text:
Danuta Wałęsa

Mirosława Danuta Wałęsa (née Gołoś; born 25 February 1949 ), is married to the former President of Poland Lech Wałęsa. In 1983 she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway on behalf of her husband, who feared, at a time of great political upheaval in the country, that the Polish government might not allow him to return if he travelled to Oslo himself. Lech and Danuta have been married since 8 November 1969 and have eight children.

Danuta grew up the second of nine children in Krypy village near Węgrów (Krypy, Gmina Liw ). She was working in a flower shop near the Lenin Shipyard in Gdańsk when she met Lech Wałęsa, then an electrician. After they married, she began using her middle name more than her first name, per Lech's request. She was more resolutely anti-Communist than her husband. During her husband's frequent interrogations by the SB in the 1980s, she was known to openly taunt officers who came to pick him up.

Released in 2011, Danuta Wałęsa's autobiography Marzenia i tajemnice ("Dreams and Secrets", coauthored with Piotr Adamowicz) has sold over 400,000 copies.

In 2022, she was awarded the title of an Honorary Citizen of Gdańsk.

title: Danuta Wałęsa


text:
Talk:Purine

Untitled
The chemical structure image file of purine had to be modified anyway because there was a missing electron pair on the #3 atom (a nitrogen). I took the then-existing image file, made the electron pair correction, and moved the "colored ball" picture of the molecule down below the other purine structures so the picture would be less wide. The previous width of the picture made the table wide, which unsatisfactorily compressed the text to the left of it. This new arrangement looks better on my computer screen. It does not hide any information in the purine-pyrimidine base "chart" for DNA. I use America OnLine (AOL) which by default makes the Wikipedia row span about 538 - 540 pixels wide. I'm sure many other readers/users of Wikipedia get a similar view of a Wikipedia page, although some other internet users may get a wider screen view and may not realize the "compressed text" problem. I anticipate that this picture modification will not adversely affect these other users. A similar problem exists for other Wikipedia articles on "Simple aromatic rings". I can similarly change those pictures too to produce less wide, better-looking tables. H Padleckas 10:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Better resize the images. Sooner or later I will produce high resolution variants to be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Cacycle 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hm, the structure of uric acid here has a hydroxyl group where uric acid has an oxygen group (the hydrogen is moved to an adjacent nitrogen atom). Which one is right? Taral 16:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Both are right, see Keto-enol tautomerism. I don't know which form predominates, though, but I'm guessing it's the one shown in the uric acid article. Anyway it wouldn't hurt to make them match. Molybdenumblue 16:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Keto-enol tautomerism is pH dependent, so the "correct" structure depends upon the the pH of the solution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:104E:4100:A448:F07F:4017:19 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Acid base
There is a confusing comment under the heading "properties" that correctly cites the Pka but incorrectly refers to purines being a weak acid and a weak base. pKa describes the strength of dissociation and not whether a substance is an acid or base. A purine is a weak base due to the nitrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:104E:4100:A448:F07F:4017:19 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Beef double-listing
Is beef high or moderate in its purine content, as it is listed in both. Please correct.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Beef should be probably be classified "low" or "moderate" if you look at the source with a page that makes such a classification. https://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/purine-and-uric-acid/purines-uric-acid-in-beef-pork-chicken.php The blanket statement about vegetables being low in purine can also be misleading, as many peas/beans have values higher than regular beef steak. https://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/purine-and-uric-acid/purines-food-and-gout/page-2.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.216.128 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No purine biosynthesis pathway?
I haven't come across the purine biosynthesis pathway either diagrammatically or in a detailed step-by-step synopsis.

This is probably one major reason that people come to this page, and it should be noted that wikipedia has one for the pyrimidine biosynthesis pathway.

--Somatosis (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This article discusses the class of biologically active compounds based on purine, it is not an article about purine itself!

Johnpretty010 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a wiki page on purine metabolism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:104E:4100:A448:F07F:4017:19 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

7H-purine or 9H-purine
There seems to be an error in the naming. The compound, given in the picture is 9H-purine. The two forms are can easily transform in each other but still if you have chosen to draw one of them, give the correct name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.74.59 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Also the ball-and-stick model is missing one hydrogen, compared to the Lewis structures. --Moijn001 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

7H-Purine is the IUPAC name but it is synonymous with 9H-Purine. I'm not sure why this article says otherwise. Check with IUPAC or count the H's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:104E:4100:A448:F07F:4017:19 (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Purine" VS "purines"
On thing is the compound "purine", which is just one; it has chemical formula C5H4N4 and CAS number 120-73-0, a fixed melting point, solubility, etc. One other thing is "purines", which have the same carbon and nitrogen backbone as purine but they are many different compounds with different formulas, properties, biological role, etc. I think that the two entries should be kept separate, otherwise the chemical compound purine is hardly described at all in the article, which only discusses "purines" in general, in contrast with the chembox that only describes the properties of purine. My proposal is (and not only for this entry): one entry for "purines" and one entry for "purine"; of course, the latter should have a link to the former in the "See also" section. Geon79 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Theobromine" spelled "Theobrmine" in Image
The typo is in

IanHerriott (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

History
The line "Purines are also much larger than pyrimidines." at the end of the History section seems out of place. It should be placed somewhere else, or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam5253 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong citation?
Fischer synthesis in 1884 is cited as "Fischer, E. Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft 1899, 32, 2550". But in Wiley online library this page Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft 1899, 32, 2550 is referred to August Klages and A. Kraith, Untersuchungen in der Carvonreihe (pages 2550–2563) not Fischer's paper. --Kurgus (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Purine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516170519/http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/english/jnlabstract_en.php?cdjournal=cpb1958&cdvol=20&noissue=3&startpage=623 to http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/english/jnlabstract_en.php?cdjournal=cpb1958&cdvol=20&noissue=3&startpage=623

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Purine


text:
Musashi High School and Junior High School

Musashi High School and Junior High School (武蔵高等学校 中学校) is a private boys senior high school in Nerima, Tokyo, Japan. It is an affiliate of the Musashi University.

History
The school was founded by industrialist Nezu Kaichirō in 1922 as Musashi High School, and used a seven-year system. After the education reforms of 1948, the school was divided into Musashi Senior High School and Musashi Junior High School. Musashi University was founded in 1949 and forms part of the same legal entity.

Academics
An entrance exam is required for admission. The school aims to produce graduates who are "individuals capable of independent thought and research", and many graduates have enrolled in selective universities inside and outside Japan.

Notable alumni

 * Akito Arima (1930–2020), physicist and former Minister of Education
 * Toshiro Fujita (1948–), physician and scientist
 * Yoshitsugu Harada (1952–), politician
 * Hiroshi Hoketsu (1941–), equestrian
 * Shinya Inoué (1921–2019), biophysicist
 * Kenkichi Iwasawa (1917–1998), Cole Prize-winning mathematician
 * Tamio Kageyama (1947–1998), novelist
 * Seiji Kameda (1964–), music producer
 * Seiji Kihara (1970–), politician and former Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary
 * Takeaki Matsumoto (1959–), politician and former Minister of Foreign Affairs
 * Hiroshi Miyazawa (1921–2012), former Minister of Justice
 * Kiichi Miyazawa (1919–2007), former Prime Minister of Japan from 1991 to 1993
 * Taizo Nishimuro (1935–2017), CEO of Japan Post Holdings
 * Yoshinobu Nishizaki (1934–2010), film producer
 * Shōichi Saba (1919–2012), former CEO of Toshiba
 * Toshitsugu Saito (1944–), politician and former Minister of Defense
 * Isao Sasaki (1942–), actor
 * Masahiko Shibayama (1965–), politician and former Senior Vice-Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications
 * Tsuneo Tamagawa (1925–2017), mathematician
 * Naoki Tanaka (1940–), former Minister of Defense
 * Morikazu Toda (1917–2010), physicist
 * Hiroomi Umezawa (1924–1995), physicist
 * Eiiti Wada (1931–), computer scientist


text:
Aero Caribbean

Aero Caribbean (Empresa Aerocaribbean SA) was an airline based in Vedado, Plaza de la Revolución, Havana, Cuba. It operated scheduled domestic passenger services to domestic destinations and international services, and charter flights mainly within the Caribbean and South America. Its main base was at José Martí International Airport, Havana.

History
The airline was established in 1982 as Empresa Aero and started operations on 2 December 1982. It was set up by the Cuban government to provide domestic flights and regional charters to supplement national carrier Cubana. It was wholly owned by the government of Cuba. It merged with Cubana de Aviación in 2015.

Destinations
Aero Caribbean operated the following destinations:

 * Domestic scheduled destinations: Cayo Coco, Havana, Holguín, Santiago de Cuba, Cayo Largo, Nueva Gerona, Varadero.
 * International scheduled destinations: Cayman Islands, Corn Island, Managua, Mérida, San Pedro Sula, Port-au-Prince, Santo Domingo, Punta Cana, Guatemala City
 * Former scheduled destinations: Monterrey, Tijuana

Fleet

The Aero Caribbean fleet included the following aircraft (as of November 2012):
 * 3 ATR 42-300
 * 4 ATR 72-212

ON 19 September 2008, the average age of the Aero Caribbean fleet was 15.8 years.

