text:
Archipelago Sea

The Archipelago Sea (Saaristomeri, Skärgårdshavet) is a part of the Baltic Sea between the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland and the Sea of Åland, within Finnish territorial waters. By some definitions it contains the largest archipelago in the world by the number of islands, although many of the islands are very small and tightly clustered.

The larger islands are inhabited and connected by ferries and bridges. Åland, including the largest islands of the region, forms an autonomous region within Finland. The rest of the islands are part of the region of Southwest Finland. The Archipelago Sea is a significant tourist destination.

The Guardian's journalist Tristan Parker wrote an article praising the Turku Archipelago on July 29, 2021, mentioning that "nowhere has the gentle magic of the smaller islands – or their wildlife."

Geography and geology

The Archipelago Sea covers a roughly triangular area with the cities of Mariehamn, Uusikaupunki, and Hanko at the corners. The archipelago can be divided into inner and outer archipelagos, with the outer archipelago consisting mainly of smaller, uninhabited islands. The total surface area is 8300 km2, of which 2000 km2 is land.

The archipelago has a very large number of islands. The exact number depends on the definition of the term "island", as the size of the patches of dry land in the area varies from small rocks peeking out of the water to large islands with several villages or even small towns. The number of the larger islands of over 1 km2 within the Archipelago Sea (in provinces of Åland Isles and Southwest Finland) is 257, whilst the number of smaller isles of over 0.5 ha is about 17,700. If the number of smallest uninhabitable rocks and skerries is accounted, 50,000 is probably a good estimate. In comparison, the number of islands in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago is 36,563. Indonesia has 17,508 islands, according to the Indonesian Naval Hydro-Oceanographic Office. The Philippines has 7,107 islands.

The islands began emerging from the sea shortly after the last ice age. Due to the post-glacial rebound the process is still going on, with new skerries and islands being slowly created and old ones enlarged or merged. The current rate of rebound is between 4 and 10 millimetres a year. Because the islands are made of mainly granite and gneiss, two very hard types of rock, erosion is significantly slower than rebound. However, due to its southern location, the effect of postglacial rebound is smaller than for example than in Kvarken (Finnish: Merenkurkku) further north.

The sea area is shallow, with a mean depth of 23 m. Most of the channels are not navigable for large ships.

There are three crater-like formations in the archipelago. One of them, Lumparn in Åland, is a genuine impact crater. The two other formations are intrusions. The more prominent of these is the Åva Intrusion in the municipality of Brändö, which is visible in satellite photos and high-resolution maps. The other similar formation is in Fjälskär, between the main islands of Houtskär and Iniö.

Administration
The islands are divided between the region of Southwest Finland and the autonomous region of Åland. The border between the regions runs roughly along Skiftet (Kihti in Finnish), a relatively open sea area. Together with the islands near the coast of Sweden the area forms a Euroregion. The main ports in the area are Turku on the continent, and Mariehamn on Åland.

Åland
The Åland region is autonomous and demilitarized. It has its own regional parliament and has Swedish as its sole official language. The regional parliament has power over wide-ranging matters, including health services, education, environment, and postal services. Monetary and foreign policy are handled by the Parliament of Finland. The president of Finland has, in theory, right to veto the laws passed by the Åland regional parliament.

Defence
The eastern part of the archipelago is defended by the Archipelago Sea Naval Command, which has its main base in Turku. The defence is based largely on naval mines and coastal artillery. Both are effective in the archipelago, where the dense clusters of islands severely limit the manoeuvrability of invading vessels. The autonomous region of Åland is demilitarised. The Finnish Defence Forces are not allowed to enter the territory of Åland in peacetime (in times of war the FDF has the duty of defending Åland due to international treaties starting from the Åland crisis which resulted in Finland securing possession of the islands while becoming obliged to protect the islands' neutrality), and its residents are exempt from military service, although they can volunteer to serve in the army.

Municipalities
The archipelago is divided into 30 municipalities, grouped in the autonomous region of Åland and in the historical provinces of Varsinais-Suomi and Uusimaa. The municipalities in Åland tend to be quite small, with the municipality of Sottunga having only approximately 100 residents.

Island municipalities in Varsinais-Suomi:

Coastal municipalities in Varsinais-Suomi which also include some islands:

Island municipalities in Åland:

Coastal municipalities in Uusimaa which also include some islands:
 * Hanko
 * Raseborg (Bromarv)

The archipelago continues further to the east in Uusimaa, but Hanko is traditionally seen as a dividing point between the Archipelago Sea and the Gulf of Finland.

Demographics
The number of permanent residents on the islands is roughly 60,000, with 27,000 of them living in Åland. Also outside Åland most of the area has been more or less monolingually Swedish-speaking, now officially bilingual with a Swedish-speaking majority. The northern part of the area is monolingually Finnish-speaking.

Throughout its history the population of the Archipelago Sea has varied significantly. The population increased until the first half of the 16th century. After that the population went into decline as the carrying capacity of the environment was reached and wars and pestilence took their toll on the people. In the 19th century the population increased sharply as new, more efficient fishing methods were introduced. In the 20th century the population went into decline again, especially on smaller islands, due to rapid urbanization. Many smaller islands became completely uninhabited. During the recent decades increasing number of summer residences in the archipelago have revitalized some areas.

Many Finns have summer residences on the islands in the area, known for its natural beauty. Due to this the population of many islands can double or more during the summer. Although having a summer cottage in the archipelago is more common among the Swedish-speaking, the Swedish-speaking are a small minority on the mainland, and so most summer residents are Finnish-speaking, in contrast to the permanent residents. Kultaranta, the official summer residence of the president of Finland is on the island of Luonnonmaa in Naantali.

An anomalous feature in the demographics in the archipelago is the number of twins. The tendency for non-identical twin births is partly hereditary, and the necessary genes are prevalent in the archipelago. In the 18th and 19th centuries the proportion of twin births was greater than anywhere in Europe, and enormously higher than in continental Finland. The reason for this was fishing. Fish is an excellent source of protein and unsaturated fat. It was also available even when crops failed. Hence having twins maximizes lifetime reproductive success.

Economy and communications

The islands generally enjoy a high standard of living comparable to that of continental Finland. Fishing and fish processing are major industries. The archipelago is well known for its Baltic herring and rainbow trout products. Agriculture is limited by the small size and rocky nature of the islands. However, the climate is more favourable than in continental Finland and some islands, particularly Rymättylä, are famous in the nearby continental areas for producing the first new potatoes of the summer. The significance of tourism to the economy of the islands is constantly increasing.

The islands are linked by bridges and ferries, and in case of Åland, a small airport. The ferries are divided into two categories: "road ferries" (landsvägsfärja or simply färja in Swedish, lautta or lossi in Finnish) are free of charge and operate mostly on short routes between adjacent (large) islands. They are raft-like in construction and usually operated by the road administration. The small ones are cable ferries (kabelfärja in Swedish, lossi in Finnish), bigger ones do not use cables (and are called lautta in Finnish). The other ferries (förbindelsefartyg in Swedish, yhteysalus in Finnish) are more ship-like in construction, are operated by the maritime administration and may charge a small fee. They operate on longer routes covering several smaller or more distant islands. There are also large commercially operated cruiseferries connecting the Finnish cities of Turku and Helsinki to Åland and Sweden.

