Free Republic article (2) you, apparently voicing the belief that it should be merged, and (3) four users who have indicated that it should be separate in some form, myself among them. Given these circumstances, it does not seem that this article is suffering from a lack of attention nor does there appear to be a "stalemate" (4 is larger than 2). Nor does there seem to be anybody seriously making the case why a merger is necessary, though I have made an extensive case based on other precedents that support having two separate articles. If you'd like to resolve this then by all means make your case. But jumping to a VfD before that's even happened and in the seeming deficit of other supporters for whatever your position may be is not the solution at this time Rangerdude 21:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I take that back -- three people who are for separate articles and two against (I forgot to include the original reverter). Not sure who you count as a fourth but it doesn't look like it matters.  Mea culpa. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * These two users do not have past issues, because the other user did not exist in the past. He was created solely for the purpose of threatening to ban me. I'd be very interested to know who's puppet he was, however. Perhaps I should see if I can get any help on that. Second, my edit was reverted because the owner of this puppet (this puppeteer) disagreed with me and wanted to ban me, not because three people coived disagreements and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps you need to work the chronology out... --Jonathan Christensen 17:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever issue it may be between you and him, take it somewhere else. This discussion is about the design and placement of this article, not a forum for you to whine about whoever you think has wronged you. As I noted previously, come back when you're mature enough to engage in a polite discussion of the proper placement of this article absent your disposition toward combative rantings and unilateral changes against the consensus. Rangerdude 20:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See, it's impossible to take it somewhere else, because the user account effectively doesn't anymore. It's called a sockpuppet. You may have have heard the word before. But, this will now go on VfD, because here, at least, you insist on repeatedly turning the discussion towards me rather than the matter in question. Perhaps there you might be able restrain yourself from personal attacks? --Jonathan Christensen 06:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There you go again, JC. You cannot seem to even move beyond your personal disputes with that other editor (and I don't care who or what he may have been - this is no place for a pissing match), nor do you seem to offer any reason in support of your position. Rangerdude 04:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this can do with being a separate article, it is about as notable as other examples given. ObsidianOrder 06:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD Tag is Inappropriate per wikipedia policy
As noted on the VfD discussion page started by JC, his use of this tag is inappropriate for this article and in violation of wikipedia policy. As I understand it, JC wishes to merge this article with another. Wikipedia's policy on candidates VfD's - found at Deletion_policy - explicitly EXCLUDES merger requests from article disputes that should be resolved by this mechanism. Barring any subsequent justification for it, the VfD tag should be removed for the reason that it misuses this option. Rangerdude 04:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the first time, yes, but there have already been two merges conducted on this page ( and ) but these have been reverted. Therefore I think it appropriate to put it to the community to decide. --bainer 06:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem is that both of those mergers have been attempted unilaterally and without concern for discussion or consensus by a single user. Wikipedia has separate policies for settling merge disputes. VfD, per its explicit guidelines, does not apply here. You should also note that the first of those mergers was made unilaterally within only 30 minutes of the article's creation and was not discussed with anybody. The second was made by the same individual a day later DESPITE several outstanding requests of him to discuss the matter before acting as he did. Rangerdude 14:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, WP:DP does say that articles that need to be merged shouldn't be put up for deletion, what it says is they should be merged. And that was done, twice, and then undone, twice. My point was that there is clearly not going to be a consensus here between two users, and so putting it on VfD would seem to be an appropriate way to get more users involved. Personally, I think that all elements of this page are either mergeable, or constitute a vanity page as per WP:VAIN. In any event, just let the VfD take its course, and the correct solution will be reached. --bainer 04:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It was done twice unilaterally by one single problem poster and undone twice, each with a request to see the discussion page, after multiple people objected to his unilateral merger. This too was done in violation of wikipedia policy as the procedure for mergers is to place a merge tag on the top of the page in question then allow time for comments on the discussion page over how and if that article should be merged with another. JC did none of this. He simply changed it - the first time only half an hour after the article came up and the second time in complete disregard for the objections stated on the talk page. Furthermore, this discussion as you can plainly see has attracted more than just two users at an impasse. Rather, it has involved at least four separate users who have objected to JC's unilateral attempts to merge, another user who supports the concept of merging, and JC himself, who merged it twice but refuses to participate in a dialog over WHY he thinks it needs to be merged or reach any consensus. The fact that one single editor won't play ball with all the rest is not a legitimate reason to initiate a VfD, and especially one that is not in compliance with wikipedia policy. It reeks of not getting your way on the discussion forum and then trying to circumvent it elsewhere. If he wants to delete this article and make his case for deletion then he needs to restart the process from the beginning and make that the question to vote on through a VfD page. If he wants to merge the article and make his case for doing so then he needs to add a merge tag and make that the question to vote on right here at the discussion page. There's no use in having wikipedia policies if we're not going to abide by them, and right now JC isn't. Rangerdude 05:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Closed deletion listing
This article was listed for deletion on 16 April, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of merge and redirect to Free Republic. This article will not be deleted, but the information in it will be merged into the target article and this article will be turned into a redirect to it. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Votes_for_deletion/Jim Robinson. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notice of Disagreement with this decision
It should be noted that this decision produces an unusual situation on wikipedia wherein this particular individual, Jim Robinson, is deemed insufficient to merit his own article whereas similarly situated persons famous for a political website and little more, among them Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Matt Drudge, Charles Johnson, John_H._Hinderaker, and Scott_W._Johnson, are given a separate article though Robinson is not. In reviewing the page Votes_for_deletion/Jim_Robinson one may plainly see that the majority of "votes" in favor of merging the two articles contained absolutely no reason or justification for this desire beyond stating the direction of a vote. At least one participant in this voting process, himself purportedly an administrator no less, initially cast a "vote" containing nothing more than childish profanity (see Votes_for_deletion/Jim_Robinson&oldid=12960317) before modifying it to his final position to remove the article. Furthermore, as was pointed out on this talk page and the VfD page as well, the VfD process itself was initiated in violation of Wikipedia policy and against the standing consensus on this page at the time, which was to keep the article. Given these outstanding inconsistencies on wikipedia, the arbitrary nature of the merger decision, the lack of substantive rationale for that decision, and the failure of parties involved to address or offer any solution for the standing inconsistency between the approach taken to this article and the aforementioned articles of a similar nature, it is my hope and anticipation that this matter will be revisited in the near future. Rangerdude 20:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You have listed a number of objections:
 * Neutrality described Jim Robinson as a "notable asshole".
 * Other site-owners get their own articles.
 * Most votes gave no justification.
 * Listing for deletion was a violation of Wikipedia policy.