Previously operated
Aerocaribbean operated the following aircraft in the past:

 * 1 Antonov An-24
 * 2 Antonov An-26
 * 1 Boeing 737-200
 * 2 Douglas DC-3 configured for Y28 passengers
 * 1 Fokker F-27F Friendship configured for Y44 passengers/freight
 * 5 Ilyushin Il-18D/V configured for Y100 passengers/freight (flying Havana-Bahamas and Havana-Caracas)
 * 1 Ilyushin Il-14M configured for Y40 passengers
 * 6 Yakovlev Yak-40 configured for Y30 passengers/freighter
 * 4 Embraer EMB-110 Bandeirante
 * 2 Bristol Britannia

Accidents and incidents

 * On 15 November 1992, an Il-18 on a charter flight from Santo Domingo to Havana crashed into the side of mount Isabel de Torres, near San Felipe de Puerto Plata, while on approach to Gregorio Luperón International Airport for an intermediate stop. The plane was flying in IFR conditions and performed a controlled flight into terrain. All 34 on board died, including the Dominican chess team. The aircraft lost in the accident was the same plane that was filmed in 1986 Soviet disaster film Razmakh krylyev.
 * On 4 November 2010, Flight 883, operated by an ATR 72-212, crashed at Guasimal, Cuba, while en route from Santiago de Cuba to Havana. All 61 passengers and seven crew members were killed. The most likely cause was icing on the wing.

title: Aero Caribbean


text:
Chip race

A chip race is an event that takes place in poker tournaments, especially those with an escalating blinds (such as Texas hold 'em), in which chips of denominations that are no longer needed (as the current and upcoming blinds are more easily played with larger chip values) are removed from play. This has the effect of reducing the number of physical chips in front of any player, and makes it easier for the players to count their stacks and their bets.

In a typical chip race:

 * 1) All players color up their lesser-valued chips into greater denominations. For example, if the blinds have increased to a level where $5 chips are no longer needed to post blinds, each five $5 chips will be exchanged for a $25 chip.  Players will temporarily keep any leftover chips that cannot be fully colored up to larger chips (less than 5 $5 chips in the above example).
 * 2) All leftover chips are counted, and equivalent chips in the larger denomination are presented to the table. Continuing the example, if there are 15 $5 chips remaining among 6 players, 3 $25 chips are prepared. In the event the remaining smaller chips do not add up to a whole larger chip, an extra larger chip should be added as long as the leftover smaller chips total at least half a single larger chip.
 * 3) Each player with leftover chips in the smaller denomination will receive one card for each chip. The cards are typically dealt face up, starting from seat one, to the dealer's left.  Each player due to receive cards will receive all of his cards before the next player, rather than a "traditional" card deal; the player on the small blind, for example, who is due to receive three cards for his three chips, will receive all three of his cards before the big blind receives any.
 * 4) The larger chips are issued to the players with the highest single cards showing (poker hands do not count). No player is issued more than one chip.  Ties (cards of the same rank) are broken by suit, using the same bridge (ascending alphabetical) order of the suits: Spades are highest, followed by Hearts, Diamonds, and Clubs.  All remaining lesser-value chips are removed from play.

A chip race cannot eliminate a player from the game. In the event a player's last smaller-denomination chips are removed from play as part of the chip race, they automatically get one chip of the lowest value still in play.

To make it easier to manage the chip race, it is advised that one player at the table (normally the player who currently holds most of the chips that are about to be eliminated) buys up all the smaller chips from the other player's stacks and exchanges them with chips of equal value in higher denomination. Having all the chips in one stack makes it easier to count up and exchange.

title: Chip race


text:
I, Ludicrous

I, Ludicrous is an English pop music trio, formed in February 1985, by John Procter (born 1957) and David Rippingale ("Will Hung") (b. 1956). Their debut flexi release ("Preposterous Tales") reached Number 11 in John Peel's Festive Fifty in 1987.

In January 2008, Martin Brett from Voice of the Beehive joined the band on bass guitar.

I, Ludicrous released their most recent album in 2017 and play occasional live dates, primarily in London. The band have not appeared live since playing The Prince Albert, Brighton in July 2017.

Albums

 * It's Like Everything Else (Kaleidoscope Sound) (1987)
 * Too Ludicrous (unreleased) (1988)
 * A Warning to the Curious (Rodney Rodney!) (1989)
 * Light And Bitter (Rodney Rodney!) (1990)
 * Idiots Savants (Old King Lud) (1992)
 * The Museum of Installation (Old King Lud) (2003)
 * 20 Years In Show Business (Sanctuary / Rough Trade) (April 2007)
 * Dull Is The New Interesting (Cherry Red/Old King Lud) (August 2015)
 * Songs From The Sides Of Lorries (Cherry Red/Old King Lud) (September 2017)

Official bootlegs (CDRs)

 * Deadpan Alley ("It's Like Everything Else" + "A Warning to the Curious")
 * Following On (A compilation album of mostly previously unreleased material)

Singles

 * "Preposterous Tales" (7" flexi given away free with Blah, Blah, Blah magazine) (1987)
 * "Quite Extraordinary" (Kaleidoscope Sound) (1988)
 * "Preposterous Tales" (Rodney Rodney!) (1990)
 * "We Stand Around" (Roman Carbage) (1992)
 * "Hats Off to Eldorado" (Old King Lud) (1993)
 * "Man's Man" (Old King Lud) (1997)
 * "Approaching 40" (Old King Lud) (2000)
 * "Dirty Washing" (5 track EP, Old King Lud LUD006) (February 2008)
 * "George Jenkins" (Cherry Red) (20 November 2015)

title: I, Ludicrous


text:
Aero Continente Dominicana

Aero Continente Dominicana was short-lived airline based in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, operating out of Las Américas International Airport on behalf of Aero Continente from Peru, its parent company.

History
Aero Continente decided to establish a wholly owned subsidiary in Santo Domingo in 2001. Over the following months, a limited number of scheduled flights to Miami were offered. In August 2003, the aircraft was returned to Aero Continente, which marked the end of the Dominicana subsidiary.

Destinations

 * Dominican Republic
 * Santo Domingo - Las Américas International Airport Hub
 * United States
 * Miami - Miami International Airport

Fleet
Aero Continente Dominicana owned a single Boeing 737-200 by May 2002.

title: Aero Continente Dominicana


text:
User talk:Lolroxors

You are now blocked from editing. -- Karada 10:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lolroxors


text:
Primitive Culture (book)

Primitive Culture is an 1871 book by Edward Burnett Tylor. In his book, Tylor debates the relationship between "primitive" societies, and "civilized" societies, a key theme in 19th century anthropological literature.

Evolutionism
Tylor's work can be connected to theories present in 19th century literature including Lewis Henry Morgan's "ethnical periods". Among 19th century anthropologists, many saw what now may be called "tribal" states and societies, as lacking in form, progress, and development. Both Tylor and Morgan aligned somewhat with this viewpoint, Morgan believing in stages in order from savagery, barbarism, to civilization, and Tylor concluding that savagery is the lower stage of civilization. Tylor; unlike Morgan however; believed in "Prichardian Ethnological Monogenism", something he learnt in turn during his travels in Mexico from Henry Christy (1810-1865). Today, most anthropologists generally believe these views to be unsubstantiated.

title: Primitive Culture (book)


text: User talk:24.35.49.246

title: User talk:24.35.49.246


text:
Stater

The stater was an ancient coin used in various regions of Greece. The term is also used for similar coins, imitating Greek staters, minted elsewhere in ancient Europe.

History
The stater, as a Greek silver currency, first as ingots, and later as coins, circulated from the 8th century BC to AD 50. The earliest known stamped stater (having the mark of some authority in the form of a picture or words) is an electrum turtle coin, struck at Aegina that dates to about 650 BC. It is on display at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. According to Robin Lane Fox, the stater as a weight unit was borrowed by the Euboean stater weighing 16.8 g from the Phoenician shekel, which had about the same weight as a stater (7.0 g) and was also one fiftieth of a mina.

The silver stater minted at Corinth of 8.6 g weight was divided into three silver drachmae of 2.9 g, but was often linked to the Athenian silver didrachm (two drachmae) weighing 8.6 g. In comparison, the Athenian silver tetradrachm (four drachmae) weighed 17.2 g. Staters were also struck in several Greek city-states such as, Aegina, Aspendos, Delphi, Knossos, Kydonia, many city-states of Ionia, Lampsacus, Megalopolis, Metapontium, Olympia, Phaistos, Poseidonia, Syracuse, Taras, Thasos, Thebes and more.

There also existed a "gold stater", but it was only minted in some places, and was mainly an accounting unit worth 20–28 drachmae depending on place and time, the Athenian unit being worth 20 drachmae. (The reason being that one gold stater generally weighed roughly 8.5 g, twice as much as a drachma, while the parity of gold to silver, after some variance, was established as 1:10). The use of gold staters in coinage seems mostly of Macedonian origin. The best known types of Greek gold staters are the 28-drachma kyzikenoi from Cyzicus.

Non-Greek staters
Celtic tribes brought the concept to Western and Central Europe after obtaining it while serving as mercenaries in north Greece. Gold staters were minted in Gaul by Gallic chiefs modeled after the philippeioi of Philip II of Macedonia, which were brought back after serving in his armies, or those of his son Alexander the Great and his successors. Some of these staters in the form of the Gallo-Belgic series were imported to Britain on a large scale. These went on to influence a range of staters produced in Britain. British Gold staters generally weighed between 4.5 and(-).

Celtic staters were also minted in present-day Czech Republic and Poland. The conquests of Alexander extended Greek culture east, leading to the adoption of staters in Asia. Gold staters have also been found from the ancient region of Gandhara from the time of Kanishka.