During cold winters official ice roads are established between some islands. It is also common to drive on ice to islands lacking official ice roads. This greatly eases transportation, as it makes it possible to simply drive a car (or even a heavy van if ice is very thick, usually every few years) from the continent to the islands. On the other hand, during spring and autumn there is a period of thaw (menföre in Swedish, kelirikko in Finnish) when the ice is too weak even for walking, but too thick for boating. This can leave some islands lacking a pier for large ships isolated for days or weeks. Access is only by hydrocopter, hovercraft or helicopter.

Many important shipping lanes cross the Archipelago Sea. Navigation is made hazardous by the labyrinthine archipelago, varying depth and numerous skerries. For this reason the islands are dotted with lighthouses of varying sizes and navigational marks. Maritime pilot services are maintained by the state.

Archipelago Ring Road
The most inhabited islands in the eastern archipelago in Southwest Finland are connected by the Archipelago Ring Road. There are approximately 160 to(-) of public roads and 30 to(-) of waterways along the Ring Road. The city of Turku is usually considered the starting point of the road. The route goes through following municipalities, villages, islands and island groups:

• # Turku

• # Raisio

• # Naantali

• # Merimasku

• # Askainen

• # Mietoinen

• # Taivassalo

• # Kustavi

• # Iniö

• # Houtskär

• # Korpo

• # Nagu

• # Pargas

• # Kaarina

• # Turku

There is also a shorter version of the route, the so-called "Small Ring Road", which utilizes a ferry connection between Rymättylä (part of Naantali) and Nagu, skipping numbers 4–11 in the list above. The length of the "Small Ring Road" is approximately 125 km.

The ring road is usually traveled by car or by bicycle. Most of the ferries along the road are free, but ferries between Houtskär and Iniö charge a small fee. It is possible to cover the Ring Road in one day by car, but usually travellers spend at least one night along the way. Approximately 20 000 tourist travel the Ring Road every year. The main tourist season is from June to August. The principal tourist attraction is scenery and nature along the way, but significant sights also include the Louhisaari manor and several medieval churches.

Culture

The culture of the archipelago resembles that of the Swedish-speaking coastal areas of Finland. Many features of typically Finnish culture, such as the popularity of sauna, have become ingrained in the culture of the islands. There are, however, several subtle differences. Maypoles are an essential part of the Midsummer festival in the archipelago but not in continental Finland. On the other hand, the continental Finnish Midsummer tradition of lighting bonfires has been introduced to the archipelago relatively recently.

Based on the languages spoken the archipelago can be divided into three parts. The Åland archipelago in the west is almost completely Swedish-speaking, the Åboland archipelago in the south is mostly Swedish-speaking and the northern archipelago is Finnish-speaking.

Because Christianity spread to the islands before the mainland, the churches on the major islands tend to be relatively old; dating from the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, with the oldest ones in Åland. More than 80% of Finns are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, and this proportion is even higher in the archipelago, as the area doesn't have an orthodox or catholic parish.

The culinary culture of the archipelago resembles continental Finnish cuisine. Naturally, there is a greater emphasis on fish, particularly baltic herring, salmon and rainbow trout. The island are also famous for traditional dark bread distinguished by the use of buttermilk, syrup, and malt among the ingredients. The main dish of the Christmas dinner is usually a northern pike, in contrast to the ham which is eaten in mainland Finland. Every Christmas the fishermen of Korpo deliver a pike for the president's table.

Nature and conservation

The islands provide a unique and diverse environment for wildlife. The bigger islands resemble the coastal regions of continental Finland whereas skerries have a radically different environment. Smaller islands are devoid of trees, but still harbour a rich plantlife. The environment is sunny, has a relatively long growing season and is fertilised by guano. On the other hand, nearly constant wind and thin or non-existent soil limit plant growth. The very low salinity of the Baltic Sea makes splashes of seawater more benign for plant life. While most of the islands are rocky, some are actually extensions of the Salpausselkä ridge system, and thus composed of terminal moraine. Such islands include Örö and Jurmo. The flora and fauna in these islands is more diverse than in their rocky neighbours.

The conditions can vary radically even within one small island, due to the features of the rock on which the islands are based. There may be small patches of fresh-water bogs, ponds of fresh water, ponds of brackish water, bushes, meadows, barren rocks, wind-beaten shores and sheltered coves on an island only a few tens of meters in diameter. Many plants have altered phenotypes due to the environment. For example, junipers on small islands grow only to a height less than 0.5 m, but can cover several square meters.

In contrast to the terrestrial and coastal ecosystems of the islands, the sea itself has a relatively low biodiversity. The reason for this is the brackish nature of the water. The salinity is only 0.6% in the Archipelago. The salinity has also varied greatly during the past, making it difficult for species to adapt. However, the great number of individuals indicates a favourable environment. Typical fish species are the Baltic herring, pike, white-fish, perch and flounder.

The area is home to many species which are not found elsewhere in Finland. Harbour porpoise is one example of such species. It is the only cetacean which is regularly sighted in the northern part of the Baltic Sea. The current population in the entire Baltic is estimated at 600 individuals, down from estimated 10 to 20 thousand a century ago. Another example is white-tailed eagle, which has a significant breeding population in the Archipelago Sea. Rare or endangered bird and mammal species found in the archipelago also include Caspian tern, greater scaup, grey seal and ringed seal.

The islands are a haven for seabirds. Species include mute swan, black guillemot, great crested grebe and numerous species of gulls. Recently great cormorants have spread to the archipelago and their numbers are increasing. This not necessarily viewed as a good thing by nature lovers, since great cormorants live in dense colonies which will eventually poison surrounding plant life by their excrement.

The greatest threat to the environment is eutrophication caused mainly by agriculture and fish farms. This is a particular threat to the Baltic Sea, since it is very shallow and thus has much less potential to dilute effluent from human activities. Eutrophication has been partly brought under control in Finland, but the effects are masked by the general decline in the condition of the Baltic Sea.

Many areas of the archipelago are protected from human activity by their sheer inaccessibility. The southern part of the Archipelago Sea belong to the cooperation area of the Archipelago National Park and there are many small nature conservation areas, where landing is prohibited in spring and summer.

Prehistory
The islands began rising from the water 10,000 years ago. At that stage the Danish straits were closed and the current Baltic Sea was the fresh-water Lake Ancylus. The water around the islands turned from fresh to brackish around 7600 years ago as the saline water from the North Sea penetrated further to the Baltic from the recently opened straits. The oldest archaeological finds in Dragsfjärd date back to ca. 4000 BC and represent the Pit-Comb Ware culture. During that period the outer archipelago was formed by the highest points of the main islands of Houtskär, Korpo and Nagu. Due to post-glacial rebound the entire archipelago has risen approximately 25 m since, enlarging existing islands and creating many more.

Swedish rule
During the 12th and 13th centuries Sweden established its control of the Archipelago Sea. At the same time Christianity started to spread to Finland, starting from the archipelago and the adjacent coastal area. The islands occupy a strategic position, guarding the approaches to Stockholm, Turku and the entire Gulf of Bothnia. Therefore, they were fortified by the Swedish empire during the Middle Ages. A royal postal route used to go via the northern islands in the 16th and 17th century.