 * Well Neutrality was very naughty and you should consider taking the matter up with him. As I indicated earlier, VfD decisions are made on an article-by-article basis, so if you think there is a serious problem with  Matt Drudge, say, having his own article, please list it on VfD with a view to merging and we'll see what the consensus is.  Most votes gave no justification, but a VfD vote is at minimum merely an expression of personal preference.  No justification is required.  And finally, VfD is the main venue for decisions on merges, deletions and transwikis.  It is eminently sensible to list on VfD if consensus on the article itself is against you, because then a wider section of the membership can look at it.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That's the problem though - the wider membership does NOT actually look at the article itself - most are completely unfamiliar with what's been going on in the article's discussion page itself and just cast a yes/no vote after reviewing the thing for a matter of minutes if not seconds. Whatever your merge decision was based upon, I am not confident it was made with a full view as to the events that preceded it or the problems surrounding the attempt to separate the two articles. As I noted elsewhere, this entire process was initiated at the behest of one single disgruntled user who disagreed with the consensus here and who made multiple unilateral decisions to merge the article without the proper merge tag or period of discussion and in direct conflict with the consensus against him. NONE of these pertinent facts were ever addressed by proponents of a merger throughout either the VfD process or the discussion here. Furthermore, it is a straw man argument to suggest that Drudge et al should be examined in the case of their own article, as my intent is not to merge those other articles but rather to ascertain why an inconsistent set of principles are used to merge/separate articles on persons and their websites that are otherwise very similar. The issue is not those other articles, but inconsistency between your decision and those other articles and inconsistency of that sort diminishes the overall quality of wikipedia's content and writing. Rangerdude 02:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you keep insisting on making statements like As I noted elsewhere, this entire process was initiated at the behest of one single disgruntled user... but I'll point out -- once again -- that I was the one that suggested the VfD in the first place, not JC. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, Katefan. You initially suggested a VfD under the mistaken belief that there was a deadlock here between people who favored and opposed a merger. You asserted at the time your belief that it was necessary to attract more attention to the issue. As I pointed out in my reply to you, you were mistaken in your counting of the votes as there was no deadlock and a clear majority favored retaining it. Furthermore, there was no deficit of attention as at least a half dozen different editors had weighed in in one form or another. You acknowledged this response with the following statement and dropped the VfD issue at that point:
 * Sorry, I take that back -- three people who are for separate articles and two against (I forgot to include the original reverter). Not sure who you count as a fourth but it doesn't look like it matters. Mea culpa.

