text:
User talk:Cauleyflower

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 04:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Fair use rationale for File:Larne Grammar School Crest.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Larne Grammar School Crest.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions alert
The article Flag of Northern Ireland is under a 1RR restriction. Please be aware of this when you are editing the article, as this is the only notice you may receive. Thank you. Katietalk 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks
I wanted to let you know that your edit summary here and this comment by you contains personal attack. Please avoid repeating same behavior in future while interacting with others. Thank you. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No it does not, it contains the truth. Cauleyflower (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Be it a truth or anything else, it was an attack. Your edits contained racial and national epithets directed at other editors which is clearly considered as personal attack by the community. Note that repeating this behavior may lead to blocks, in some cases. Anyway, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Mhhossein (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What a load of nonsense. They contained an accurate description of the political philosophy being pushed. A political nationalism which is being used to undermine another nation using Wikipedia as a tool to do so. I make no apologies. Cauleyflower (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Template:UKFlags. This is a final warning because of the history you have of adding such information on a variety of articles though it has been dealt with numerous times before (and you have a 1rr restriction on a relevant article about it as well).  DDStretch    (talk)  00:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And you are completely incorrect. Undoing the censorship of the Northern Ireland flag on Wikipedia is not "vandalism". If anything, the Irish Nationalists who started a nonsense censorship of it are the "vandals". Cauleyflower (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Howdy Cauleyflower. Recommend you get a consensus for the changes you wish to make, at the Template-in-question :) GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

1rr restrictions on all articles relevant to Northern Ireland Flags
Per The Troubles arbitration case, all articles that contain information about the Northern Ireland Flag, are also under restrictions. Please note that other disruptive or inflammatory behaviour could also result in a block. I'm sending you this so that you can be helped to not inadvertently step over the line in some of the discussions or edits that you do, though it is, of course, up to you what you do. I will be endeavouring to warn others who I discover have been contributing to articles that contain contentious material about any Northern Ireland flag. I would rather not see anyone have action taken against them. It is far better to edit within the restrictions and with others than against others. DDStretch   (talk)  16:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for informing. I hope we can engage constructively from now on. Cauleyflower (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cauleyflower


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-04-18/Andrea Dworkin death

A major Wikipedia news scoop, in publishing that Andrea Dworkin had died before any other source knew about it, echoed around the internet last week as many bloggers picked up on the slow-breaking news of her death.

On a newsblog run by The Guardian, Simon Jeffery noted that Wikipedia had posted her date of death more than 24 hours before The Guardian's own obituary, the first to be printed in by a major news outlet. Jeffery opened his entry, "Wikipedia — first with the news", by quoting blogger Joe Gratz's comment, "Imagine an encyclopedia that had someone’s death noted in their biography before the first major news outlet had even published an obituary. That’s Wikipedia."

Events in recent weeks have shown Wikipedia's speed in updating biographical entries with news of the subject's death. In closely-watched situations like Pope John Paul II and Terry Schiavo, Wikipedia's entries were updated essentially simultaneously with media reports. After being one of the first sites to note recent deaths like those of Johnnie Cochran and Mitch Hedberg, Wikipedia clearly beat mainstream sources on this news.

How it came about
The process of confirming this event to the satisfaction of the editors working on the article took nearly an entire day itself. Dworkin's date of death was originally added by Stockma at 01:58 (UTC) on 10 April, a few hours after the event. The account's only contributions were to update Dworkin's biography and add her to the list of people who died on 9 April.

Because the news could not be confirmed in any media sources, Moink reverted the article at 11:59 (UTC) to remove the information. Discussion continued on the talk page, and Viajero restored it at 16:11 (UTC). Diderot remained concerned that the information was all third-hand and smacked of rumor, so he removed it again at 18:16 (UTC). Moink finally restored the death date at 22:41 (UTC), after receiving forwarded emails from another Wikipedian that contained enough detail for the report to appear credible.

Since The Guardian did not run its story until shortly before 18:00 (UTC) on 11 April, Wikipedia scooped the mainstream media on this story by anywhere from 19 to 40 hours, depending on how one accounts for the back-and-forth edits as the issue was being debated. The difficulty of convincing other Wikipedia editors of the veracity of breaking news is a challenge that has been encountered previously in similar situations, as with the unrest in Belize earlier this year, when someone provides information ahead of mainstream media sources.