According to legend, the notorious pirates known as the Victual Brothers, who terrorized the Baltic Sea region in the Middle Ages, would have lit stray fires in the Archipelago Sea, which would have lured other ships to shore, looted the booty and possibly killed the ship's crew. This is apparently just a later story tradition. According to the same tradition, the pirates were also joined by young adventurous men from coastal villages who did not see a future for themselves in their home region.

In 1808 the War of Finland broke out between Sweden and Russia. In April Russian troops occupied the archipelago, including Åland. Soon after the local residents, enraged by the confiscation of ships, rebelled. Aided by troops from Sweden the archipelago was cleared from Russian troops in May. The Swedish troops then used the islands as a staging area for the recapture of continental Finland. The archipelago remained in Swedish control until the end of the war, but in the subsequent Treaty of Fredrikshamn in 1809 Sweden was forced to cede the area along with rest of Finland. The Archipelago Sea became part of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland under the Russian Empire.

Grand Duchy of Finland
During the Crimean war an Anglo-French force attacked and destroyed the Bomarsund castle. In the Åland convention of 1856 the Åland side of the archipelago was demilitarised. The Russians moved troops back into the area in 1916, and for the next 5 years there was either Russian or Finnish military presence in Åland.

Independent Finland
Finland gained its independence from Russia in 1917. Shortly after, the Swedish speaking inhabitants of Åland, in the western part of the Archipelago, appealed to Sweden to annex the islands. The request received mixed support in Sweden, but led to the Åland crisis. The League of Nations was called in to resolve the situation, and in 1921 the League granted the sovereignty of the entire archipelago to Finland, despite the objections of the majority of Ålanders. However, Åland was given a wide autonomy, and its demilitarised status was reaffirmed.

In 1939 the Soviet Union attacked Finland in the Winter War. At the end of the war in 1940 Finland was forced to rent Hanko at the eastern extreme of the Archipelago Sea to Soviet Union as a military base. In 1941 the Continuation War broke out. Finland sent troops to Åland to guard against a possible Soviet invasion, which didn't materialize. The Finnish army also laid siege on Hanko, which was evacuated by the Soviet Union later that year. Finnish troops remained in Åland until the end of the war in 1944.

In 1995 Finland became a member of the European Union. The referendum on the membership was held separately in Åland, leading to the possibility of different outcomes. A rejection of the EU membership by the Ålanders would have created a situation similar to that of Greenland, which is an autonomous region of Denmark but is not part of the EU. However, the membership was accepted in both referendums.

title: Archipelago Sea


text:
Lockheed Martin Transportation & Security Solutions

Lockheed Martin Transportation and Security Solutions (LMTSS) is a Lockheed Martin business unit, formed of the combination of Lockheed Martin's Air Traffic Management (LMATM) unit with several other Systems Integration business units. LMTSS concentrates on Air Traffic Management and security-centric programs that involve large scale systems integration and transformational solutions.

LMTSS is based in Rockville, Maryland, USA, with other major offices in Eagan, Minnesota, USA; Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA and Swanwick, Hampshire, England and with many smaller offices in the United States and Great Britain.

History
LMTSS was preceded by LMATM, which started as a campus of IBM Federal Systems. When the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) awarded the contract of the Advanced Automation System (AAS) to IBM Federal Systems, the work was performed at a newly constructed campus in Rockville, Maryland. Due to AAS's large size, the entire campus became involved in the program. During the program's development, the campus became specialized in air traffic control programs. This would lead the campus to become a division that worked almost exclusively with the FAA and other civil air authorities like the United Kingdom's National Air Traffic Services (NATS).

In 1994, IBM was in financial difficulties. This led newly hired CEO Lou Gerstner to raise cash and rid IBM of business that was unprofitable or "not in the hardware and services paradigm". IBM Federal Systems was one of the few IBM operating units that was profitable and for which buyers could be found. The unit was sold to Loral Corporation, becoming Loral Federal Systems. In 1996, Lockheed Martin acquired Loral's Federal Systems, defense, and SI business units for $9,100,000. The Federal Systems Rockville campus was merged with other air traffic management businesses within the newly formed Lockheed Martin Federal Systems to become Lockheed Martin Air Traffic Management.

During this phase of mergers and acquisitions, the AAS program ran into troubles due to a variety of large scale integration and requirements issues. The program was canceled and restarted twice, first in 1994 and later in 1996. The program was eventually canceled by the FAA at Lockheed Martin's request. Parts of the AAS system were spun off into the much more successful Display System Replacement (DSR) and HOST Replacement programs in 1998 and 1999. LMATM also built the New En Route Centre (NERC) in 1998 and Air Traffic Control centers in Taiwan, Argentina, and South Korea.

By the year 2000, the company had become profitable with these and other ATC programs. Between 2000 and 2003, the company was baseline profitable. The company dealt with the loss of the New Scottish Centre (NSC) contract due to NATS and FAA budget cutbacks. Moderate layoffs were made in order to reduce head-count and keep the business unit out of debt.

In 2002 and 2003, The newly formed United States Department of Homeland Security started spending billions of dollars on large security-centric programs. Traditional defense and government contractors started compete vigorously for these programs. Lockheed Martin followed suit by reorganizing their Systems Integration business unit. Parts of the company that were not strictly focused on the United States Department of Defense were moved around to units that competed in the private sector or for civilian government programs. The LMATM unit was merged with the security-based groups whose customers were the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. and Canadian Census agencies, and other such organizations. The modified company was renamed Lockheed Martin Transportation and Security Solutions.

In August 2005, Lockheed Martin TSS was awarded a $212 million contract by the New York State MTA for a security system to protect Mass Transit operations in New York City, to include subways, commuter railroads and bridges and tunnels.

In September 2005, Lockheed Martin TSS was awarded a $308 million contract by the National Archives and Records Administration to design and develop the Electronic Records Archives (ERA) program. The ERA will be a project ensuring the safe storage and recall of the federal government's electronic records, regardless of format, for "the life of the republic."

Effective January 1, 2009, Lockheed Martin TSS was dissolved and the business was realigned within the Lockheed Martin IS&GS (Information Systems & Global Solutions) business area. Secure enterprise solutions (SES) programs became a part of Lockheed Martin IS&GS-Civil and the heritage aviation programs became part of Lockheed Martin IS&GS Internal & Next Generation. In mid-January, that latter unit was renamed Lockheed Martin IS&GS Global. However, after the departure of the Global business unit president, Judy Marks, the unit was realigned again. The aviation programs joined the rest of the former TSS programs, and now report under IS&GS-Civil.

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


text:
User talk:Rholton/archive02

Random bits
Hi Rholton, I just wanted to thank you for making me laugh. I saw "Medieval warfare - good structure, no meat" on cleanup and thought I'd see what sections the article was weak in. Congratulations on a beautifully succinct description of the page. :) I guess whoever wrote the headings found something better to do than write the article.  Fabiform 05:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, there have been some suggestions that we need to start cleaning out the old requests posted to Peer review. You are receiving this because you have posted one or more requests that have been there a long time. When you have a moment, please check it out and remove the request(s), along with any related material, if you have received adequate feedback. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 23:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the compliment on my disambiguation efforts. It is a tedious and often thankless task but someone has to do it. I saw that you are persuing an MDiv, where do you go to school? I am currently pursuing an MA in Religion at Trevecca Nazarene University. Kevin Rector 14:33, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm attending the Univeristy of Dubuque Theological Seminary, in Dubuque, Iowa. It's run by the Presbyterian Church (USA), though I am not Presbyterian, but United Methodist. I begin my final year of studies this fall. -Rholton 05:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Excellent, well, good luck in your studies. Kevin Rector 13:20, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Poll about whether we should keep either Euramerica or Laurussia
I accidently duplicated Laurussia in Euramerica. Since you contributed to these articles, I invite you to a pool on my TalkPage about how to remedy this.