In 2018, archaeologists in Podzemelj, Slovenia unearthed fifteen graves at the Pezdirčeva Njiva site. In one of the graves they found a bronze belt with a gold coin. The coin was a Celtic imitation of the Alexander the Great stater, depicting Nike and Athena, and dates back to the first half of the 3rd century B.C.

title: Stater


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G

Uncle G
final (45/22/2) ending 10:05 18 April 2005 (UTC)

 * A discussion of the outcome of the vote is underway at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Uncle G'''

Very knowledgeable 'pedian, and has been doing a lot of excellent organizational work to the Wiki, particularly with the Transwiki-to-Wiktionary process. Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users. (4982 edits) Radiant_* 10:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
 * My goodness, look what has happened whilst I've been busy elsewhere! As I said on Wiktionary, if I had been nominated earlier, I would have declined, on the grounds that you simply wouldn't have had enough edit history to look at.  I think that there's enough for that to be no longer a consideration.  I therefore accept.   15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Sometimes, I find User G's comments on his talk page elliptical enough that they could end in "Grasshopper", but...everyone needs a friendly uncle. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 10:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) In the interactions I've had with Uncle G, I can't remember a single instance where I've thought his conduct less than exemplary. Thryduulf 11:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Fine. JuntungWu 11:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, good contributor who works well with others. Userpage doesn't bother me in the least. Rje 14:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) RickK 22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC). Good editor, manages to proceed through the minefields of VfD without becoming sullied.  RickK 22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Very Very Strong Support - I've recently worked pretty closely with Uncle G on tranwikification of articles to Wiktionary, and he's very level headed and a great contributor to Wikipedia. People who oppose Uncle G because he doesn't have a user page need to "...un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages...". Kevin Rector 03:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. a careful user. all this "get a user-page" mumbo-jumbo is silly. Kingturtle 05:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. User pages are nice trivialities, not anything essential. - RedWordSmith 06:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - lack of a userpage is irrelevant Tuf-Kat 06:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I'd go neutral because of the lack of a userpage, but Uncle G is a very hard worker. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 15:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I have seen Uncle G's work and it seems like he is a hard worker. I think the lack of a userpage is irrelevant because he can slap something on in less than a few seconds. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Surely, there are more useful reasons for opposition than lacking a userpage? ugen 64 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support. I thought he was already an admin. --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. ditto -- BrokenSegue 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
 * 16) Support, hey, it's my nomination. I'd create a redirect from his userpage to his talk page if people think that'd help. Radiant_* 11:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support — MikeX (talk) 16:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Userpage objections are nonsense. — Dan | Talk 22:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) He's not evil, my requirements are met. --Bjarki 00:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) I have accepted his reason for having no userpage. Uncle G is level headed and helpful, and we need more such administrators. Sjakkalle 06:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Affirming vote. Sjakkalle 07:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Good user.--Comrade Nick  @ )---^--  09:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) utcursch | talk 12:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Would be a shame for this nomination to fail for reasons as trivial as someone not having a user page. Phils 19:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. It would be nice to use minor edit checkbox sometimes (the one on the left, single click is enough, really) to give hint to people on RC check. Pavel Vozenilek 00:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) * My frugal use of that tool may well be indicative of my use of other tools. However, I do specifically say "frugal", not "nonexistent".  Here's an unbroken series of edits that I marked as minor:                        Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * 27) Support ( if I've enough contrib's to vote here :) A user who reminds us all that one should not judge a contributor from the colo(u)r of hir user page link. This red link is a "face to the community" - albeit not a standard one. Who said it had to be? \Mike(z) 10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Although I mostly know this editor through Wikinews, from what I've seen over there he'd make a great admin here. Not having a user page is of no practical consequence. Dan100 11:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Xezbeth  19:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - Good contributions and there is nothing wrong with not having a user page. - SimonP 20:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Boatloads of good work, and the lack of a user page (until forced) was more than fine, suggesting that vanity doesn't override decisions. (and nice workaround to the "problem" now that I look closer :) --iMb~Meow 05:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support -- Good editor, knowledgeable of policies, already involved in various areas of cleanup. I would feel comfortable handing him the keys to the janitor closet.  SWAdair | Talk  05:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Trollslayer extrordinaire who is a vital part of VfD.  Also, he's left one of the most eloquent and even-handed statements I've ever read over on SamuraiClinton's RfC page.  Just get a user page.  Become the "blue Uncle" we know you can be. - Lucky 6.9 03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Strong support. I say this with all due respect to those who oppose the nomination. The nominee is clearly not an opportunist: Despite knowing that much of the opposition will cease if he creates a user page, he continues not to have one. This behavior indicates that Uncle G would probably not change his personal view merely to obtain more votes. -- Emsworth 02:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Uncle G comes across as patient, fair-minded and good at explaining things. I think he'll be good with a mop. FreplySpang (talk) 04:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Will he misuse admin powers?  I strongly doubt it based on what I've seen of him and on the endorsements above, and that's good enough for me. Isomorphic 05:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Support, I don't think the user page is a big deal, and that seems to be the only oposition to his promotion, he is a good editor--nixie 06:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. I note that many of the oppose votes are caused by the lack of a user page; while this is unusual, it is not grounds to decline adminship. Uncle G's enabling of his email shows he is responsive to fair comment.-gadfium 08:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Uncle G has now linked to his explanation below from the top of his talk page, which is good enough for me. —Korath (Talk) 09:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Frankly, I'm stunned that so many people are opposing simply because Uncle G doesn't have the equivalent of "Hi! My name is: Uncle G"  --Kbdank71 14:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Andre ( talk ) 15:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. The lack of a user page is quirky, and probably an error in judgement, but I don't see any other evidence that Uncle G would be anything other than a good and helpful administrator. I actually admire the fact that Uncle G has not created one, given the obvious fact that he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page. Good sense of both independence and honor there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read back what you just wrote: "he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page." I doubt he thinks that way. I couldn't imagine a greater expression of bad faith. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither can I -- in other words, he's showing good faith (or at least an absence of bad faith) by not doing that (unlike, say, another failed candidate for adminship, who, after having announced his conclusion that he should replace his bad attitude with hypocrisy, changed his name to a smarmy one, always prepending it with a smiley face, apparently of the opinion that RfA voters are WAY stupid.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I'll support him for the same reason others were opposing me :) brian0918    19:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportThe quality of one's edits and work here on the Wikipedia should determine if one should be an admin, not just a simple user page. Maybe he likes the color red? Bratsche talk  random 20:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUncle G exceeds all material requirements for an admin. We do not expect nor do we require admins to be yesmen, or to toe the party line for matters unrelated to their ability to function as an admin. That a missing userpage complicates RC monitoring is a sign we need to improve our software and not a reason to punish valuable contributors.--Gmaxwell 00:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I don't feel that the issue of a lack of a userpage should make or break Uncle G's adminship. Slac  speak up!  04:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. An administrator should present a "face" to the community by having a user page. If this user creates one, I will almost certainly change my vote. Jonathunder 17:06, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC) Or create at least a redirect to the talk page. For an admin to have no user page at all would be confusing to new users, and I respectfully don't agree that is a trivial thing. Jonathunder 19:24, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) The main reason I now strongly oppose is not the user page but the whole pattern and style of communication. See the comments below. Jonathunder 04:20, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. My experience with this user at Category talk:Move to Wiktionary was disappointing, to put it mildy. It seemed he purposely took comments out of context to make himself look right, and his stubborness to continually delete his user page is pathetic. If Uncle G wants to be independant/special/wild card/free spirit/whatever, then great; he can continue being that way as a regular editor. The contributions he selected for the answer section below are underwhelming. His edit summaries of "Rewritten from sources" (Albert Mackey,Emmett Ashford) lead me to believe he rewrote sections from sources, not that what he was removing stuff because it was copied from sources. Frankly, from the way he handled the issues with his user page (by CSDing it) and the examples he selected from his contributions, I don't think this person really cares if he's admin or not. We have enough admins as it is, we don't need to force it on people who are hemming and hawwing about it. --jag123 02:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *The edit summary at reads "Entirely rewritten from sources", and yes, they were rewrites from sources.  Hence the "References" sections, citing sources, that appear in both rewrites. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * 4) To me not having a user page marks you as someone who has been on for a week or a vandal with a user name. I patrol the new pages list a lot, and I mostly check the pages of people with no user page of no user name. Howabout1 01:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for now. I originally thought that the lack of a user page wasn't a big deal, but it's starting to bug me.  Though I don't like to support broad generalizations, it is useful to distinguish between red names and blue names when going through my Watchlist or "Recent Changes".  While I don't expect that EVERY user create a user page, our admins should definitely be expected to support the best practices on wikipedia, and I believe that a user page is one of those practices.  His refusal to even create a nominal user page is troubling, indicates a stubbornness to a degree that is inadvisable when dealing with admin powers, and seems almost like a disruption of wikipedia to prove a point.  I hate to do it but i'm going to have to oppose. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) No user page. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  21:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I hate to do this, but the more I think about it the more it bothers me. Administrators must interact with the community and a user page is part of the face one presents. It need not be complex (mine was two short sentences for months), but administrators are trusted members with additional abilities and I feel they should make some effort to connect with the community by posting something. Not to do somehow doesn't seem in the spirit of openness and transparency that I feel administrators should promote, especially regarding themselves. And it seems unprofessional. I also am concerned that Uncle G made no effort here to address this concern or even to explain why he thought it was irrelevant. Administrators should be sensitive to concerns regarding their behavior. However, I understand his lack of comment, as from his answer to question 1 and his comment on Radiant's talk page, it appears that adminship is not something he strongly wants nor is it very helpful to the types of activities he normally does. Of course, some would argue that the best administrators are those who aren't crazy about pursuing adminship, but between my perceived lack of benefit to him and the lack of a user page, it's enough to push me to oppose. If Uncle G wishes to stand out from everyone else, he is free to make his signature red or whatever he likes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. The lack of a user page troubles me. There isn't of course a rule that having one is mandatory for an admin, but at the same time, that this user lacks one gives me enough pause to oppose this nomination.  Moncrief 19:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) With great sadness I feel I have to oppose this nomination, which also means I will not decide on this nomination, leaving it to another bureaucrat's discretion. I say "with great sadness" because Uncle G seems like a fine, decent and principled editor. However, I feel that it sets a bad precedent for an Administrator not to have a User Page as opposed to an Editor not to have one. That is because admins are the public face of Wikipedia and where others turn for help and advice. It is not a good thing for an admin to not have a user page that at least announces that he/she is an admin and expresses the admin's commitment (or lack thereof) to engaging the community and perhaps state those areas where s/he feels s/he can be most helpful. Therefore, I oppose this nomination. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I am afraid that the only interaction I have had with this user resulted in his descending into a rant at me for not having read through several long discussion pages. I am not certain he is of sufficient mentality to have this distinction.  