Some time after that, JC returned and in his normal unilateral fashion tagged the article with a VfD request, thus initiating the VfD process. Talking about doing a VfD and then retracting it after it is pointed out that you've counted incorrectly is not the same thing as initiating the VfD and physically sticking a tag there. Rangerdude 04:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Whether you agree with the reasons why I suggested the VfD in the first place, I still suggested it originally.  Two people can't initiate a VfD, so of course JC was the only one who functionally wrote  into the page.  But to suggest that he somehow acted "unilaterally" with no other form of support for the action is just wrong, no matter how much text you dump into this page. And just because I was mistaken in not counting User:Wakeforest as having an opinion doesn't mean I then changed my mind on the VfD.  I always felt like it was the best course to take. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * You certainly didn't pursue a VfD after that was pointed out to you, and by all indication your response beared the characteristics of an apology for its predecessor and a retraction where you conceded that "it doesn't look like it matters." You did not say "sorry, I was wrong but we should still do a VfD anyway." You left it at the equivalent of "sorry, I was wrong" and from there ceased pressing for a VfD. You only came to support one after that when JC initiated it on his own and the vote there started to shape in favor of your position. Rangerdude 16:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not "only come to support one after ... JC initiated it on its own." One of my first comments on the talk page was to suggest VfD, and my opinion never changed on that score. You obviously have a significant investment in this article, for reasons that I can't fathom (of course, I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that I know those reasons better than you do) -- but I respectfully ask that you not put words in my mouth. I have made clear my position numerous times. You can try to twist it to your purposes all you like, but I know what my opinions have been and the intent of my own words and I'll thank you to respect them. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well if you're saying now that it was three for separate articles, two against, this means there was no consensus--all the more reason to go to VfD. I just don't accept the argument on inconsistency--the last thing Wikipedia needs right now is to strive for consistency.  We avoid making broad policy decisions such as "all articles on owners of blogs/cms's like Drudge Report, Free Republic etc must be merged with their respective websites unless they have significant fame elsewhere", but decide things on an article-by-article basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * So in other words, you reject a majority here in favor of keeping it as a lack of consensus yet you also base your decision to merge the article on a majority vote to merge it from VfD? No wonder you find the concept of consistency so troubling. Rangerdude 16:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Now you know that's wrong. We don't go by majorities on Wikipedia.  Even by my stringent standards, 9 for and 3 against (75%, with no suggestion of voting iregularities) is a consensus; some administrators would have accepted even 8 for and 4 against (66%).  Your "2 for and 3 against" (60% against) obviously didn't qualify as a consensus against the proposal even by the generous 66% interpretation, much less by mine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If I were to run for President and win the election by 60% it would be considered a landslide and a mandate. A majority is a majority, and accepting one majority while shunning the other is fundamentally inconsistent. Let's suppose you are right for a moment though, but in doing so seek the fullest vote of consensus possible. That means including the two users who also indicated here and on the Free Republic page that they were against the merge, but who did not participate in (and probably did not even known about) the VfD that was initiated after they cast their votes here. The total changes to 9 for and 5 against (64% to 36%), which is a mere 4 percentage points removed from what you deem a lack of consensus. But that returns us to consistency, and consistency dictates that two conflicting majorities existed where the votes were separated. As I have also shown above, one of the minority views on this talk page who called for a VfD even retracted that position and apologized to me for doing so when he/she realized that the majority had voted here to keep the article as is. As to your claim that no suggestion of voting irregularities happened on the VfD, I beg to differ. I have already shown you one documented case where a vote you counted was tainted by a crude and profane personal attack and your only response was to tell me that I should take it up with him, even though you are the self-appointed vote tallier and thus exercise the discretion to evaluate the propriety of votes such as that - not me. If you so desired to read the background of this discussion, you would also find that I was repeatedly maligned with an untruthful allegation of being/using a "sockpuppet" - once by heavy inferrence from the original problem poster who later backtracked when called out on it, and a second time by another poster who concurred with him and interpreted his inferrence as a direct suggestion that I was using a "sockpuppet." Furthermore, issues were raised from the very first day of the entire VfD that it was being improperly pursued in contradiction of wikipedia guidelines for conducting a VfD versus conducting a merge tag, which the original merger ALSO failed to follow. The truly odd thing about this entire charade is that it never had to happen and wouldn't have if only the original merger had used a little tact and greater respect for consensus from the get go. If he wanted to make his case for a merger I'd have been open to it. Instead he showed up barely half an hour after the article was created when barely anybody had even the slightest chance to review it and merged the two unilaterally without a merge tag, discussion, or anything but his own whims and desires. He was nevertheless called out at the time by three separate posters who objected to the way he handled the merger and urged him to discuss it before merging. But instead of doing that, he returns to post a rant full of personal attacks on one of those three other users and in short order unilaterally merged the thing again without a care for consensus! As far as I am concerned the article was never properly discussed from the very beginning, and when such opportunities arose on the VfD page for those circumstances to be mentioned, they were quickly removed to an obscure talk page that the vast majority of people who voted never even saw. You, as an arbitrator of the VfD process, had an obligation and duty to properly evaluate and inform yourself of the full circumstances of the VfD request and weigh the arguments made for and against a merger on their content, not their number. Instead, as far as I can tell, you simply counted the votes (including a number of votes with no reasons stated and at least one that was cast through a profane means entirely inappropriate for wikipedia), picked the majority as the winner, and went with that as your decision. Rangerdude 16:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As I have also shown above, one of the minority views on this talk page who called for a VfD even retracted that position and apologized to me for doing so when he/she realized that the majority had voted here to keep the article as is. Once again, you are misrepresenting my position.  My mea culpa was for mistaking the amount of people who had weighed in. Nothing more.  You are reading more into my words than I ever intended -- and in fact, have set you right about now in multiple places.  Wikipedia demands that we assume good faith -- but I'm beginning to wonder when you insist on misrepresenting my opinions. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:17, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * To the contrary. You staked your earlier request for a VfD on the grounds that (1) not enough people were taking notice of this and (2) in your own words "Currently we're stalemated." As I pointed out, neither happened to be the case. There was no stalemate as a majority consensus existed and there was no deficit of activity on this talk page. You conceded those points when I made note of them and then posted your apology. By direct inference, your stated reasons to do a VfD no longer existed and with it the VfD request made upon them. If they were not your reasons for a VfD then exactly what were? Rangerdude 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll not continue to argue with you about what my opinions were and are. I have stated them plainly to you and I will appreciate your representing them properly going forward from here. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd also point out that one of those three against (Wakeforest, who also made empty threats about banning JC) was accused of being a sockpuppet, which could factor into an admin's decision on whether to count the vote or not. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * And I'd also like to point out that when that sockpuppet allegation was made, you asserted that it pertained to me as well without any basis in fact, evidence, or reality. Furthermore, the original problem editor chose to wage a personal attack upon the editor he accused of being a sockpuppet in lieu of repeated requests by myself and others to discuss his case for a merger, all the while implicating me by inferrence in his allegation even though no evidence exists that could ever support it. Rangerdude 16:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that the person using a sockpuppet was you. JC made that allegation.  I only pointed out that the allegation had been made at some point.  I took (and take) no sides.  · Katefan0(scribble) 17:17, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well JC now denies that he did that. So which is it? Rangerdude 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not obliged to prove anything in particular. You were the one who suggested I alleged that Wakeforest was your sockpuppet.  I denied it.  Now the burden lies on you to show me (and whoever else is still reading this) that I in fact did that.  Which is an impossible burden, because it never happened. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to summarize, it looks to me like you don't accept the policy of consensus on Wikipedia and you don't accept the right of other editors to list items on VfD if the majority is against them on the talk page. And most of all you think my actions here have been rubbish because I decided to merge when nine editors voted to merge and three editors voted to keep, and because I didn't take sufficient account of your opinion. Well I think this is where I say it's time to get some further feedback on this. I suggest either a RFC or a post on WP:AN/I. The former is to get other editors to look at what I did and see if they agree that I've been a bit naughty. The latter is to get other administrators to look at it and see if they agree that I've done something bad that another administrator needs to sort out, or that requires the censure of my fellow administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * There you go constructing straw man arguments again, Tony. I've long been an advocate of consensus on this discussion page as consensus clearly existed at the time that JC made a unilateral decision to merge the artice...twice...in the face of multiple direct standing requests that he abstain from doing so until the matter could be discussed. You seem to be mistaking consensus with a simple unweighted majority vote, and a vote that outright disregards the presence of a different majority on this talk page in the other direction. Seeing as your own comments admit to the fact that you based your decision on little more than unweighted votes (including unweighted votes by editors that were somewhat less than in keeping with wikipedia's policy, two wit "notable @$$hole"), I do indeed think it is fair to say that your actions here are rubbish because they failed to take sufficient account of any opinion or rationale offered in the discussion of this article at all. Rangerdude 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If that continues to be your opinion, and if at least one person agrees with you and has also tried and failed to convince me that I did something wrong here (I still accept it is possible that I acted wrongly), then I urge you to raise my action here under either "General user conduct" or "Use of administrator privileges". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC
Coming to this from the RfC. After reviewing the talk page and the VfD page it appears to me that the VfD was conducted properly and the results were judged correctly. The weighting of votes, as I understand it, is intended to discard invalid votes from very new users, etc, rather than to give additional weight to editors who give good reasons. The comparison to other articles is informative to the VfD process but not determinative of the outcome. The earlier merges may or may not have been valid or wise, but that is moot. -Willmcw 23:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Saw this discussion on RfC. Willmcw has most elegantly made most of the points that I would bring up. Although VfD isn't technically the place to which article merger questions should be brought, it nevertheless serves to expose the question to a significant section of the Wikipedia community. Since there was already one inconclusive RfC on the issue, I can understand how VfD might have been a 'desperation' step to resolve the question. I see no reason why the VfD results now available should be disregarded. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Where was the first "inconclusive RfC" on this? The initial merge decision was made unilaterally and without any tag, merge or otherwise. Virtually no effort was put forth by the main proponent of the merge to either discuss the change he desired or to obtain consensus on it before he initiated the VfD. Rangerdude 06:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm looking at this. Regardless of how the VfD was initiated, it did serve to sample the opinions of a number of editors.  --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks then as if the first RfC was never even given a chance to run its course by JC, who added the VfD barely a day later. Of course his apparent justification of attracting more editors was never a legitimate problem to begin with. There were plenty of editors who had weighed in around here with edits or posts to the talk page - already 5 or 6 within a day of the article's creation. His whole problem with them is that all but one of those editors disapproved of the way he was conducting himself unilaterally. Rangerdude 15:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough--JC didn't give the first RfC very much time. Give him a Wikislap on the wrists, and encourage him to learn from that mistake.  The point is that the question is moot with respect to this article's merger.  Since the VfD has taken place, there's no point in pretending it hasn't, or that the opinions contributed there in good faith shouldn't count. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine by me, but it's not the only slap on the wrists merited from this whole exchange. JC engaged in a very similar pattern of behavior throughout the dispute. His original unilateral decision to merge the articles was made only 30 minutes after its creation. It had already attracted attention as an article and was immediately reverted back with multiple requests of JC to explain himself. He came back only 30 minutes after that and merged the two a second time. He made 2 unilateral mergers in less than an hour, during which no less than three different editors including myself told him to stop it and explain himself before making any drastic changes like that. That is no basis to justify a VfD. As to the mootness, I realize the VfD is done. But my point is that the VfD was corrupted from the very beginning by being improperly launched and that the manner in which it was decided disregarded many of the facts I am discussing here right now. A VfD is of little value if the introductory post to it is written by the primary offender and he leaves out a true accounting of his own actions because the participants don't see what has actually been going on without extensive searching on their own. Even if we were to take all subsequent votes in good faith (and I've already shown that at least one wasn't due to masked profane content), it remains that the VfD itself was NOT initiated in good faith. Also, I raised these points at the time the VfD was initiated before it was moot and the administrator who reviewed the case apparently could've cared less. Rangerdude 15:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