Ŭalabio 19:38, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Wiki Junior Project
We are currently in the process of deciding what the first topics will be. We have already decided that the first humanities topic will be Countries of the World:South America. We need to decide what our first science topic will be. We already have plenty of pictures available for Big Cats, The Solar System and Human Flight. We're having a little vote to decide which one we should work on first. Please come to Wikijunior project first topics. Cheers! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Happy birthday, Rich! Best wishes. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And, apparently, thanks. ;)  Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hope you're having a great birthday! Jonathunder 03:47, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

categorisation
with AMEB, according to categorization it should be put in the most specific category, and certainly not in the top-level category. the category system should not be used as a system of keywords. thanks.clarkk 20:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfA
You're very welcome! -- R yan! |  Talk  10:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the plant is... Ruscus hypoglossum!
Thank you for identifying that plant! I wasn't able to view the link you sent me until I used the wayback machine, but it looks like that's the one. How did you ID it? --   Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:46, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
I have cited the sources where ID supporters argue that they are defending theism against materialism from their own keyboards. There is a controversy, I have documented it. If the ID trolls want it censored - and they have repeatedly censored material they don't like, that doesn't make it POV. It means that the POV trolls will not settle for anything other than a cut and paste press release from the Discovery Institute, with the rebutall buried down the page.

There is no good faith on the talk page, and supporting flame warriors - which is what you are doing - will not generate that discussion. As long as screaming "bigot" is acceptable, then I will not accept "consensus" of trolls.

Stirling Newberry 20:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: the discussion on the talk page has broken down with the slurs hurled by Ungtss and the bad faith of Ed Poor. Until this problem is remedied, I do not regard there as being a conversation from which consensus can be obtained, because consensus requires consent.

While I appreciate well meaning efforts to re-establish equalibrium, there are unaddressed problems on the page which must be dealt with first. Stirling Newberry 20:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if either my edit summary or post on the talk page has unintentionally caused offense, I will post a clarification later, as I am current making some edits to Gold Standard in response to comments from readers. Stirling Newberry 21:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism because
No it, falls under Sneaky vandalism, the minor edits they make makes the article opinion based by editing minor data and accusing an entier Nation or declaring things that are not official and offends one side. For me its annoying but I dont care about reverting a few times it gets annoying after the 5th edit. I make it neutral so everyone supposed to be happy. At least no one gets propoganda material. --Cool Cat 18:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll be more carefull with my using of the word vandalism. Starcraft 07:31, 2005 Feb 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StarCraft&diff=prev&oldid=10383859) The paragraphs in question have been moved to a sub article their return is not necesary, not real vandalism though (it was a repeting set of edits)

The other issue I accept I was wrong. --Cool Cat| My Talk 20:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD categorization
Hi Rholton.

Although being bold is an important feature and attitude on Wikipedia, I would encourage you to pause in your process of adding all the Votes for Deletion (VfD) subpages to your new category, Category:VFD voting. Those pages can already be readily found via Category:Pages on votes for deletion. If you would like to make changes to the way that VfD works or is reported, feel free to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.

Also, please be careful when you're editing other VfD entries; you want to be sure that you don't inadvertently delete other editors comments.

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * One more thought—if you want to track all past VfD discussions, you might suggest the creation of a category tag that's added to the template admins use when closing out VfD debates. Be warned, there are currently about sixty or seventy new VfD entries per day.  That makes for a category that adds about two thousand entries per month; twenty-five thousand per year...it might be a bit unwieldy.  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, tracking old voting was the intent. I do take your point about the size of the resulting category, and manually adding the category tag was going to be impractical anyway. It looks like Tony Sidaway's list of daily logs is a closer approximation of what I'm looking for. Would it perhaps make more sense to add category:VFD voting to each of the daily pages? -Rholton 16:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps...but I'm not an expert on all the black magic which surrounds the VfD mechanisms. :) What are you hoping to do with the category?  Again, you might raise the issue on the VfD talk page, or with some of the editors who are involved in the technical aspects of VfD. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process or Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Old. Are you aware of Archived delete debates, which does the same thing as the category? dbenbenn | talk 03:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.
Mark Richards 02:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recycling
Between the self-professed troll's disturbing behavior and trusting David Gerard's judgement, I am not willing to unblock at this time. I find no way to interpret his actions in good faith, as they seem designed solely to disturb a single user. If we can't at least temporarily block people for actions that would justify requesting a restraining order out in meatspace (not necessarily granting one, mind you), then the entire "policy" system is broken. While I agree that this needs to be discussed, I also think that it's better that the "suspect" be "detained" for the time being. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Indefinite" means that it has no set limit. While the software interprets this as "infinite", I meant it in the sense that I did not know how long it should last. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration policy / proposed amendment
I apologise; the note I left at the header of the page was not meant to appear as though the proposed amendment had already passed, but to indicate that the proposed amendment was soon likely to be passed. The policy has not yet been officially changed, but it is about to be subjected to this. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:11, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

M1126A Fryker
Hi Rich,

You removed my M1126A Fryker article and were kind enough to move it into my namespace and leave a message explaining why. Thank you very much, I sincerely appreciate that. However I disagree with your justification; in fact you linked to Patent nonsense and stated that '''It's April Fools, and the patent nonsense threashold is quite low. No. We will not spend 5 days on VFD to get rid of these jokes. That is clearly gaming the system.''

I read the patent nonsense article (thank you for linking to it, by the way, if you hadn't I probably wouldn't of bothered to read it) and I still can't find any justification for your actions. In fact the article states:

The following, while often regrettable, are not patent nonsense. Check the Deletion policy for information on how to handle these things.: I have shortened this list to things that only apply to this case for clarity only
 * Hoaxes
 * Vandalism (See dealing with vandalism)
 * Really poorly written content (See Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited?) I don't believe this qualifies but some might
 * Incompetent and/or immature material see above

Even with a very low threshold I believe your actions are explicitly listed as being against policy. You were nice enough to archive a copy of the article though and again I do appreciate that. However I believe it would of been better for you to at least move the article into Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense so it can be enjoyed in the future. Triddle 22:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Starting dispute resolution
Hi again Rich,

I am writing to you because you never responded to my previous message (User_talk:Rholton). Since I have not received a response I intend on moving forward with dispute resolution. I ask you to please keep the following in mind:
 * 1) I believe I am trying to uphold policy and get this article archived in the proper place for the future
 * 2) I am not a bad person; I am also a contributor and a member of this community
 * 3) I am trying to solve this in a manner that is consistent with the wikipedia ideals of community and consensus. It seems you are trying to solve this problem with the opposite (but I am not privy to the entire story as well) see Administrators, especially the paragraph that begins Administrators are not imbued with any special authority.