Smoddy (tgeck) 14:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Having an empty user page is not good. I find the explanation for that below unsatisfactory. Oleg Alexandrov 04:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Lack of a userpage is inconsiderate for anyone given the time it wastes for people on RC patrol. If someone doesn't want to be an admin, that's their choice. For an admin, a voluntary postion to be part of the visible face of Wikipedia, its unnaceptable. - Taxman 00:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) VERY strongly oppose. Clearly Uncle G doesn't accept community consensus, because he still refuses to create a userpage. To me, the arrogance of not listening to the community is worse than not having a userpage. And, in turn, it's not the lack of a userpage that bothers me as much as the red link and its implications on Recent Changes, votes, polls, and other such things. It's disruptive and it wastes everyone's time. We're here to build an encylopedia and be part of a wiki community, not to make an ideological point. If Uncle G simply redirects his userpage to his user talk page, then I would support . Neutralitytalk 04:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose for now, and I do so reluctantly. From what I've seen of Uncle G's edits he's a good contributor an' all, but it's hard enough to form an impression of the people we're working with when we are all interacting pseudonymously over the internet even when they have user pages. Admins, I feel, should present a face to the community. Even if he were to create a fairly uninformative or out of date user page like mine or countless others' it would at least be an improvement on a red link. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) I read Uncle G's lengthy explanation below and it, by itself, is enough for me to vote no. I can appreciate the fight against the stigma of a blank user page, but the fact of the matter is that it does make things easier for other people. CryptoDerk 04:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. It's fine for editors to contribute without a user page, but it's not fine for admins.  It rather seems like a policeman or any other official insisting on performing the job without wearing a uniform to identify himself properly. Uncle G needs neither user page nor adminship to continue his great work. -- M P er el ( talk 04:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Similarly, I'm concerned by the lack of a user page.  Well, not so much concerned, as he certainly has the right not to have one, and doesn't seems in any way to have sought adminship; but nontheless, I would be uncomfortable with an admin without one (as it'd preclude identifying himself as one, which I feel ought to be if not a formal requirement, then at least a general expectation).  I'd also be in any event disinclined to actively support without some stronger statement on performing admin tasks (again, understandable in an "unsought" nomination, and not a reflection on him as an editor in any respect).  Alai 06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose due to lack of user page. I respect Uncle G's right not to have a user page and his desire to be judged on his contributions alone, but when weighing up whether users should be given admin powers I need to know more about the candidate. I would extend that to those who deliberately have obscure userpages. Perhaps it should be a requirement for Admins to have user pages. Dbiv 10:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Great contributor, but I have to oppose. A simple redirect to his talk would take care of a very annoying red link.  I echo Neutrality's comments especially, as well as Dbiv's. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. He does not have a user page; also please see his comments on "Teenybopper"'s talk page.  тə zє ті  20:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose on the grounds that I cannot agree with the following comment made by Radiant! as part of the nomination - "Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users.". When I was a new user who was trying to do the right thing by speedying certain articles, he made comments that came across as curt and a little condescending. I won't debate whether his comments were correct, but I still feel that his approach was inconsistent with the attitude I would expect to see from an Admin (such behaviour greatly increases the risk of bad reactions from both valid contributors and vandals). If he could prove that this flaw no longer exists, then in all other aspects he seems fine. TigerShark 20:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose Dwain 22:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. The lack of userpage is no big deal for me, but Uncle G is being quite rebarbative and quick to take offense in some of his responses on this very page. I do like to see admins ready to assume good faith, and to work towards defusing rather than escalating or even initiating quarrels, especially on their RfA page (considering that that is the one time and place people are likely to be as nice as they know how). Bishonen | talk 00:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Always level-headed in my experience (my main admin criterion), and a sadly uncommon voice of sanity on VfD. Uncle G, however, has no user page, which looks unprofessional for an administrator.  I will change to support if this is rectified, even with so little as a redirect to his talk page. —Korath (Talk) 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sure Uncle G could become a fine administrator, but I would like to see him get a userpage first. Sjakkalle 13:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Although his contributions are very good, I, too, am a little thrown by the lack of a user page. Red names are usually red flags for new users, which is not an association one wants made with administrators. – ClockworkSoul 13:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Would like to see the user get a user page, and answer the questions before deciding. Hedley 18:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Uncle G currently has 4989 total edits: 2946/150 to articles/talk, 1698/35 to Wikipedia/talk, 19/84 to User/talk, 26/16 to Template/talk, 10/4 to Category/talk, and 1 to Image. —Korath (Talk) 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: since when is user page more important than one's work? Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how people can immediately vote 'delete when, a) he has not yet indicated if he even accepts the nomination, b) he has not yet completed the Questions for the candidate, below, and c) therefore, has not yet considered about making a user page yet. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He can essentially slap on a userpage in less than a few seconds. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Why is his User page on CAT:CSD now?  He mentions "as explained before" but I don't see a record of this previous indication.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, After slogging through his talk archives, I'm piecing together that he has a personal philosophy about people's preconceived notions about people without user pages. However, in this case, they were true.  It was extremely inconvenient for me not to see a User page, and I had to go through all of your old discussions to figure out why you don't have one.  At the very least, if you love that red link so much, just create a note at the top of your talk page explaining why you don't have a user page. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * For your information: Here is what Uncle G wrote on his talk page about a major reason why he does not have a user page: "The correct solution to what you describe is for people to un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages, just as they should un-learn the similar false inference that they make about contributions from anonymous users. (Some people falsely infer that anonymity brings bad faith, but anonymous users make thousands of good-faith edits to Wikipedia every day.)" Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And what about the new users who want to find out who this admin is, are are confused by a blank page? Jonathunder 22:16, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
 * There aren't any "archives" to "slog through". I haven't archived my talk page.  It's all there, right back to the beginning (minus conversations moved to other talk pages and modulo a failed idea in refactoring).  Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the problem here. People have all sorts of funky signatures, and Uncle G's happens to be a redlink. People have all sorts of funky user pages, including jokes, medals, pictures and whatever, and while most have some relevant content, this is not a prerequisite; Uncle G's happens to be blank (which does give an air of mystery). I do believe actions speak louder than words. Radiant_* 22:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm not going to make a crusade out of this or anything, I just want to explain my vote. While I understand Uncle G's burning need to establish some unique sense of identity on this big confusing wiki, a blank user page is not the appropriate way to do it.  Like it or not, a blank user page has connotations of "new"-ness.  Uncle G is more than welcome to make his signature a red, non-working link if he likes, but it is still useful to browse the Special pages with the color-- not as a sole qualification of quality, but as an extra indicator.  However, if it were just for the blank page, I would have abstained for the vote; it is really Uncle G's intransigence and lack of transparency in this matter that leads me to believe that he is not currently suited to be a good Administrator.  At the very least, Uncle G should make this philosophy clear at the top of his talk page, as it has come up as a question several times (with several people "mistakenly" creating a page for him, requiring him to list it on CAT:CSD, disrupting operations further).  I see Uncle G's lack of a page as an operational nuisance, it has caused confusion and all of this commotion on the Wikipedia... all so that Uncle G can feel special.  Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * What commotion? I haven't seen any commotion.  And this is already addressed on my talk page.  Twice.  It was also addressed on Speedy deletions the first time that it came up diff. You talk of "intransigence" and "stubbornness" because I have requested the pages that others have written to be deleted.  I suspect that you haven't borne in mind what you would do if someone came along and edited User:DropDeadGorgias, your user page, for you.  If other people edited it to contain something that you didn't want, would you change it back to how you wanted it?  How strong would your resistance be?  Would that be "stubborn" and "intransigent"?  I note that you recently reverted it here.  I also note that it is currently protected, in response to that one edit.  Does your protecting your user page qualify as "stubborn" and "intransigent"?  Are you saying that the act of keeping their user page they way that they want it to be, just as you have, should prohibit someone from being an administrator because administrators shouldn't be "stubborn" and "intransigent" like that? Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a problem with his signature having a red link; he could do that with font tags as far as I'm concerned. It is precisely because the lack of a user page gives an air of mystery that I am opposed to it for an administrator. For typical users, no problem—if they wish to stay mysterious, that's fine with me. But I feel administrators should be a bit more forthcoming. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Any relation to Uncle Ed? -- Viajero 17:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no relation to User:Ed Poor; and no relation to Wiktionary:User:Paul G or to Uncle (history) either. ☺ Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * Well, this nomination is obviously going to fail now, and from the looks of it, any subsequent nominations will probably fail too. A real shame if you ask me. Especially considering most user pages (whether they belong to admins or not) are nothing but an annotated version of the contributions page or a collection of random buffooneries... Phils 09:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this nomination will "obviously" fail. It is on the low end of the "gray zone" and awaiting one of the other bureaucrats to return to make a decision. I don't see the point in criticizing other users who do have user pages. The User Page reveals something about the user whether it is a scholarly dissertation or an embarassment. I don't see what the problem is in Uncle G creating a user page for the purpose of letting those who visit if he were an admin know who they're talking to without having to read through all his Wikiworks. It seems to be that his verbose explanations of why he doesn't have a user page are as self-absorbed and self-revealing as all of us who do. And, as I said, it sets a bad precedent. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I haven't been around long enough, but it was my experience that usually bureaucrats don't take it on themselves to promote a user with a 30:10 oppose ratio. Also, I mean buffoonery in a rather broad sense, non pejorative; I love when users have witty and original personal pages, but I still consider "most user pages" to be quite trivial, when you look at it objectively. Phils 08:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncle G has responded here (finally) to the user page question, and I have to say, sadly, I now strongly oppose. It isn't the user page--that's just one tool to communicate with other editors. It's the whole pattern of communication here. He has still not responded to my specific concern, stated twice above, that new users will be confused when they click on an admin's name and see the page creation screen. As I said above, I think even having just a redirect to the talk page would help avoid confusion on the part of new users. I even indicated that though I prefer an admin have a user page, I would have quite likely changed my vote if he had just made it a redirect to his talk page. Instead of acknowledging what I said, he chose to respond as you see below. Jonathunder 04:54, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
 * I wish to point out, with all due respect, that I find most of the objections above to be rather trivial. Firstly, it is argued that the lack of a user page will "confuse" newer users. I feel constrained to ask how this would happen. All new users presumably begin with blank user pages; I fail to see how they would be confused if another user had one. Secondly, it has been suggested that the administrator must present a "face" to the community. I find that having a user page saying "Hi!" is hardly better than having no user page at all. Consider the user pages of present administrators, for example. In fact, let us only consider those administrators whose usernames start with "A." User:Ams80 and User:Arminius have blank or redirecting user pages. User:Andres, User:Andrew Yong, User:Andris, User:Aris Katsaris, and User:Arvindn all have effectively empty userpages, except for lists of contributions. Certainly, there seems to be no problem with these individuals presenting or not presenting "faces." Thirdly, there is the objection that the RC patrol will be harmed. Presumably, those who regularly patrol Recent Changes will quickly get accustomed to the regular users: and they will certainly soon know that Uncle G would not vandalize. Consequently, I do not find that their efforts would be forced to endure any obstacles at all. Not having a user page can hardly constitute disruption. Fourthly, it has been suggested that Uncle G is not respecting "community consensus" by failing to obtain a user page. This point is absurd: there is no clear consensus that he should get a user page, as 2/3 of the voters have supported him so far. Finally, I wish to note that having or not having a user page is no reflection at all on fitness to be an administrator. The failure of one individual to have a user page will not ultimately lead to organizational paralysis or administrative atrophy. It hardly has any effect at all. Thus, I implore the users who object, with all the earnestness at my command, not to object, at least on the grounds of a lack of a user page. -- Emsworth 01:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well put. Phils 05:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I note that this vote is out of the gray zone, at 45/22/2. JuntungWu 14:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