← (drag discussion back to left margin) If a VfD nomination is widely believed to be in bad faith, then the nominator usually catches an earfull from the community. Votes for deletion/Jesus comes to mind as a current example. If someone put up a VfD suggesting a merger of George W. Bush into George H.W. Bush, I'm sure that there would be a dramatic (and quite justified) outcry.

JC's behaviour is irrelevant to the merger of this article. Several good editors made sensible comments on the VfD, and a sound decision was reached there. The VfD process was apparently correctly followed; I see no reason why its result should be disregarded. I'm pretty sure if we carry on with this thread we're just going to repeat the same arguments ad nauseum, so I yield the floor. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's fine and all on a VfD for somebody like Bush, but the situation is not really comparable. Bush is a well known figure to everybody. Robinson is relatively obscure, albeit notable. Thus while a bad faith attempt to delete the Bush article would quickly prompt an outcry, the same for Robinson would not necessarily attract much attention at all. As to the process, JC's behavior is completely relevant because he initiated the VfD in conflict with wikipedia policies and did so under misleading pretenses. If you read his description of why he called for the VfD, it suggests that some sort of a long standing impasse had been reached on the talk page with little participation and no other way to solve it than a VfD. In reality, the article was less than two days old, discussion was ongoing here, and the only person refusing to participate in that discussion was JC himself. You can see that plainly above where I made no less than three direct attempts to get him to make the case for his change, but instead he kept going back to his personal disputes with another editor who he believed had wronged him in some way. I also attempted to bring this pertinent background material to light on the VfD voting page as a comment, but JC promptly removed it and stuck it on a backroom talk page. You cannot honestly say that circumstances such as these do not alter the way a VfD article is read or presented. Rangerdude 18:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken, and it's neither here nor there at this point, but I think the person who moved the information from the VfD to the Talk page was Radiant. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:02, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * My mistake. Radiant moved it and JC posted a concurring message with the move about 30 minutes later. Strangely, Radiant described the material he moved as "discussion not relevant to this article" yet as far as I can tell virtually everything on the talk page had to do with either the article itself or the VfD process directly involving the article. Rangerdude 19:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