I would very much like to get this resolved ASAP and here is what I am looking for:
 * Follow policy in the matter related to this article
 * Have the article properly archived in Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

As a show of good faith and a demonstration that I would like to resolve this dispute (rather than try to escalate it for no reason) I am following the first item on the dispute resolution list a second time. If I don't receive a response from you in this matter with in approximately a week I will continue on to the next step of dispute resolution.

I hope we can work together to resolve this issue Triddle 19:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rholton/archive02


text:
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/KateWinsletTitanic

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the image below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

moved from main page for reasons of clarity Thryduulf 14:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems image deletion votes are very frequently moved, often by partisans who have already voted in one way or another. Moving votes around discourages participation in those votes. I don't think it makes the votes "clearer" in any way, and it creates confusion about the motives of those who move them. I think it should be avoided in the future. - Nunh-huh 19:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved it because after less than 48 hours it was already larger than the combined entries for three days. I left a very prominent note on the IfD page stating exactly where the discussion was now, and made the edit summaries very clear, and stated my reasons for doing so. I don't understand how this discourages partcipation. Thryduulf 20:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming you for moving it: image deletion discussions have frequently been moved, somewhat randomly, between pages. I'm suggesting that moving votes from their established position while voting is in progress is a bad idea, like moving the polling place in the middle of a vote. It certainly makes it harder to find the vote, and makes it more likely that smaller numbers of voters will find the proper place to express their opinions, and I'm suggesting that it should not be done in the future, for that reason. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Image:KateWinsletTitanic.jpg-- I've got nothing against nudity or explicitness in an encyclopedic context (see e.g. my vote to keep the autofellatio pic), but this picture should be deleted for the same reason as the Charlotte Ross one. It's not encyclopedic--doesn't contribute anything to the article that we couldn't get from a different, less potentially controversial image. Meelar (talk) 00:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) 'Please note: nominator is an agnostic social libertarian MoveOn member who voted to keep Image:Autofellatio2.jpg. All accusations of Christian conservatism are highly misplaced.

Vote Count

 * Keep: 23
 * Delete:17

12 April 2005

 * Keep for now. The edit history of the article appears to show an agreement to keep it in there, but there doesn't appear to have been any arguments for or against placed on the talk page. This should not be deleted until those involved with the article have had chance to have their say. Thryduulf 01:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as I see it as a key part in their growing relationship. No, I didn't upload the image but certainly think it's exclusion should be considered censoring (Meeler is not the first to want to get rid of it).  That said, I fail to see how this image WP:NOT is satisfied to delete this image: no violated policies come to mind, it's not obviously inappropriate, and was released in a motion picture (meaning I can't fathom how it would violate FL laws). I think it merits inclusion and doesn't stand against policies to merit deletion. Cburnett 02:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an encyclopedia, not a kiddie book.  RickK 02:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a book for drooling adolescents. How very peculiar that of some 280,000 frames that might be selected to represent this film, the Wikipedia editorial process has led us to assert, apparently with straight faces, that the one with titties in it is the one that is most important. - Nunh-huh 03:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * One user chose this one frame of 280,000. That leaves you with 279,999 other frames to choose from if you want to upload another screenshot.  I'm also not sure the "drooling adolescents" quip was necessary considering that there are 16.2 million hits and 1.5 million images hits for "porn" on google. This image is *much* closer to art than pornography. Cburnett 03:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't take "drooling adolescents" personally: however, it's an apt description for those who "happened" to choose the tittie pic as an illustration of the Titanic movie. The frame has been implicitly "defended" as a wise choice by all who vote to retain it, so it's not a case of it being the "judgment" of just one user. - Nunh-huh 04:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that anybody who might be of the opinion that this an attractive picture of a very moving, significant and memorable scene in the movie is a "drooling adolescent". Don't you consider it possible that grown-ups might like looking at pictures of beautiful half-naked women? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not try reading what I am saying, and not reacting to what I "seem" to be saying? Yes, of course it's possible that grownups might like looking at pictures of half-naked women. Or fully naked women. Or fully naked men. Or naked children. But your (possible) desire to look at any of them is not a reason to have it in Wikipedia, and none of them are appropriate choices for illustrating this article. - Nunh-huh 17:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the article is about titanic and this is a very good still from Titanic, it illustrates a pivotal scene in the movie, and it's also a very pretty picture precisely because it shows a charming half-naked woman. So why do you continue to pretend that those who want to keep it are drooling imbeciles? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a pretense, and "imbecile" is your word, not mine. I understand that you'd prefer to respond to what I didn't say, but you really should stop. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not using the word imbecile, but you are acting as if those who want this picture in the article only want it there because it has nudity. In other words, you're acting as if those who disagree with you are imbeciles.  Moreover, when this is pointed out to you, you act in a very trollish manner.  I think it is time that *you* stopped. Address the subject and stop insulting people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the subject, though I've displeased you with an answer that disagrees with your opinion, and in return you've suggested I'm a troll. I don't think I'm the one who's doing the insulting here, Tony. - Nunh-huh 22:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You've "addressed the subject" by describing those who like the picture in various insulting ways and steadfastly refusing to respond to suggestions that the image depicts a pivotal scene in the movie (the drawing is recovered from SS Titanic in the movie and kicks off the story), instead preferring to bang away on your highly personalized accusations against those who defend the picture. Enough! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with me, that's fine. But I will continue to voice my opinions, whether you want to hear them or not. And when you try to "spin" my opinions as insults, I will continue to counter your mischaracterization. It's clear you'd like more breasts and blow-jobs in Wikipedia. I don't particularly think we need to have them in articles where they are irrelevant. - Nunh-huh 22:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You just can't help yourself, can you? You deny that you're insulting anyone, but you just can't resist one more dig, one more bit of slimy innuendo.  This isn't about a disagreement, it's about your use of inappropriate language, and your continual attempts to deflect criticism for it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