Jeffery said the situation likewise caused some confusion at The Guardian, "unused as we were to researching a news story and finding Wikipedia the sole supporting published source, breaking the news in its own quiet and understated manner." He pointed to the talk page discussion in his post, and blogger Earl Mardle also commented on the open process used to verify the information. Mardle predicted, "For now Wikipedia people still defer to the corporate media for confirmation but as citizen journalism gains confidence and resources, that will fade."

Also this week: Editor's note — Dworkin scoop — Tax exemption — Search — Spoken articles — Encarta digs — Design contest — T.R.O.L.L. — Features and admins — Press coverage

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


text:
User talk:Acreature

Hello Creature and Welcome!

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

Thank you for your fix to Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky and for providing edit summaries. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov 04:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Acreature


text:
User talk:Haussaud

Please make your suggestions on Talk:Ward Churchill. What you are doing is not helpful. Alternate versions of articles are detrimental to Wikipedia. From a brief glance, your article has many POV problems. Rhobite 04:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Haussaud


text:
Jock (cartoonist)

Mark Simpson, known by the pen name Jock, is a Scottish cartoonist, best known for his work in 2000 AD, The Losers, and more recently Batman and Wolverine. He is also known for Wytches by Image Comics.

Comics
Jock began his professional career at British comics magazine 2000 AD, on series including Judge Dredd and Lenny Zero, the latter with writer Andy Diggle.

It was with Diggle that he got his big break in the American comic book market at DC Comics and their Vertigo imprint, working on The Losers and Green Arrow: Year One. Also at Vertigo and with Mike Carey, another former 2000 AD writer, Jock worked on an issue of Hellblazer and the Faker limited series, returning the character John Constantine in the graphic novel Hellblazer: Pandemonium with Jamie Delano. Following his run on Green Arrow he got more work on main DC universe titles, in particular two storylines on Detective Comics, the first featuring Batwoman and the second Batman.

Jock is also a prolific cover artist with a distinctive style – he has produced covers for several titles across all major publishers.

On 9 April 2011 Jock was one of 62 comics creators who appeared at the IGN stage at the Kapow! convention in London to set two Guinness World Records, the Fastest Production of a Comic Book, and Most Contributors to a Comic Book. With Guinness officials on hand to monitor their progress, writer Mark Millar began work at 9am scripting a 20-page black and white Superior comic book, with Jock and the other artists appearing on stage throughout the day to work on the pencils, inks, and lettering, including Dave Gibbons, Frank Quitely, John Romita Jr., Adi Granov, Doug Braithwaite, Ian Churchill, Olivier Coipel, Duncan Fegredo, Simon Furman, David Lafuente, John McCrea, Sean Phillips and Liam Sharp, who all drew a panel each, with regular Superior artist Leinil Yu creating the book's front cover. The book was completed in 11 hours, 19 minutes, and 38 seconds, and was published through Icon on 23 November 2011, with all royalties being donated to Yorkhill Children's Foundation.

Movie work
Jock has contributed concept paintings and key art to a number of film productions and promotional campaigns, including Hancock, Battleship, Children of Men, Dredd, Batman Begins and X-Men: Days of Future Past. He was the principal Concept Designer on Dredd. He continued his work with Dredd scriptwriter Alex Garland on Garland's next film, Ex Machina, working on the AI robot Ava.

Poster art
Jock has produced a number of silk screen prints and poster art for Mondo, including The Divide, Zombie, The Last House on the Left, West of Memphis, The Dark Knight Rises, The Raid, Dredd, Zero Dark Thirty, The Thing, Halloween, and Iron Man 3.