A policy page that might help
I wonder if it might be useful to inform the discussion here if folks read WP:POINT. It has a number of good observations about consistency or the lack thereof, to wit: ''The nature of consensus editing, combined with editor churn, means that Wikipedia is not consistent. Where there are two or more equally correct ways of handling matters, and no consensus or guideline has been established, Wikipedia tolerates inconsistency except where it creates some sort of practical problem. For example: [...] Implementation of deletion policy is not consistently applied to marginally suitable articles. The vote-based nature of the deletion process results in decisions affected by the mix of people following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion during any given week. Consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem. Understanding the inconsistent nature of Wikipedia and accepting it as a desirable thing inherent in the processes and values of the project helps relieve Wikistress and limits the temptation to make disruptive edits.'' For what it's worth. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * That's nice and all, but the presence of inconsistency and a willingness to tolerate its existence in no way means we must also embrace its existestence in and of itself and accept it as immutable. Accept that inconsistency exists if you like, but work to reduce them wherever possible. Rangerdude 19:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If you believe that the VfD process was not properly conducted then there is also a complementary VfU, Votes for undeletion, which is available as a mechanism to appeal VfD decisions. Either accept the VfD or go through the proper channels to have the decision reversed. -Willmcw 21:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see you've already found it. It'd helpful to note that fact here, since interested parties may want to participate. -Willmcw 21:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * It can be found here for anyone interested in participating: Votes_for_undeletion. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would have missed this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

SHall we restore this page?
The FR page is full of Jim Robinson stuff, and sending that to it's own page would focus it. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 09:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I closed the VfD debate on this a while back. The decision then was to merge, but things may obviously change over time.  Feel free to restore and expand. --Tony Sidaway Talk  10:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You should probably paste the disambiguation stuff to a new article Jim Robinson (disambiguation). --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It depends.

 * He has been in the news recently. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * How so? Google News only lists one very minor mention [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21243421.shtml]. That doens't seem sufficient. Is there something else? -Will Beback 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Page Six-in the New York Post-isn't a "minor" mention by any stretch of the imagination.

 * Plus, I can only assume that the story itself was republished in other media outlets outside of New York and/or Texas since this scene is apparently a major part of the film being produced by the manager of the Dixie Chicks. Ruthfulbarbarity 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * So the "news" is that Jim Robinson won't appear in a movie about folks who disagree with him? That's not really a notable event. I don't read gossip columns like Page Six often, but I'm sure there are many people mentioned in it that don't have Wikipedia articles. -Will Beback 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * No, the news is that he-and by extension, his website-are the focus of an upcoming film, which has attracted a lot of publicity.

 * Supposedly his spokesman explains Free Republic's position in lieu of his appearance.

 * And I respectfully disagree with your second contention.

 * Page Six is one, if not the most widely-read gossip column published in a major daily.

 * There are very few, if any, individuals mentioned-by name-in that column who are not noteworthy in some capacity. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Should we have an article on the Free Republic spokesman? I don't think so. In any case, this apears to be as much about FR as about JR. Let's see what happens when (and if) the movie is actually made. -Will Beback 23:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not implying that we should have an article devoted to his spokesperson.

 * My point was that Jim Robinson was asked to appear in this film by its creators but declined to be interviewed, instead referring that request to his media representative.

 * Whether or not the owner of a notable website deserves a separate article is an arguable question-which has occasioned debate over other unrelated articles-but when that owner earns substantive media coverage in his own right I think it's worth exploring the issue.

 * I agree that waiting for this documentary to be released-and then analyzing the extent to which FR and Jim Robinson play a pivotal role-is an advisable course. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To James Robinson
I disagree with the recent redirect to "James Robinson" because: Readers may be looking for someone commonly called "Jim", and having them have to look through a significantly longer list at "James" to find the person makes finding who their looking for more rather than less difficult. Also, at least one of the Jims listed here (the trombononist) was never a "James". -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:James Robinson


text:
Malerkotla

Malerkotla is a city and the district headquarters of Malerkotla district in the Indian state of Punjab. It served as the seat of the eponymous princely state during the British Raj. The state acceded to the union of India in 1947 and was merged with other nearby princely states to form the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU).

When PEPSU was reorganised in 1956, the territories of the erstwhile state of Malerkotla became part of Punjab. It is situated on the Sangrur-Ludhiana State Highway (no. 11) and lies on the secondary Ludhiana-Delhi railway line. It is about 50 km from Ludhiana and 35 km from Sangrur.

In 2021, the city along with some adjoining areas were carved out of Sangrur district to form the Malerkotla district.