12 April 2005 (continued)

 * Keep. No grounds for deletion. --Carnildo 03:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The scene is a very memorable one in the movie (the drawing is referenced, for instance, in Finding Nemo) It's also a very pretty picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to delete this image. Rama 13:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part because it's a beautiful, artistic image, and part because this type of rabid pro-cencorship (on the grounds of a blurry tit, no less) is starting to piss me off more and more for every time they strike. A boob never killed anyone, children included! --TVPR 16:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that this is artistic and that it adds to the Titanic (1997 movie) article. I don't think this image is pornographic (nudity is not necessarily pornography), and it adds to the content of the article. It is also a fairly important part of the movie plot. --Deathphoenix 16:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP It's a bit different than a shot of guy blowing himself (even though it was artistically lit). Gzuckier 17:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- For the same reasons Nunh-huh mentions above. I think a mixture of people who have kneejerk reactions to anything they can falsely label censorship and juvenile droolers who are supporting a rather poor quality image that does absolutely nothing for the article that a non-nude image would do. I mean, come on, why have an image like this when there many, many others more representative for the topic? DreamGuy 18:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- For the same reason as Nunh-huh and DreamGuy. This adds nothing to the article except controversy. So the only reason to keep it in the article is to reduce WikiLove, and to increase Wikistress. I hate all these stupid debates about nudity. We exists to be an encyclopedia not a bastion of freedom of speech. We are here to provide information NOT to make political statements about censorship. Having nude and/or sexually explicit pictures in our encyclopedia upsets enough people that it detracts significantly from the task of making an encylopedia and that is reason enough to delete this picture (and others like it). There is an definite agenda by the nude-picture-pushers here and it has nothing to do with creating an NPOV encyclopedia. Kevin Rector (talk) 22:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Quick note: Voting delete is making a political statement about censorship. --Mrfixter 23:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Quick note backatcha: I voted delete for disrupting Wikipedia, not to censor the picture which I don't personally find offensive. Kevin Rector (talk) 00:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * A nude picture does not "disrupt" wikipedia. --Mrfixter 00:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. Mine is that images that may offend are potentially disruptive if they are not reasonably predictable content for the article in which they appear. A reader coming to the Titanic article is unlikely to expect to see nudity—an imagery that most of us appear to recognise as being offensive to a significant constituency. Recognising this is not tantamount to being a member of that constituency. I agree with those that claim this to be a pleasant and rewarding image. My pleasure in it does not make it an appropriate illustration of a review of the movie in which it appears, however. --Theo  (Talk) 00:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is also NOT offensive to a significant non-prudish constituency. Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of peoples tightassedness (do not take this as a criticism of tight asses, in the right context of course). Recognising a constituency is one thing, being an aplogist for their agenda is another. You made the choice. --Mrfixter 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Deferring to the "prudes" of society is sometime called being civil, maybe we could call it being polite, heck let's just call it being nice. By that same token it would be nice if you would keep your langauge a bit more civil and polite. Kevin Rector (talk) 01:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Letting all the mini-John Ashcrofts censor WP for the sake of a breast (and their prudish over-reaction to a breast) is ludicrous. I like being nice to people, but hey, lets build an encyclopedia first and lets worry about nannying censorship another time. PS I am not in synagogue, my language is fine and dandy, boy howdy! --Mrfixter 10:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What the heck is a "mini-John Ashcroft"? Why is it so hard for you to understand that we ought not to have a nude image when a non-nude would suffice. Why do you not see that this is valuable for the sake of esprit de corp and community building? And your language is crude and rude, regardless of your setting. Kevin Rector (talk) 13:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Should've said "wannabe John Ashcroft", meaning is clearer. Letting the nannying instincts, the schoolmarms censoring should be allowed to build a community? I thought WP was trying to be an encyclopedia first and foremost! Just because its nudity is not an argument for deletion, cuz this be the wikipedia, not prudishnannyingchristianright-bowdlerize-o-pedia. And my language is not crude or rude, from where I come from anyhow! The Moral Majority is neither... --Mrfixter 14:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm done with you. Thank God I'm not where you're from. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:02, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Go in peace. --Mrfixter 15:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a fine screenshot. —Markaci 2005-04-12 T 22:41 Z
 * Delete because the image is copyright, wilfully controversial, and is not the most significant scene of the film. I find it hard to justify fair use of this image as the only illustration of an article on the film unless it is fundamentally pivotal, which it appears not to be. I believe that Jack's dissuasion of Rose from suicide, the iceberg collision and the splitting vessel are more significant. --Theo  (Talk) 22:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - This image is copyrighted and while it may be fair-use it isn't essential to the article.   —  マイケル   ₪  22:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP will not crumble because of this beautiful, encyclopedic image. The nannying Christian Right will not inherit Wikipedia. Go make Censorpedia somewhere else. P.S. Thanks for spamming the mailing list. --Mrfixter 23:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Copyright image, not encyclopedic. No reason for a nude pic unless the subject or article specificially calls for it.  This subject does not. A clothed pic will do. Gamaliel 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

13 April 2005

 * Delete. Wikipedia seems to be turning into a place where people are more interested in pursuing political statements than an encyclopedia: at least, that's how this picture's inclusion appears to me.  There is no reason apparent to me that justifies going out of our way to include this picture of a partially nude woman in the context of a popular movie--all of the whining about censorship and how it isn't "naughty" to enjoy looking at a nude woman ignores the central fact that this picture (and the others that are apparently slowly cropping up here) is not intended to edify or inform (something the autofellatio pic at least had going for it).  It's intended to shove it in the faces of those of us who are apparently too "conservative" or "prudish" for the more enlightened Wikipedians' tastes.  If not wanting this picture in the Titanic article is a sign that I am in the "Censorpedia" crowd, then perhaps you are right, and I will spend no more of my energy or talent contributing here. Jwrosenzweig 00:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, image content deliberately chosen to cause controversy. silsor 00:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gratuitous in the Titanic article, and should be removed from that article, then removed as an orphan.   It it hard to believe that this photo wasn't uploaded and inserted into the Wikipedia article in order to make a point or cause controversy.  --BM 00:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that there are no delete votes that cite any policy. In fact, the most invoked reason (loosely stated) is that it doesn't belong based on the nudity, which no matter which way you justify it...it is censorship.  WP policy makes it clear that WP does not censor.  If you intend on changing WP's no-censorship policy, then this is not the forum to make it. Cburnett 00:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not making it clear. An article or image created with the intent to disrupt Wikipedia is, in fact, covered by the deletion policy, and that is what I contend this is.  Also, so that I can read it and consider it, please point me to the policy page that declares that Wikipedia disavows censorship?  I tried Censorship and No censorship to no avail. Jwrosenzweig 00:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A policy implicit in my vote is Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Theo (Talk) 00:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I will note further that Profanity and its talk page suggest strongly to me that the bulk of this community at one time agreed that foul language, potentially offensive images, etc., ought to be avoided except in cases where they are clearly warranted--I would suggest that this also is a point to consider concerning this image (although I admit that WP:Profanity is semi-policy, for reasons I cannot fully understand). Jwrosenzweig 00:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. Curious though, you must not read others' opinions because it's linked in my original response. Cburnett 00:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the link again--I apologize for missing its original placement earlier. I disagree with how you are reading that page (the very same page notes that Wikipedia is not a forum for unfettered free speech).  I grant that the issue is a tricky one, however, and as noted above, perhaps the answer is simply that my goals and this project's goals have drifted too far apart.  Thank you for being so kind as to help me, both with the link, and with the effort to help me be a more careful reader of others' opinions. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * On the same page we see that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Yet images like this turn it into one. Kevin Rector (talk) 00:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * So does Jesus and Adolf Hitler. Cburnett 00:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm also curious to read this "disrupt wikipedia" as grounds for deletion. Should we delete Jesus or any of the other number of pages that certainly disrupt WP for constant vandalism, protection, arguing, revert warring, etc.?  But what's most interesting is that this image has been on there fore more than a month and is just not getting WP:IFD'd.  Hardly a disruption if you ask me. Cburnett 00:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of response that makes me wonder if there can be any real dialogue here. You obviously feel that you are making a reasonable comparison.  It is my feeling that a comparison of this sort is a blatant distortion designed for the winning of an argument, something along the lines of Godwin's law, although less severe.  I see a very major difference between a controversial topic, which Wikipedia must of course cover, and an image which is controversial only by its inclusion in a particular article.  Is this distinction not clear to you? Jwrosenzweig 00:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that comes off too rude--by the final sentence, I'm not asking if you can understand what I am saying, since I am sure that you do. What I am asking is whether or not you agree that Wikipedia can theoretically react differently to controversial topics than it does to controversial images. Jwrosenzweig 00:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (This was written the same time as Jwrosenzweig's response above) You're making a false comparison when you compare any highly notable yet controversial article and a controversial image that is entirely ancilliary to an article. When you say that it isn't disruptive because it's been a month is not true either because it became disruptive when it came to light and the general populace became aware of it. Kevin Rector (talk) 00:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I let you decide for yourself if I'm playing devil's advocate and giving you a hard run for your money...or not. That said, so far, I only see censorship happening here.  Controversial images and controversial topics, not sure I see that they are really all that different.  It just so happens that the bulk of people find the controversy of Adolf Hitler or Jesus more tolerable than nudity.  Even ruling it out on grounds that nudity is only valid in nudity related topics, nevermind that it's actually in the movie.  Now uploading a nude picture of Kate Winslet on some beach is an entirely different scenario: more than likely, Kate didn't authorize that picture unlike the scene in Titanic.