Nominations

 * 2006 Eisner Award for Best Cover Artist (for The Losers)
 * 2012 Stan Lee Award for Best Artist (for Detective Comics)

Awards

 * 2001 National Comics Award for Best New Talent (for "Judge Dredd" in 2000AD, tied with Frazer Irving, for "Necronauts" in 2000AD)
 * 2012 Stan Lee Award for Best Ongoing Series (for Detective Comics, with Scott Snyder, Francesco Francavilla)
 * MTV The 10 Best Movie Posters of 2010 (#8, for The Losers poster art)
 * 2019 SXSW Excellence in Poster Design Winner for Daniel Isn't Real

2000 AD

 * Pulp Sci-Fi: "Reapermen" (with Gordon Rennie, in #1170, 1999)
 * Judge Dredd:
 * "Shirley Temple of Doom" (with John Wagner, in #1193–1196, 2000)
 * "Crossing Ken Dodd" (with John Wagner, in #1214, 2000)
 * "Rampots" (with John Wagner, in #1231, 2001)
 * "Safe Hands" (with Gordon Rennie, in #1273, 2002)
 * "Tartan Terrors" (with Gordon Rennie, in #1540, 2007)
 * Tor Cyan (with John Tomlinson):
 * "Rahab" (in #1295, 2002)
 * "Phage" (in #1296, 2002)
 * "No Such Place" (in #1297–1299, 2002)
 * Judge Dredd Megazine (Fleetway):
 * Judge Dredd (with John Wagner):
 * "Dead Ringer" (in vol. 3 No. 65, 2000)
 * "Ten Years" (in vol. 3 No. 70, 2000)
 * Lenny Zero (with Andy Diggle):
 * "Lenny Zero" (in vol. 3 No. 68, 2000)
 * "Dead Zero" (in vol. 4 #1–2, 2001)
 * "Wipeout" (in vol. 4 #14–15, 2002)

DC Comics/Vertigo

 * Hellblazer:
 * "The Game of Cat and Mouse" (with Mike Carey, in No. 181, 2003)
 * Pandemonium (with Jamie Delano, graphic novel, 2010)
 * The Losers #1–6, 9–12, 16–19, 23–25, 29–32 (with Andy Diggle, Vertigo, 2003–2006)
 * Faker (with Mike Carey, Vertigo, 2007–2008)
 * Green Arrow: Year One (with Andy Diggle, DC Comics, 2007)
 * Detective Comics:
 * "Cutter" (with Greg Rucka, in #861–863, 2010)
 * "The Black Mirror" (with Scott Snyder, in #871–873, 2011)
 * "Hungry City" (with Scott Snyder, in #876–878, 2011)
 * "My Dark Architect" (with Scott Snyder, in No. 880, 2011)
 * "The Face in the Glass" (with Scott Snyder and Francesco Francavilla, in No. 881, 2011)
 * Batman:
 * "A Simple Case" (with Scott Snyder and Brian Azzarello, in #44, 2015)
 * "All-Star Batman":
 * "My Own Worst Enemy" (with Scott Snyder, in #1-5, 2016)
 * Cold to the Core (with Scott Snyder, in #6, 2017)
 * The Batman Who Laughs #1–7 (with Scott Snyder, DC Comics, 2018–2019)
 * Batman: One Dark Knight #1–3 (2022)

Marvel Comics

 * Dark X-Men: The Beginning #3: "Get Mystique (Slight Return)" (with Jason Aaron, Marvel, 2009)
 * Savage Wolverine (writer and artist, with Lee Loughridge, #9-11, 2013)

Other publishers

 * Forty-Five: "Amy Turner" (with Andi Ewington and 44 other artists, graphic novel, Com.x, 2010)
 * Immortals: Gods and Heroes: "The Hunt" (script and art, graphic novel, Archaia Studios, 2011)
 * Wytches (with Scott Snyder, Image Comics, 2014)