History
Malerkotla, a Muslim majority state was established in 1454 by Sheikh Sadruddin-i-Jahan from Afghanistan, and was ruled by his Sherwani descendants. The State of Malerkotla was established in 1600 A.D. During the 1947 riots when Punjab was experiencing heavy amounts of communal violence, the State of Malerkotla remained relatively peaceful.

The roots of communal harmony date back to 1705, when Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh 9 and 7 year old sons of tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, were ordered to be bricked alive by the governor of Sirhind Wazir Khan. While his close relative, Sher Mohammed Khan, Nawab of Malerkotla, who was present in the court, lodged a vehement protest against this act and said it was against the tenets of the Quran and Islam. Wazir Khan nevertheless had the boys bricked into a section of wall whilst still alive. At this, the Nawab of Malerkotla walked out of the court in protest. Guru Gobind Singh on learning of this approach had blessed the Nawab and the people of Malerkotla that the city will live in the peace and happiness. In recognition of this act, the State of Malerkotla did not suffer significantly during the Partition of India, in which communal violence permeated throughout Punjab.

Under British colonial rule, a Namdhari uprising was suppressed, and the colonial government ordered execution of 65 captured rebels and those thought to be involved with the rebellion. Cowan (the Deputy Commissioner of Ludhiana) and Forsyth (the Commissioner of Ambala) ordered the Namdharis to be executed with cannons, without any trial, on 17 and 18 January 1872.

During the partition of India, there were no riots or bloodshed in any part of Maler Kotla State. The last Nawab Iftikhar Ali Khan of Malerkotla maintained calm and harmony during the turbulent period. He remained in India and died in the year 1982. His tomb is located in Shahi grave yard situated at Sirhandi gate, Maler Kotla. Many also attribute this peace to the presence of the shrine of Baba Haidar Sheikh, the Sufi saint, who founded the town of Malerkotla more than 500 years ago.

A part of the ruling family of Sheikh Sadr-ud-Din Sherwani migrated to Pakistan and lived mostly in Model Town, Lahore, Muzaffargarh, Khangarh.

Malerkotla is famous for its vegetables and badge-making industry, besides its poets and monuments.

Demographics
As per provisional data of 2011 census Malerkotla urban agglomeration had a population of 189,424, out of which males were 82,376 and females were 64,048. The literacy rate was 70.25 per cent.

Malerkotla is the only Muslim-majority city of Punjab.

Gurudwara Haa Da Naara Sahib
The special relationship between Sikhs and Malerkotla goes back to the period when the tenth Sikh Guru, Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji, was engaged in a series of battles with the oppressive Mughal rulers of the region and Sher Mohammed Khan was the Nawab of Maler Kotla. Sher Mohammad Khan a General in the Mughal Army, who actively participated in the military campaign against Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji, though having lost his brother and nephew in the battle of Chamkaur is said to have expressed his opposition to bricking up alive of the  two young Sahibzadas of Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji, Zorawar Singh (aged nine years) and Fateh Singh (aged seven years), by the Subedar of Sirhind, Wazir Khan in 1705 and is said to have walked out, refusing to be a part of what he declared to be opposed to the tenets of Islam.

It is said that he uttered ‘haa’ or ‘hai’ in anguish of the punishment imposed on the two Sahibzadas. This became known as ‘Haa da Naara’.

On learning of this, Guru Gobind Singh blessed the Nawab and the people of Malerkotla with peace everlasting. This incident has been narrated over the years and gave Malerkotla a special place in the Sikh narrative. Gurudwara ‘Haa da Nara’ was built by Sikhs to commemorate this act of Nawab Sher Mohammed Khan.

Education
Urdu is taught alongside Punjabi in Malerkotla schools due to the local Punjabi Muslim majority.

Nawab Sher Mohammad Khan Institute of Advanced Studies in Urdu, Persian and Arabic is part of Punjabi University, Patiala, and is named after one of the founders of Malerkotla State. It provides facilities for higher research in the languages and literature of Urdu and Persian up to PhD level and additionally runs classes for M.A. (Persian), Certificate courses (Urdu, Persian and Arabic), MSc (IT) two years, MSc (IT) lateral entry, PGDCA (one year), CCA (six months) and M.A (psychology).

There are many schools and institutes including Learning Cottage Of Commerce. There are other schools like Sohrab Public Senior Secondary School, Al Falah Public senior secondary School, the town school, Sahibzada Fateh Singh senior secondary public school, Sita grammar school, Sarvhitkari Vidya Mandir, Modern Secular school, DAV public school and many more. Almighty Public School on Almighty School road, Jamalpura, Malerkotla is a co-education, English Medium Sr. Secondary School. This school provide Education about Islam for Muslim students.