 * If my memory serves me right, was there not some controversey surrounding Titanic because of the nude scene in question (or was it the sex in the car scene)? Cburnett 01:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete: I would agree that in the context of the movie, the scene where this shot is from is entirely appropriate, and there are certainly reasons why a still like this could be used in Wikipedia. If you were going to illustrate, say Showgirls, a still featuring nudity might be highly appropriate, as the movie was about women who get their gear off for a living.  If, for some reason, there was an extended discussion of the scene in question in the Titanic article, a still of the scene would make sense.  However, given that the image is used as a general illustration from the movie, and the scene in question is hardly the best-known one (the shot of Winslet on the bow of the boat is much more famous), I see no reason to use a shot featuring nudity when there are many others of just as much or more encyclopedic value that could be used.  --Robert Merkel 05:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. no big deal. — Davenbelle 05:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I echo the above comments. Burgundavia 07:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * As an attempt at compromise I've uploaded Image:Titanic Movie Leo Kate Kiss.jpg which is another screenshot from the movie that shows their relationship building without potentially offending a significant portion of our audience.Kevin Rector (talk)
 * Delete. While I am not opposed the nudity itself, the image has little place in the article. The subtitle claims that it is indicative of their 'growing relationship', but that isn't what this image depicts.  An image of them dancing together, or embracing/kissing would be better suited for the job.  I would clasify this image as a shock/controversy generator rather than a meaningful addition to the article. TheDaveRoss 14:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia! Even tho' this is your fourth edit in total, I am sure you know your way around already! --Mrfixter 14:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep I agree with Burgundavia. SchmuckyTheCat 15:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would like to register a particular objection against the argument that this image (or any other, really) "disrupts Wikipedia" and should be removed on that ground. That interpretation of the "disruption" policy would permit those who dislike any piece of content to accuse it of "disrupting Wikipedia" merely because it offends them and incites them to raise a fuss. For instance, I am offended by Communist propaganda. However, it would be wrong of me to claim that someone who uploads images of Communist propaganda is therefore disrupting Wikipedia by offending me, and that such images should be deleted on that ground. Instead of accusing others' work of offending or inciting us, we need to take responsibility for our own reactions and not be disrupted by that which offends us. The disruption policy is there to inhibit trolling; it is not a backhanded excuse for censorship. --FOo 15:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep I am all for taste and decency, but I do not see this image as indecent. I think this scene is a main part of the film. The way Rose was introduced into the film was through the finding of her sketch in the safe. I thought the nude scene was an important part of the love story. CiaraBeth 22:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete until someone can do a better screencap. The quality of this image is abominable. —Stormie 22:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

14 April 2005

 * Keep Anybody who doesn't want to see nudity on Wikipedia can go . - TigerShark 00:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is degenerating into a dumpground for images that are sensitive to many readers. That is not censorship but responsibility. JFW | T@lk  00:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. That is a well-known scene from the movie. Being offensive to some puritan readers is not a reason. The same readers would probably object the images from the article of Woman, too. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 13:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Breasts, as we all known, are primarily used for feeding babies. It's no big deal. (Privately, let me add, if we are going to censor woman's breasts because it offends some Fundamentalist Americans, we as well might censor woman's faces, as those offends some Fundamentalists Iranians. [I took both Iran and USA both as an examples of Religious State. I hope nobody will be offended, and if so, I apologize.]). Przepla 19:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -Frazzydee|✍ 20:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

15 April 2005

 * Delete - not fair use, but disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Not the first breasts on film, not a key scene from the film or the story of the Titanic, just a few children having a snigger, and some absolutist anti-censors who would rather spoil the project by turning it into a hard and soft pornography gallery than make it useful. If you want to see breasts, look at Category:Images containing nudity. --Audiovideo 00:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion and you are entitled to your vote, but why did you then go straight to the article page and change the image yourself? TigerShark 00:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He commented on the talk page, as you did when you reverted. --Henrygb 01:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a picture of a human, and a very nice one at that. Wikipedia should not be dictated to by those unlucky enough to be afflicted by psychological problems that cause them to find the human body offensive, or who seek to prevent children from seeing it in the mistaken belief that it will harm them. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I haven't watched Titanic since about the time it came out in 1997. The movie was rated PG-13. I'm surprised it actually showed a female breast. I did a quick search on it and found out the screen capture is real. Anyways, this is a Hollywood copyrighted image in addition it shows some female skin which of course cause some uproar in some demographics. Not everybody has the same ideals of nudity. --Anonymous Cow 01:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless there are copyright problems. I see no problem with the content.-gadfium 02:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a copyright violation, and a poor quality image. Jonathunder 15:30, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

18 April 2005

 * Keep The nudity is no big deal, but it was a subject of major discussion when the movie was released. It has merit. The croped version of the image is censorship in that it is a less accurate depiction of the scene (a reader who'd heard of the debates around the release of the movie would be confused by the image) and because the change supports the viewpoint that we consider nudity to be wrong. The director would have been furious if theaters had decided to crop the frames themselves, so we shouldn't do it either. (and moving the vote off the page is a sneaky way to avoid participation) --Gmaxwell 16:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

19 April 2005

 * Delete It's an atrociously poor screen-cap, it's intended to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and it's not terribly illustrative to the article at hand. That being said, I steadfastly oppose any motions to delete based on the content of the image, which is inoffensive to anyone who has the capacity for rational thought. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise image
A small number of users are claiming that a "consensus" has been reached on the article's discussion page, to replace this image (and have actioned this). This seems to be completely ignoring the debate here. TigerShark 00:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the debate here seems, quite frankly, less relevant now--most or all of these votes were made before User:Kevin Rector uploaded the compromise attempt at Image:KateWinsletTitanic2. Most of the discussion since then, on Talk:Titanic (1997 movie), seems to indicate a preference for that issue, by people on both sides of the issue. Meelar (talk) 00:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I see your point Meelar. But I thought that this should be raised on this page too, so that anybody who is only following the debate here could have their say. Cheers. TigerShark 00:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed...IfD seems entirely the wrong venue for an article content discussion. Now that there is a choice among images, it's something that should be hashed out on the article talk page. If no satisfactory resolution can be achieved there, then list the article on RfC. Once a decision is made about which image to use, then we can come back here and delete the orphaned image.