 * I was originally going to add this along with my other answers, but decided not to. I've largely left this discussion alone, because, as I've said before, I think that it's up to the rest of you to make this decision. However, I think that some things need addressing.
 * 0. Why do you not have a user page?
 * A. I don't have a user page very probably for the same reasons that you do.
 * I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day. Indeed, I was exactly such an anonymous user for quite a while. I only became pseudonymous largely because of the convenience of not having my edits confused with other customers of my ISP.
 * I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has "been on for a week" or is "a vandal with a user name". I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do many other editors who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty, and I invite those who use it to (for example) do Recent Changes patrol on Wiktionary (Wiktionary can always use more RC patrollers.), where many users even of long standing have no user pages. I further ask those people to stop requesting that the world change to match their faulty heuristic, rather than the other way around.
 * DropDeadGorgias puts forward the rather bizarre notion that the act of not creating a page is "disruption of wikipedia to prove a point". If that were the case, then there are hundreds of millions of people not creating web pages on Wikipedia every day, all of whom are "disrupting" it.  The notion that not creating something here is disruption is patently silly.
 * Xe also talks of "establish[ing] some unique sense of identity". But that is precisely what I'm not doing. "Uncle G" is, quite obviously, a pseudonym — just like DropDeadGorgias is — and a lack of a user page is precisely the opposite of attempting to establish an identity, as is the fact that, this page and its special circumstances aside, I use the default signature with no customization. If I wanted to "establish an identity", connecting my edits here to a real world person that you could throw tomatoes at, I would use an account in my actual name.
 * But like many of you I use a a pseudonym. Just as DropDeadGorgias and Jonathunder both choose not to tell you what their actual names are, so too do I. My "identity" to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and can only be my contribution history.  I want it to be my contribution history. (Note that Jonathunder, whilst asking here how other users can determine who I am, on his own user page answers that question of himself by pointing to his contribution history, a rather marked double standard.) It's the only identity that truly matters when it comes to making decisions about whether and how I can do things here. I thank both Pavel Vozenilek and jag123 for judging me upon it.
 * Everything else — pictures of me, an autobiography of my life, information about where I went to school and where I live, lists of my hobbies and interests — is autobiography, and by its nature self-professed. I have my own web sites out in the Big Wide World (It seems rather ironic to be referring to the World Wide Web like that, given that there is a Big Wide World outside of it, too. ☺), where I publish my own articles, with no Wikipedia restrictions, and could have reams of autobiography to my heart's content.  I don't have such personal data on those, either. (Having been around on Internet for ... cough ... a little while now, I know not to publish such things, not on my own web sites, let alone on here.)
 * People know me out in the Big Wide World through my published works and what I do, not through what I merely tell them about myself. (They do know me - I've been cited here and there.) The same applies here, in the microcosms that are Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and so forth. You know me through my editing record; which speaks more accurately than I could in any case. (The automatic record is always going to be equal to or better than any manual record.)  The "face that I present" to the world from these WikiMedia projects is an article on Microsoft Pascal or a sentence in chav, and as such is entirely egoless.  The "face that I present" to other Wikipedia editors within these projects is through discussions and edit histories.  To see why a user page is irrelevant to that latter "face" consider that I could have the spiffiest user page in the world, and it wouldn't help improve my image if I had widespread and uniformly negative contributions elsewhere.  (If you still don't get the point, go and look at the pretty user pages of some of the users that are currently banned.  I'm not going to be specific, as per the provoking banned users rule, but there are several banned users whose user pages meet the criteria for adminstratorship that some have espoused over the past week.)
 * You may of course come to a consensus that having a user page is a requirement for administrators. In which case, I suggest that you list that requirement on Requests for adminship and Requests for adminship/Standards (which currently sport no indication whatever of such a rule or such a standard) so that we don't waste effort in the future.
 * Such a requirement would, of course, not be on technical grounds. There is a technical requirement that administrators have working electronic mailboxes, pointed out to me by Wiktionary:User:SemperBlotto, that I didn't fulfil. Absence of mailbox causes procedural problems, since it prevents blocked users from contacting the blocking administrator.  As such, I've un-checked the "Disable e-mail from other users" checkbox in my preferences to fulfil that requirement. (As at Wiktionary, I ask you to please use User talk:Uncle G rather than electronic mail for contacting me.) Absence of a user page causes no such procedural problems.
 * Finally: For those who are referring to "professionalism", I simply point out that I do this as a hobby. I'm not a professional encyclopaedist.  (I suspect that if I were, I'd probably be contractually prohibited from being here in the first place.)
 * 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