Cover art

 * 2000 AD #1203, 1227, 1236, 1254, 1258, 1260, 1266, 1274, 1304, 1318, 1335, 1397, 1450, 1503 (Fleetway/Rebellion Developments, 2000–2006)
 * Judge Dredd Megazine vol. 3 No. 77 (Fleetway, 2001)
 * Judge Dredd Megazine vol. 4 No. 4, 11 (Fleetway, 2001–2002)
 * Judge Dredd vs. Aliens: Incubus No. 4 (Dark Horse, 2003)
 * 2000 AD Extreme Edition No. 1 (Rebellion, 2003)
 * King James No. 1 (DC Comics, 2004)
 * The Losers #7–8, 13–15, 20–22, 26–28 (Vertigo, 2004–2005)
 * Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight #177–178 (DC Comics, 2004)
 * Detective Comics #797–800, 809–810, 859, 871–881 (DC Comics, 2004–2012)
 * Catwoman No. 43 (DC Comics, 2005)
 * Batman #642–650, Annual No. 25 (DC Comics, 2005–2006)
 * Nightwing #118–124 (DC Comics, 2006)
 * Swamp Thing No. 26 (Vertigo, 2006)
 * Rush City (DC Comics, 2006–2007)
 * Scalped #1–11, 13–17, 21–60 (Vertigo, 2007–2012)
 * Push No. 1 (Wildstorm, 2009)
 * Thunderbolts No. 127 (Marvel, 2009)
 * Die Hard: Year One #1–4 (Boom! Studios, 2009)
 * Batman Confidential No. 33 (DC Comics, 2009)
 * Deadlocke No. 1 (Dark Horse, 2009)
 * Greek Street #3–6 (Vertigo, 2009)
 * Azrael #1–3 (DC Comics, 2009–2010)
 * Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash: The Nightmare Warriors #5–6 (Wildstorm, 2009–2010)
 * Driver (Wildstorm, 2010)
 * Daredevil No. 511 (Marvel, 2011)
 * Daredevil: Reborn (Marvel, 2011)
 * Incredible Hulks No. 626 (Marvel, 2011)
 * Pigs No. 1 (Image, 2011)
 * Marvel Universe vs. Wolverine No. 3 (Marvel, 2011)
 * Wolverine MAX #1–15 (Marvel, 2012)
 * Scalped No. 60 (Vertigo, 2012)
 * American Vampire No. 30 (Vertigo, 2012)
 * Uncanny No. 1 Variant (Dynamite, 2013)
 * Jupiter's Legacy No. 2 Variant (Image, 2013)
 * Swamp Thing No. 21 (DC Comics, 2013)
 * Superman Unchained No. 8 (DC Comics, 2014)
 * Grayson No. 6 (DC Comics, 2015)
 * Suiciders No. 1 (DC Comics, 2015)
 * Batman/Superman No. 21 (DC Comics, 2015)
 * Batman:Europa No. 4 (DC Comics, 2016)
 * Superman:American Alien No. 7 (DC Comics, 2016)
 * Batman/The Shadow No. 6 (DC Comics, 2017)
 * Lucifer No. 1 (Vertigo, 2018)
 * Batman:Last Knight on Earth No. 1 (DC Comics, 2019)
 * Batman Black and White No. 2 (DC Comics, 2021)
 * Venom No. 200 (Marvel, 2021)

Tabletop Games

 * SLA Industries - Nightfall Games (1999)

title: Jock (cartoonist)