For the record, I like the new image because it is technically and aesthetically superior. I have no objection on general principles to Winslet's breasts. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Censorship or selection
I can see Mrfixter's point about those of us who recommend deletion being apologists for the prudes. I am not yet sure that I accept it (I am still processing) but it is significantly more constructive than some of the allegations that are flying about. Acknowledging that this might be an apology for prudery, my stance is that I want this to be an encyclopdia that will be consulted by as many people as possible. This does not mean that I seek the omission or elimination of all controversial material but it does mean that I adopt a principle of 'least surprise'. I see this as an extension of the respect that I hope others will afford me. Avoiding unecessary offence seems courteous to me; avoiding all offence seems irresponsible. So, for me, the issue is about where we draw the line: And I think that 'least surprise' is my best guide to that line. Two analogies: I own a games shop that has an adults-only games section. If anyone complains about the nature of anything in that section, we explain what 'adults-only' means and suggest that they avoid those shelves. We do not put games involving drinking or sexual matters outside that section. Similarly, I once owned a models distributor that included a dozen pornographic metal figurines amongst its range of 20,000 items. We listed them in the catalogue but did not illustrate that section. In both cases, mixing the potentially offensive material in with the rest would lose us more customers that we would gain. This may be censorship but it is not censorious. --Theo (Talk) 15:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trend toward titties
I can see it now: in their drive to purge Wikipedia of all "censorship", the titty inclusionists will wind up hurting the very people they say they want to help: all those poor, ignorant people in the third world and the masses of languishing political prisoners suffering in dictatorships.

There is no quicker way to get an Internet filter set up against Wikipedia (or an import ban on DVD 1.0) than to insist on including sexy pictures.

Personally, I think the autofellatio images suck: they literally bite the big one, and there's been a collossal circle jerk about including them.

What a childish game. First, you give people grounds to attack you; then, you complain about how they aren't nice to you.

(On the other hand, if someone were actually to describe the scene where Jack draws his the rich guy's fiancee naked, and expresses how this scene relates to the rest of the movie or how it impacted on the film's MPAA rating, then maybe a frame of Kate Winslet's blurry left teat would be justified. But if your real motivation is just to show some forbidden flesh - and we can guess that by checking the history of whether the image came before the text it illustrates - then you're putting the cart before the horse.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually some time prior to your edit here I did exactly that. Of course it's all in the movie anyway.

 * I didn't discuss how the scene "impacted on the film's MPAA rating" because the movie got an absurdly lenient MPAA rating. Despite extremely horrifying scenes of mass death by drowning and one particularly harrowing scene of a frozen baby in a life jacket, the movie passed with a PG13 under MPAA.  This means that it is suitable for children under 13 but parents are strongly cautioned about some content that may be unsuitable.  In the UK, the movie got a 12, which means that nobody under 12 could legally see it at all unless accompanied by an adult, and nobody under 12 can legally buy or rent the video or DVD.  Believe me, that rating had very little to do with "titties".  Nudity was classed by BBFC as "infrequent, moderate"  Incidentally, iidb says that Cameron drew the portrait, and his hands can be seen sketching on camera in the scene.

 * But seriously, what's the fuss about the boobs? This is a pivotal scene in the movie, the one scene that contains the portrait and the Heart of the Ocean, which together unify the past and present scenes, with Rose and Jack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, Ed, none of what you have said seems to have any evidential basis at all. Your depiction of those who don't agree with you as being involved in a 'drive to purge Wikipedia of all "censorship"' is a falsehood, your very strange statement that voting not to delete this picture from Wikipedia will hurt "poor, ignorant people in the third world and the masses of languishing political prisoners suffering in dictatorships" is, well, very silly. Your implication that anyone involved in this vote is by doing so insisting on including sexy pictures in Wikipedia 1.0 is false.  Indeed, it appears to me that everything in your edit that isn't simply an expression of your opinion is a falsehood. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, but I must have missed a point here: How does showing nudity on WP hurt political prisoners in dictatorships? I just don't see the connection here. -- AlexR 23:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * They will be so crushed when they find out that their champions in the free world are titty-inclusionists, that they will die of shame.</heavy sarcasm> --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I know what I am about to say is not strictly encyclopedic but LOL. WTF have political prisoners got to do with Kate Winslets left breast? If it was her right breast, would that satisfy the global censorship brigade?

 * In fact, the attempt to censor is not to stop WP being filtered (evolution did that already, eh?) or DVD import restrictions (LOL!!!) but to assuage some sorry ass prudes. To quote from a marvellous post on the mailing list:

 * ''"I suggest that it is a much better rule that people who are easily offended should instead take responsibility for their own exposure to the kinds of material that they know offend them. They should be expected to know themselves -- Gnothi seauton -- and conduct themselves in a manner that does not lead to them disrupting the encyclopedia project.

 * It seems to me that if anyone here is in the habit of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" it is those who persist in calling for the deletion of images on no other grounds but their own personal dislike. - Karl A. Krueger"'' --Mrfixter 00:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * On VP, I argued that some editors make up some fictional 9 year old kids looking at WP without supervision in order to promote their censorship ideas. More generally, some editors make up some unpleasant situations that could possibly happen, and they make them appear as some clear and present danger.
 * First, I've asked around, and so far we have received a very low number of email complaints from normal users (I'm not counting editors) because of nudity: 2. Both were not related to normal Wikipedia content, but to vandalism, such as vandals sticking pictures of penises or goatse everywhere. Perhaps there were more and they went unnoticed, but I think that we may safely say that we in any case get a minimal amount of complaints about nudity, while being, according to Alexa, the 62nd most viewed Web English-speaking site in the world.
 * Furthermore, I contend that before libraries, governments etc. consider censoring us because of nudity, they would perhaps consider writing us some kind of official email. So far, nothing has happened.
 * Now back to the problem of little kids. Seriously, we have a number of articles whose content, though not related to sex, is probably unsuitable for little children. We have articles with details about torture, grisly crimes, etc. I also doubt a little child would appreciate the sight of the naked fleeing little girl who was nearly napalmed to death.
 * On the Titanic picture: I note that a number of major museums around the world display considerable amounts of "classical" paintings that contain a lot of gratuitous nudity (I mean, all those Greek goddesses and nymphs...). These museums are visited by school groups. Thus, it seems that "artistic" nudity is acceptable. Here, we have a picture of somebody painting a nude... David.Monniaux 16:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decision to keep
This has been listed for more than the requisite seven days and looks like a strong keeper. I'll leave this discussion up for twenty-four hours and then archive it on the image talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify, a lack of a consensus to delete is not the same as a consensus to keep. But, in a vote for deletion, the burden of consensus is on the deletionists. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. This is one of the strongest keepers I've seen on IfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Device register

A Device Register is the view any device presents to a programmer. Each programmable bit in the device is presented with a logical address and it appears as a part of a byte in the device registers. Then programming of these bits can be achieved by reading from or writing to these device registers. Most devices have at least these two device registers:
 * 1) Data Register: to which the data to be input/output is read from/written to the device.
 * 2) Control/Status: Which selects/shows the mode of operation of the device.

title: Device register