 * A brilliant and thoughtful answer. Reason in itself to confer a distinction that is "no big deal". This attitude should be rewarded, not punished. How the place has gone wrong that it is not! Grace Note 02:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Well, to be honest, I haven't anticipated anything, not having planned for this.  As I said to Radiant! when xe brought this up, the only time in the past that I can think of where administrator tools would have been a benefit was when the backlog built up at WP:CP.  I'd have been able to muck in and help.  I suspect that I would probably continue largely as I have been, and simply chip in as and when similar such situations arise.  15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.  I don't keep lists of things that I've contributed to because I believe that the edit histories are adequate, and indeed better, for that.  And I'm not sure that I can give you a list of things that I've been "pleased" about.  However, if what you actually want is a set of examples of where I've edited articles, then I can supply a few picked pretty much arbitrarily, in no particular order and with no particular implications.  I've not included any articles that I've touched as part of New Page Patrol.  You're better off looking at Special:Contributions/Uncle G to get a feel for that.
 * Gado-gado — Votes for deletion/Gado-gado should explain why "pleased" is not the best word. Also see Wikibooks:Cookbook:Gado-gado.
 * NEET — Also see NEET.
 * numerical prefix — Compare Greek numerical prefixes and Latin numerical prefixes, see Talk:Greek numerical prefixes, and also note Bi, Duo, and Uni. There's still more to do here.  So again, "pleased" doesn't quite fit.
 * Neurocam
 * Yellow Pages
 * Lazaretto/Temp
 * Pedel
 * Catlow
 * Albert Mackey
 * Kula
 * Emmett Ashford
 * Enright
 * phonemic differentiation
 * Universal Genius
 * Plant Explorer
 * TRGB
 * Guide to Votes for deletion
 * Cleo — Also see Votes for deletion/Cleo.
 * Dunlop — Also see Votes for deletion/Dunlop.
 * Dunelm
 * Things to be moved to Wiktionary
 * These articles, although outside of Wikipedia, might also be informative as corroboration:
 * Guide to Windows commands
 * Wikinews:Template:Prepared story
 * Pope John Paul II dies — a fine counterexample to the notion that editors own news articles
 * UK Chancellor of the Exchequer makes 2005 Budget speech
 * Wikinews:Template:Ph:Editing
 * Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Categorization
 * yiff and YIFF (also yiffs, yiffed, yiffing, yiffable, yiffer, yiffest, and yiffy) — I know very little about "Furries" and have never used the word. The original was a copyright violation, by the way.
 * That's enough time spent on that. ☺   15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. Oh gosh, yes. I doubt that anyone reaching this number of contributions will not have.  It's not exactly dealing with it, per se, but having so much to do does mean that I cannot sit all day inching towards the 3 Revert Rule on a single article.  ☺  I still haven't yet found the time to get back to Talk:Bishop of Durham or Talk:Walton Summit motorway, for example.  15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)


text:
Dominair

Dominair, S.A. was a passenger regional airline based in Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic, that offered flights to Port-au-Prince, Haiti, until 2007. Before that, it was a popular airline with regular flights to San Juan, Puerto Rico, using two de Havilland Canada Dash 8. The airline is now defunct and previously only flew to Port-au-Prince and had a fleet composed of two leased L-410 Turbolet.

Fleet

 * 2 L-410 Turbolet (Leased from SAP Air)

Previously:
 * 1 Martin 404 (Owned HI-334)
 * 2 de Havilland Canada Dash 8 (Leased from LIAT)
 * 3 de Havilland Canada Dash 8 (Operated by LIAT)

title: Dominair


text:
Theodore I, Marquis of Montferrat

Theodore I Palaiologos or Palaeologus (Greek: Θεόδωρος Παλαιολόγος, full name: Theodoros Komnenos Doukas Angelos Palaiologos) (c. 1290 – 24 April 1338) was Marquis of Montferrat from 1306 until his death.

Life
He was a son of Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos and Irene of Montferrat. When his uncle John I died in 1305, the male line of the Aleramici Marquises of Montferrat became extinct. The March of Montferrat was passed to Irene's children. Patriarch Athanasius I of Constantinople blocked the candidacy of the elder son John, so Theodore went to Italy instead.

Theodore sailed to Genoa in 1306. In 1307 he married Argentina Spinola, daughter of Genoese magnate Opicino Spinola, Capitano del Popolo (co-ruler) of the Republic of Genoa. Spinola used his wealth to back Theodore's claim to Montferrat.

Theodore was opposed by Manfred IV of Saluzzo. Manfred was a cadet of the House of Savoy, and several Marquises of Montferrat had Savoyard wives. King Charles II of Naples also claimed parts of the March. He gradually overcame these foes and secured the whole March. In 1310 he received the imperial investiture from Emperor Henry VII.

Theodore died in Trino Vercellese in 1338. He was succeeded by his son John II Palaiologos.

Marriage and issue
Theodore and Argentina had:
 * John ΙΙ (1313–1372)
 * Yolande (1318–1342), who married Aimone, Count of Savoy

Writings
Theodore is known to have authored an original military manual, titled Les Enseignemens ou Ordenances pour un Siegneur qui a Guerres et Grans Gouvernemens a Faire, often referred to as Les enseignements. Originally composed in Greek in 1326-1327 while Theodore was in Constantinople, it exists now only in the medieval French translation of Jean de Vignay. The work is one of the most interesting medieval military manuals in that it is not dependent on Vegetius' De Re Militari or any other known classical text. It thus serves as an example of the military thinking of the late Byzantine and Medieval worlds.

title: Theodore I, Marquis of Montferrat


text:
File:Scan of 4 Algerian coins.jpg

nl:Afbeelding:Scan of 4 Algerian coins.jpg

title: File:Scan of 4 Algerian coins.jpg


text:
LAN Dominicana

LAN Dominicana (legally Líneas Aéreas Nacionales de Navegación Dominicana S.A.) was an short-lived airline based in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic that operated international services.

History
The airline was established in May 2003 and started flying to Miami on June 16, 2003. LAN Airlines had a 49% stake in LAN Dominicana.

In April 2005, the IATA code "4M" was reassigned to Aero 2000, which was officially designated as LAN Argentina in June 2005.

Fleet
LAN Dominicana had operated the following aircraft:
 * 2 Boeing 767-300ER (Operated by LAN Airlines)

title: LAN Dominicana


text:
Legend (Robin of Sherwood soundtrack)

Legend is a 1984 soundtrack album for the ITV television series Robin of Sherwood, by the Irish folk group Clannad. It is their eighth album. In 1985, this album won the BAFTA award for Best Original Television Music, making Clannad the first Irish band to win the award.

Singles released
"Robin (The Hooded Man)", the title theme from the series, was released on a 7-inch single in 1984, featuring actor Michael Praed as Robin of Sherwood on the sleeve.

In addition, "Now Is Here" and "Scarlet Inside" were released as singles in their own right.

"Robin (The Hooded Man)" was re-released in 1986 as an "Extended Play Single" with a newly recorded version of the title theme and featuring actor Jason Connery on the sleeve. For this re-release, the B-sides include "Now Is Here", "Herne" and "Caisleán Óir" (as it appears on the album Macalla).

Alternate versions of songs
In addition to the tracks on Legend, which were used extensively in the series, music composed for the show was occasionally released elsewhere in different versions.

The introduction track to Clannad's Macalla album "Caislean Oir" appeared in an alternate version as incidental music in the series.

In 2003, Clannad albums from the Sony/BMG label were remastered and released with new cover art, and remixes as bonus tracks. For the 2003 Deluxe Edition of Legend, the bonus track was "Together We – Cantoma Mix".

On the 2005 release Clannad: Live in Concert, there were live performances of unreleased music including "Dance & Teidhir Abhaile Riu" from Series 1 and "Action" and "Royal" from Series 3 as part of a "Robin of Sherwood Medley"

Unreleased music
In a statement posted in November 2003 on their official web site, Clannad revealed that,
 * "there were several other pieces of music recorded for the 3rd series of Robin of Sherwood that were not included on the Legend album. Unfortunately no-one has been able to locate the master tapes of this music. The search is continuing and hopefully one day these recordings will be able to be released."

Both sets 1 and 2 of the European and North American Blu-ray releases of Robin of Sherwood have a "music only" track for many of the episodes. This allows listeners to hear music from all 3 series, including music that was not included on "Legend" and music recorded after the release of Legend, to be heard on their own.

Music performed live
During the 1984 tour, the setlist included full live versions of "Lady Marian", "Now Is Here", "Robin (The Hooded Man)", "Scarlet Inside", "Herne", "Ancient Forest" and "Battles".

Since then, Clannad regularly includes a "Robin Of Sherwood Medley" in their setlist that typically includes the title song, and segments of "Lady Marian", "Herne" and "Ancient Forest", as well as the unreleased "Dance" from Series 1 and two songs from Series 3 entitled "Action" and "Royal" that have only been released on live albums including Clannad: Live in Concert (released 2005).

Track listing

 * 1) "Robin (The Hooded Man)" (Ciarán Brennan) – 2:48
 * 2) "Now Is Here" (Pól Brennan) – 3:32
 * 3) "Herne" (P. Brennan) – 5:08
 * 4) "Together We" (P. Brennan) – 3:28
 * 5) "Darkmere" (C. Brennan) – 1:59
 * 6) "Strange Land" (P. Brennan) – 3:10
 * 7) "Scarlet Inside" (P. Brennan) – 5:08
 * 8) "Lady Marian" (C. Brennan) – 3:20
 * 9) "Battles" (C. Brennan) – 1:01
 * 10) "Ancient Forest" (P. Brennan, C. Brennan, Máire Brennan) – 2:59
 * 11) "Together We – Cantoma Mix" (bonus track available only on 2003 Deluxe Edition) - 2:05

Singles

 * 1) "Robin (The Hooded Man)"
 * 2) "Now Is Here"
 * 3) "Scarlet Inside"
 * 4) "Robin (The Hooded Man)" EP (series three remix of theme tune)

Band

 * Máire Brennan – lead vocal, harp
 * Pól Brennan – guitar, flute, tin whistle, keyboards, vocals
 * Ciarán Brennan – double bass, synthesisers, guitar, vocals
 * Pádraig Duggan – mandola, guitar, vocals
 * Noel Duggan – guitar, vocals

Additional musicians

 * James Delaney – keyboards
 * Paul Moran – drums
 * Pat Farrell – electric guitar
 * Frank Ricotti – percussion

title: Legend (Robin of Sherwood soundtrack)


text: User talk:82.43.209.50

title: User talk:82.43.209.50


text:
Queen Air

Queen Air (legally Aeronaves Queen S.A.) was a Dominican airline based at Las Americas International Airport, in Santo Domingo. It began operations in 1998 but ceased these in 1999. In 2002, 49% of its shares were acquired by Michigan-based Auxer Group with an attempt to restart operations with a single Lockheed L-1011 TriStar in 2004, but this was unsuccessful.