text: User talk:69.228.47.106

title: User talk:69.228.47.106


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert (disambiguation)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article 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 merge and redirect to Robert. – ABCD 00:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Robert (disambiguation)
None of the articles linked on this disambiguation page actually need disambiguation. They all refer to people named Robert, but none of them are people who are known simply as "Robert" --- Isaac R 04:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Robert. The list of "famous Roberts" is pretty useless though, don't merge. We've got dozens of similar pages; this one's more legit than Joan, for example. —Wahoofive | Talk 04:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So you want searches for "Robert (disambiguation)" to redirect to "Robert"? That doesn't make any sense. ---06:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Above unsigned comment by Isaac R —Wahoofive | Talk 16:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's silly, but redirects are cheap and harmless. Anyway, no one's actually going to search for "Robert (disambiguation)". Maybe you meant wikilink. —Wahoofive | Talk 16:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I mean "search". The main purpose of a redirect page is to help with searches. If the name of the page is something nobody ever searchs for, that purpose isn't served. You could still link to it, but you usually want to avoid linking to redirect pages. Especially when the name of the redirect page is "Robert (disambiguation)"!!!! ---Isaac R 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Searching is one of the purposes for a redirect page but hardly the "main purpose" and certainly not the only purpose. Redirects also preserve attribution history (a requirement of GFDL), prevent broken links, aid in accidental linking, etc.  See Redirect and redirect for more.  Rossami (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right. My statement of the purpose of redirects was much too narrow, and there are many other purposes. But you haven't demonstrated that any of those purposes is served by having a redirect page named "Robert (disambiguation)". ---Isaac R 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Robert. Wikipedia not being paper and all, I see no harm (and maybe some utility) in having the famous Roberts on the page. -- 8^D gab 05:52, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * The harm is that this is doesn't follow the rules for when to disambiguate. It may sound terminally anal, but there have to be some limits on what we include -- and this is well outside them. ---Isaac R 06:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: I stumbled across this when trying to write up Saint Robert.  In most cases, given name articles go to the most famous person known only by that name if there is only one.  Otherwise, they're disambiguations.  After I saw the wretchedness of the Robert article, where it wasn't a dab but rather yet another bar-bet trivia game "List of," I decided to manually merge in the people who needed to be disambiguated, and then let the silliness go forth.  If Robert is a proper dab, then there is no need for Robert (disambiguation), and it should be deleted as duplicate content.  Further, I would love to see the "list of favorite Roberts" have a mysterious accident in the night and disappear from the Robert page as well.  Geogre 20:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, no articles link to Robert (disambiguation). Geogre 20:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I realize now that the above was not clear. Here is a chronology, as best as I can see it:
 * Someone wrote Robert as a "List of Famous Roberts."
 * When that conflicted with the usual Wikipedia practice, the answer (!) was to create a new page called Robert (disambiguation) rather than knocking the stuffing out of Robert.
 * When I went to write up the saint, I was full of outrage, so I looked up all the "Robert of" people I could find and listed them in Robert above the silly list. I left the silly list as something not worth fighting over.
 * Given that the Robert article now has that disambiguation, there is no need for the disambiguation page as a separate entity. I'm not responsible for the "Famous Robert" stuff, and I would love to see it go away altogether.  Any editor can do that, of course.  Once the disambig. page goes away, the Robert page should get the dab tag, and then it will be in order to delete all that trivia contest stuff. Geogre 23:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge into Robert. Tony Jin | (talk) 23:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's two votes to merge with Robert, but still no positive statement to justify having a list of people named "Robert". What's the utility of list of people whose connection with each other is their first name? ---Isaac R 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this kind of list belongs anywhere, it should be named List of people named Robert. However, I think Special:Allpages/Robert does a much better job of listing the more than 3,000 articles on people named Robert. Gdr 22:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

 * Comment: Ok, so folks were arguing that Robert (disambiguation) should be merged into Robert. That has been done.  Now that it has been done, the only question that remains is whether or not to have a redirect from Robert (disambiguation) to Robert.  I assume no one thinks such a thing is logical?  Since no articles link to Robert (disambiguation) and there is no unique content and it is a secondary search term, I will, if I see no objections, delete it as in process. Geogre 22:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Storytimes

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. – Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Online Storytimes
Interesting, but not exactly notable. Delete. --Sn0wflake 04:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement. Ejrrjs | What? 22:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Del advertisment.  —msh210 17:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Universities and colleges affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)


text: Category:Geography of Queensland

title: Category:Geography of Queensland


text:
Jackie Moore (singer)

Jackie Moore (1946 – November 8, 2019) was an American R&B singer. Born in Jacksonville, Florida, she is best known for her gold single 1970 song "Precious, Precious," which reached No. 30 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart on March 6, 1971. This disc sold over one million copies, and received a gold disc awarded by the R.I.A.A. in March 1971.

Also noteworthy was her 1979 disco hit "This Time Baby," which hit No. 1 on the Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart. The track reached No. 49 in the UK Singles Chart. The latter would later be sampled for the 2005 dance radio and club hit "Love on My Mind" by the Freemasons featuring Amanda Wilson. Moore also had a US pop chart hit (No. 42) with Bunny Sigler and Phil Hurtt's upbeat "Sweet Charlie Babe" in the fall of 1973, which she recorded with the Philadelphia Strings and Horns.

Career
Before her success at Atlantic Records and Columbia Records, Moore recorded for Wand Records which produced the single "Who Told You." Her debut "Dear John" was released on Shout Records in 1969.