Rail
Malerkotla is situated on Delhi-Jakhal-Dhuri-Ludhiana Railway line. The nearest railway junctions are Dhuri (18 km) and Ludhiana 45 km).

Air
The nearest airports to Malerkotla are:
 * Chandigarh Airport, also known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Airport, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali (about 120 km away)
 * Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport, Amritsar (about 250 km away)
 * Sahnewal Airport (IATA: LUH, ICAO: VILD), also known as Ludhiana Airport (about 49.8 km (66min) away)

Notable residents

 * Iftikhar Ali Khan of Malerkotla (Last Nawab of Malerkotla)
 * Anas Rashid (Indian television actor)
 * Irshad Kamil (Indian lyricist and poet)
 * Mohammad Nazim (Indian television actor)
 * Razia Sultana (politician) (Indian Politician)
 * Saeed Jaffrey (Indian actor)
 * Ahmad Ali Khan of Malerkotla (Malerkotla Nawab)
 * Channi Singh (Indian musician)
 * Zeenat Begum (Pakistani singer)
 * Bobby Jindal (American politician, 55th Governor of Louisiana)
 * Mohammad Sajid Dhot (Indian footballer)
 * Dr. Mohammad Jamil Ur Rahman (politician from Aam Aadmi Party)

title: Malerkotla


text:
Mazzaroth

Mazzaroth (Hebrew Transliteration: מַזָּרוֹת Mazzārōṯ, LXX Μαζουρωθ, Mazourōth) is a Biblical Hebrew word found in the Book of Job whose precise meaning is uncertain. Its context is that of astronomical constellations, and some judge it to mean a specific constellation, while it is often interpreted as a term for the zodiac or the constellations thereof. The similar word mazalot (מַּזָּלוֹת) in  may be related.

According to 10th-century biblical exegete Saadia Gaon, it literally means "constellations," while others interpret the word as naming various concrete astronomic bodies - Saturn, the seven planets, the Hyades, the Northern and Southern Crowns, the Southern Ship (Argo Navis?) or Sirius.

The word itself is a hapax legomenon (i.e., a word appearing only once in a text) of the Hebrew Bible. In Yiddish, the term  mazalot came to be used in the sense of "astrology" in general, surviving in the expression "mazel tov," meaning "good fortune."

Biblical context
The appearance of the word in the Book of Job appears in the context of various astronomical phenomena:

 * "Canst thou bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season? Or canst thou guide the Bear with her sons?" (JPS 1917)

The related word mazalot (מַּזָּלוֹת) in 2 Kings may have a different meaning, and is often translated differently, with the linkage of this word to the planets or the zodiac being more widely held (in Kabbalistic astrology, mazalot was also used for astrology in general, and the word may be related to the Assyrian manzaltu, "station" ):

 * And the king stood on the platform, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep His commandments, and His testimonies, and His statutes, with all his heart, and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people stood to the covenant. And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Beth-el.  And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to offer in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that offered unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven.

The Septuagint, however, uses the transliteration mazzaroth (μαζουρωθ) again at this point.

Translation
The word is traditionally (following LXX) left untranslated (ABC, ACV, AKJ, ASV, BBE, BIB, ESV, GNV, HNV, JPS, K21, KJG, KJR, KJV, NAB, NKJ, NRS, NWT, RSV, RWB, TMB, TNK, UPD, WEB, YLT, LXE, ZIK), but some modern English Bible translations render it as "zodiac" (AMP, CJB, EMP, LEE); others have "constellations" (CJB, CSB, DBY, NET, ERV, GWN, LEE, LIT, MKJ, NAS, NAU, NIB, NIV, TNV, WEV) or "stars" (CEV, NCB, NIR, NLV, TEV).

But as the Latin Vulgate renders the word as "luciferum", there are alternative English translations as "morning star" (CVB, TRC, furthermore Luther's 1545 German translation as Morgenstern also means "morning star"; (DRA); "Venus" (MSG); "Crown season" (NJB); "sequence of seasons" (NLT); "Lucifer, 'that is, dai sterre (day star)" (Wycliffe's Bible). WES gives "stars in the southern signs".

Translators' Notes given in individual translations are:
 * Geneva: Certain stars so called, some think they were the twelve signs.
 * KJV/KGB: {Mazzaroth: or, the twelve signs}
 * NAS/NAU: perh. "a constellation"
 * NET: The word מַּזָּלֹות; (mazzarot) is taken by some to refer to the constellations (see 2 Kings 23:5), and by others as connected to the word for "crown," and so "corona."
 * NIB/NIV: {32 Or the morning star in its season}

The Targum renders the translation as "guards of the mazalot".

Rashi clarifies mazzarot as "all the gates of the mazalot".

title: Mazzaroth