Fleet
Queen Air operated a single Airbus A320-200 (N302ML) wet-leased from TransMeridian Airlines. Additionally, two McDonnell Douglas DC-9-15s were ordered but were not delivered.

title: Queen Air


text:
Talk:The Cretan Gendarmerie in liberated Thessaloniki

Newcomer - please provide sources that are not in Greek. Or at least reference pages from THE STORY OF THE SALONICA ARMY. I would certainly like to know more about this subject, but clearly you are unable to write about factual events, and are more inclined to write fiction in a Tolkien-like world of black and white. It is ludicrous to assume that any serious student of history would believe the veracity of your article, and your effort to introduce the history of the Cretan Gendarme fails completely to tell us who these people actually were, and why indeed they deserve any mention in the first place.

The present article does not live up to elementary standards of NPOV and factual accuracy and is enacted as a two-dimensional TV-soap in which there are the "good" Greeks and the "bad" Bulgarians. The facts are bent so as to serve the purpose of the article, no word has been said, for example, about the internment of the 7,000 Bulgarian soldiers on the Aegean islands and their subsequent death of starvation. Or about the tension between Greeks and Jews as the Jews were scarcely happy about being occupied by the Greek army. What's more, the article speaks only marginally of this "Cretan gendarmerie", only inasmuch as these gendarmes have to be portrayed as the good and noble ones as opposed to the "evil Bulgarians", I think that the article should be proposed for deletion. VMORO 10:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you do not agree with the content of the article. You also probably hear some things for the first time in your life and you "fall from the clouds", I also hear fo the first time about the death of the 7000 Bulgarian soldiers you mention. Incorporate it in the article.

But you should not forget that the whole article is written from European newspapers of the era. It was the French and British journalists who wrote about these incidents. The journalists who wrote that the muslim population was trying to evade the Bulgarian army were French. Not Greeks. I would be glad to discuss any point you think is not objective and delete any untrue piece of information. Can you suggest some to discuss it? If you have other sources (German maybe) suggest them.

Note also that I tried to avoid writing about the atrocities commited by the Bulgarian army (mostly the irregulars) during its advance as well as during its withdraw from Eastern Macedonia. Newcomer 21:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * May be you should try to read the report of the Carnegie commission (there is a link after Macedonians), I certainly know what I am talking about. All countries in the Balkan coalition conducted atrocities against the Muslim population of Macedonia, including the Greeks. But that's not what I am talking about - your article does not live up to the standards of NPOV but it also falls short of elementary ethics. So much bitter xenophobia and hatred of the Bulgarians - it makes me wonder what kind of environment you've grown up in. My grandparents were chased out of Kukush in 1913 by the Greek army but I have not initiated a writing crusade against the Greeks and the Greek army, have I? VMORO22:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do NOT hate anyone I assure you. My article is based TOTALLY on contemporary reports of neutral journalists. I REPEAT I would be glad to discuss any point you think is not objective and delete any untrue piece of information. Can you suggest some to discuss it? If you have other sources (German maybe) suggest them. BUT LET'S STAY TO THE FACTS. History is only the facts and we do not have the right to beautify them. None of us. There is not "political correct" in History but only the truth.Newcomer 23:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Betting shop

In the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, a betting shop is a shop away from a racecourse ("off-course") where one can legally place bets in person with a licensed bookmaker. Most shops are part of chains, including William Hill, Ladbrokes, or Coral. In Australia and New Zealand, they are operated by totalisator agencies. In the United States post PASPA, brands like DraftKings, FanDuel and William Hill have a presence. Betting shops include America's Betshop and Betfred.

Scale
In 2016, there were around 9,000 betting shops located in the UK. The number of shops grew rapidly in the 21st century. One street in Newham has the largest number of bookmakers concentrated in one place: 18 on the street and about 80 in a local zone. However, in 2020, during the coronavirus crisis, many betting shops closed permanently.

Legislation
Off-course betting was illegal until the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 was introduced, although bets could be placed at a racecourse ("on-course") on any event, not just the races being held at that course. Credit betting by post or telephone was legal because of a loophole in the law of "resorting to a house for the purpose of betting" was taken to mean physically resorting to the house rather than simply communicating with someone there.

Gambling in the United Kingdom is common and not regarded necessarily as a vice but a "little flutter on the gee-gees", but there are strict controls on where and how a bet can be placed (they may not be placed in pubs, for example). The Gambling Act 2005 covers those controls, and the Gambling Commission oversees them.

Until 2005, it was illegal to advertise on the outside of the shop any offer of odds, and most had blank windows. The Gambling Act 2005 relaxed the rules a little, but most betting shops still have covered windows, much like sex shops; it is illegal to allow people from outside to see inside.

Facilities
At a betting shop, typically there will be noticeboards listing the racing form for the day's horse racing from trade issues of the Racing Post or a similar equestrian publication.

Most betting shops now offer free tea and coffee to attract punters. They usually have large televisions covering all the events, like an American sports bar. Until 1986 they were not allowed to have live broadcast coverage, but the bookmaker often had a small portable television or transistor radio hidden behind the counter. Because punters could not see or hear live coverage, some bookmakers deceived punters by claiming a different result from the actual one, or could otherwise alter the declared starting price. This changed in 1986, and Satellite Information Services was formed to screen live races to betting shops. Greyhound races are now timed to the second on the feed pictures, since a scam that intercepted and slightly delayed the broadcast feed for greyhound races, which typically last less than two minutes. By delaying the feed slightly, an accomplice on-course who had already seen the result could communicate by telephone with one in a betting shop off-course, who would bet on a racing certainty.

The larger chains also operate at sports grounds, where bets are placed using pre-printed betting slips. Winnings from bets placed at these facilities can then usually be collected on site, by post or from one of the high street branches.

Fixed-odds betting terminals
In 2013–2014 there was significant controversy with more betting shops springing up on High streets in the United Kingdom, encouraging poor people to gamble, especially to play fixed odds betting terminals. Betting shops are strictly regulated in the number of machines they can have and the payout they can provide. On 27 April 2014, the Government announced proposals to give local authorities more power to limit the number and form of betting shops in their jurisdictions.

A £2 stake limit was introduced for FOBTs in 2019.

title: Betting shop


text:
User:Soundguy99

I live in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.

I am older than 15 and younger than 60.

You can probably guess my career from my username. Despite massive overexposure, I still like music. Well. . . . . . some of it. . . . . . . some of the time. . . . . . . ..

Three songs I never, never, never, never, never want to hear again:

1) Mustang Sally

2) Brown-Eyed Girl

3) Margaritaville

I am very curious, and consequently widely but shallowly read. So I'm sure I'll be popping up all around the Wikipedia universe.

WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

Redirect

Duplicate articles

Category:Music stubs

Category: Musical instrument manufacturers

Category:Musical instrument stubs

An excellent analysis
Notability not a criterion for deletion?

I'm confused; please help me out here. On the VfD pages, just about the most-cited reason for deletion is that the subject (or even the article) is "not-notable". Fair enough. Yet in Deletion policy, the words "notability" or "notable" aren't even mentioned, and in What Wikipedia is not, it only applies to memorials of people. What's going on here? Are we all suffering from mass delusions, or is there some unwritten policy that states "non-notability" is a valid criterium criterion for deletion? If the latter, wouldn't it be a good idea to turn it into written policy instead? Thanks. --Plek 20:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (Dons asbestos suit)

 * It's not worth fussing about. (Just as it's not worth fussing about whether "criterium" is an English word).

 * Wikipedia is the sum of what WIkipedians actually do. What actually happens is: sysops look at VfD discussions. For the most part, they base their actions on whether people vote "delete" or "keep." Written deletion policy is an effective tool that Wikipedians can use to influence the votes of other Wikipedians.

 * There was, last year, an attempt by a sysop to consider, when judging consensus, only those "delete" votes for which he judged the stated reasons for deletion to be in accord with the written policy. This attracted criticism, and as a result of the criticism he stopped exhibiting that behavior. So, I repeat, the de facto behavior of sysops is that a sincere expression by a non-sock-puppet user that an article should be deleted counts as a delete. Currently, in VfD a sockpuppet vote is invalid, but a real vote citing bad reasons or no reasons is valid.

 * References to "notability" in VfD are the interplay of people trying to influence each other. Since many people, regardless of written policy, believes that notability should play some role in VfD decisions, votes are affected by that and it is a de facto criterion. Notice that there although there is a very wide range of opinion, it is very rare for things that are ridiculously non-notable to survive VfD. I could write a factual article about the fire hydrant on my street and I assure you it would be voted for deletion and deleted, even though it's not a biography, even though there are a few überinclusionists who would defend it on principle.

 * The big problem with notability is that nobody can come up with good objective bright-line definitions of what constitutes notability. People hate to admit that the content of Wikipedia is, in fact, the product of the consensus opinion and judgement of Wikipedians. So, absent a good definition for notability, some argue that it should not be considered at all.

 * The reality is that this is an area of no consensus. Therefore, judgements and behavior are consistent for extremely notable and extremely non-notable topics, but the zone in which there is argument and inconsistent behavior is wide.

 * Another reality is that many Wikipedians think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and notability is a criterion for inclusion in anything else you can point to that calls itself by that name.

 * So, with regard to notability, I don't expect to see it turned into written policy. And I don't expect to see observations that it is not policy to change the behavior of people voting in VfD, or the behavior of sysops who act on those votes. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I absolutely agree with Dpbsmith. Policy is meant to change with the community, not vice-versa. As much as some of us would like to avoid voting on highly subjective grounds like notability (which has different meanings from person to person; my idea of notability seems highly inclusionistic compared to some of the notability grounds used in voting today), the fact remains that a good deal of the community *does* use notability as a reason for deletion. If the community wants an article to go, we shouldn't disregard their opinion just because it's based on something subjective, since the resolution of the issue of contention — should the article be deleted? — has been agreed upon. Johnleemk | Talk 08:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * In other words, while 'notability' is not part of the policy-as-written, it is a de facto criterium for deletion. Of course, this means that debates ensue over what exactly constitues sufficient notability. Radiant! 17:24, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Recommend Dpbsmith's observations be put in an annoying pastel-tinted box and posted by Rambot to everyone's talk page.
 * Just kidding. But it's very good stuff, and it's a good introduction for the newbies who don't get what the big notability shibboleth is all about. Put it in a prominent place somewhere. Note that Notability redirects to Importance, which (surprise) attempts to instate some definition as policy. We don't need copper-engraved policy at this stage, and possibly never; we need a good way to inform people what the whole fuss is about. I think Dpbsmith's observations get the job done very well. 82.92.119.11 01:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Soundguy99


text:
Talk:Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union

=First and Second Stages=

Untitled
Where on earth are the descriptions of the first and second stages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.65.42 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, this article is in bad shape. Spamdingel (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First sentence very like a school essay
The opening sentence of the entire article should not be a definition of what an economic and monetary union is. It is supposed to introduce what the EU's EMU is.

70.105.210.97 (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

 * As the lede has been rewritten, I will delete the not-encyclpedic tag. --Red King (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism NPOV
I think this section needs a complete rewrite. It is terribly phrased, uses atrocious Wikiformatting and just bad English in general e.g the "Eu Four Freedoms" (did EU become a proper noun). It is also very POV in a sceptical manner, with little counter arguments for most of the points, and there are plenty of easily identifiable ones. - Рэд  хот  19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree this section used to be quite biased, and unobjective, but it has since been edited, and now presents a reasonable critique of the issues involved in EMU. Is there any need for the neutrality-mark to remain there?? (RM21 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
 * I agree with the initial criticism also, it seems to be mandatory that every article on the EU has a section dealing with eurosceptic arguments even when the subject is ill suited to it. We wouldn't have, for instance, every article on the governing institutions of the United States' including a criticism section so I'm not sure why this standard is applied to the EU.
 * "but these aims are proving difficult to implement in the real world" - This is poorly disguised "You are just dreamers"-sophistry. The whole criticism section needs a rewrite. It should not include anything except issues related directly to monetary policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.187.106 (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. The section consisted entirely of unsourced assertions, much of it about the principle of Optimum Currency Area theory rather than about its relevance to the EU in particular.  I've deleted it pending some text that is supported by credible sources (at least the FT) and not just British tabloid polemic. See policy Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Red King (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
There was some confusion about the meaning of EMU in the introductory text.

EMU has three stages, as correctly explained later in the article, of which only the last one means the adoption of the euro by a country. For details, see http://europa.eu.int/pol/emu/index_en.htm.

Currently, Denmark and the UK are using an opt-out clause from the third stage negociated for the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden voluntarily avoids to meet some of the criteria to join, but is theoretically obliged to do so, as are the 10 new members. Leparrain 20:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article to be renamed
this article (Economic and Monetary Union - capital letters) deals with the EMU of the European Union. It is different than the general article on economic and monetary unions (Economic and monetary union - small letters). This is very confusing and also hampers links in other articles - they point to the wrong page. So the EMU of the EU should be renamed to something like "Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union". Then the current capital-letters page should be made a redirect to the general-EMU-page (small letters). The problem is that if we copy the current content (and discussion pages) of EMU (capital) to "EMU of EU" and then we make EMU (capital) to redirect to EMU (general, small letters) - then all articles have links to the current EMU (capital) has to be re-linked to "EMU of EU"... Is there any way to do this automaticaly somehow? bots, whatever?
 * Done much of the re-linking... Alinor 10:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Renaming
I find the new name kind of clumsy. Maybe something like "European Economic and Monetary Union" would sound better, no? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article was with that name a long time ago (see redirect European Economic and Monetary Union). I don't know what the discussion was, but most probably the majority of people don't liked this name, becouse this EMU is not for ALL EUROPEAN states, so it looks somewhat inappropriate... Maybe you should look into the history of the page (or the redirect) for details... 212.36.8.100 07:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. OK, that's a good enough answer for me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://api.ithenticate.com/ithenticate_dv?lang=en_us&o=18621063. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lucas559 (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Mongelli's comment on this article
Dr. Mongelli has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)[1] is an umbrella term for the group of policies aimed at converging the economies of member states of the European Union at three stages. --> The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)[1] refers to a set of convergence criteria, principles and requirements to guide the convergence process of European Union economies toward the launch of the euro: the new shared single currency. EMU's completion was articulated along three stages securing monetary integration at the end. Hence, countries adopting the euro would forsake direct control over the national exchange rate and domestic monetary policies. Countries would do so in expectation that benefits would outweigh the costs of losing monetary independence as an adjustment tool."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Mongelli has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

 * Reference 1: Ignazio Angeloni & Michael Flad & Francesco Paolo Mongelli, 2005. "Economic and monetary integration of the new Member States - helping to chart the route," Occasional Paper Series 36, European Central Bank.

 * Reference 2: De Grauwe, Paul & Mongelli, Francesco Paolo, 2005. "Endogeneities of optimum currency areas: what brings countries sharing a single currency closer together?," Working Paper Series 0468, European Central Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Nguena's comment on this article
Dr. Nguena has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"It could be good to update this contribution with recent brexit (significance in terms of union and perspectives) by for example adding a section on it."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Nguena has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

 * Reference : Christian Lambert Nguena, 2013. "Heterogeneity of Saving-Investment Causality and Fiscal Coordination Implication: The Case of an African Monetary Union," AAYE Policy Research Working Paper Series 13_009, Association of African Young Economists, revised Nov 2013.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Kempf's comment on this article
Dr. Kempf has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Very good and correct article. However it lacks some coverage of the institutions of the EMU, in particular the ECB. It also lacks some summary report on the achievement of the EMU from its creation on."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Kempf has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

 * Reference 1: Russell Cooper & Hubert Kempf & Dan Peled, 2010. "Insulation Impossible : Fiscal Spillovers in a Monetary Union," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10045, Universite Pantheon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.

 * Reference 2: Cooper, R. & Kempf, H. & Peled, D., 2009. "Monetary rules and the spillover of regional fiscal policies in a federation," Working papers 233, Banque de France.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Greek capital controls?
Why does this article not mention the (technically illegal) Greek capital controls, which constitute a clear break with the EMU vision of Euros flowing freely across the borders of all the countries in the Eurozone? And for that matter the (technically illegal) Crypus capital controls, now abolished.--greenrd (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If anyone is still interested in this question, the answer may be at Greek government-debt crisis. --Red King (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A Section on European Semester
Hello, While reading the article, i discovered that there is just a brief mention of the European Semester which is a framework for coordinating member states' economic policies. I would therefore like to either introduce a section on the European Semester or write a new article on the European Semester. Do you think it is a notable topic on its own or it will not be of importance in relation to the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union? Do you have any suggestions on how to go forward? Everine Akello (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , a superficial scan of the consillium.eu site suggests to me that it would belong better at Stability and growth pact. I think it would best to start it as a new section: if it gets too big, it can be split off. You would be wise to read WP:Primary sources first: although the Consillium site would be ok to cite for two or three sentences, anything more needs a third party Reliable source, so that you don't just relay the official version. (You can't give your own opinion on it). When it is done, you can create a WP:Redirect article that points to your new section. Best wishes! --Red King (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Capital Markets Union
Hello, we have a project to write an article on the "Capital Markets Union" of the European Union. It turns out that when we search for it, it redirects to the page entitled Economy of the European Union. Given the fact that there is an already existing article on the EMU and one on the Banking Union, we find it relevant to create one separate article about the CMU project and for that we need to create consensus in talk page of the Talk:Economy of the European Union/Archive 2. The link to the draft is here: Draft:Capital Markets Union if you wanna check that out. If you can go to the talk page of the Economy of the European Union and express your views, I would be very grateful. Thank you a lot.--JoaoPillon (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Difference with" Eurozone" and "History of the Euro" ? Merge?
This article is very rich but how does it differ with Eurozone and History_of_the_euro ? Those are very overlapping articles which duplicates the amount of work needed to maintain those. A quick |Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union|History_of_the_euro statistics comparison shows Eurozone is the most widely visited entry, so it would make more sense to concentrate efforts there. Stanjourdan (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WMDE_Technical_Wishes&action=history#/notifications
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WMDE_Technical_Wishes&action=history#/notifications Mrsahed (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Good Mrsahed (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WMDE_Technical_Wishes&action=history#/notifications Mrsahed (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)