Reviewing the 1973 Sweet Charlie Babe LP, Robert Christgau wrote in Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies (1981), "Figures that this should fall somewhere between state-of-the-art and great-mean soul: the five hits go back to 'Precious, Precious' in the winter of '71, with the two latest cut at a funkier-than-usual Sigma in Philadelphia and the others by a simpler-than-usual Crawford-Shapiro team at Criteria in Miami. Moore's voice is simultaneously sweet and rough, an unusual combination in a woman, and the songs are pretty consistent. But she lacks not only persona but personality, so that what in technical terms is pretty impressive stuff never goes over the top."

"This Time Baby" was a featured song in the video game, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories.

Studio albums

 * Precious, Precious: The Best of Jackie Moore (1994, Ichiban)
 * The Complete Atlantic Recordings (2015, Real Gone Music)

title: Jackie Moore (singer)


text: Template:WikiProject Ice Hockey

title: Template:WikiProject Ice Hockey


text:
Talk:West Sumatra

Minangkabau Language
The following was added to the article recently. I have removed it. I have no idea if it is accurate transcription of a language, nor what it might mean, nor even if the content is appropriate for inclusion. I notice "muslim" in there, so I am concerned as to what it might say.

If this is an example of a language actually spoken in West Sumatra, and if the content is appropriate, then please feel free to restore it to the article, with English translation, or to factor it out into an article on the language. If anyone knows that it it not an example of a language actually spoken in West Sumatra, and/or that the content is inappropriate, please say that, too.

 * Ini ing minangkabau language.. patune na ing kapampangan biasa ya uli na ning e deng lalu ila ing makapagedit ka reng website a kalupa na nini. sana atin mang metung a makasaup kanaku nung ninu man ing makaintindi kanining salitang ini... buri ku sang abalu kung nokarin la menibat deng kapampangan at deng pamilyang lalu.. sana asopan daku deng kapatad tamung muslim a atchu king indonesia. dakal pung salamat

The above statement is in Kapampangan / Pampango. English Translation: "This is minangkabau language. Proof that the Kapampangan is intelligent, because only they can edit a website like this. I hope there is someone who can help me understand this language. I want to know where Kapampangans originated. I hope our Muslim brethren in Indonesia can help me. Thank you very much." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.105.20 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

-- Jmabel | Talk 04:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thats absolutely not in minangkabau languange or actually spoken in west sumatra. _Annas_ (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Links??
The links for West Sumatra lead to a page asking if you would like to create this article, it says there is currently no page for West Sumatra. Clearly there is such a page, perhaps the links should be looked into. Basser g 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No sources at all?
There seem to be scarcely any sources in this article. Can this be improved? --Wetman (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of Riau.svg

title: Talk:West Sumatra


text:
Talk:Barry Trotz

silverback.
removed this knoickname as serval attempts to search for, and confirm, its general usage meet with no support. if someone can document, please add it back with documentationChildhoodtrauma (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

400 wins
Trotz officially has 400 wins with the Preds (7th most wins by a coach with a single team) as of March 2010; Im not sure so if someone else could confirm, but he has to also have the most wins as the first coach of a team by now...and probably the most sucessful coach of an expansion team in that regard. Im a bit drunk now and watching the Preds play an elite team and just so amazed by this man. So peace out wikipedia. Do my edits for me when I get some confirmation on these things (please!). Trotz for JACK ADAMS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.209.43 (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page was vandalized on April 25, 2011 with the following content:

Upon his birth in 1962, it was noticed that Trotz had a rare disorder, where his neck was completely absent. Fortunately, the esophagus and all vocal and digestive tissue was found to be present, so the lack of neck did not present any medical issues. At the age of 2, a neck implant was attempted, but the surgery failed. Trotz learned to manage his disability and is now considered to be "fully functional" by medical professionals.

Although hilarious, it's unattributed and likely false; the user responsible hails from a Vanderbilt University network, so it's probably just a prank by a local proud of the Predators' showing in the Stanley Cup playoffs... --Joelmoses 2000 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship
Trotz became a naturalized American citizen late in his tenure with the Predators. Someone with a source needs to add this fact and perhaps then change the intro to "Barry Trotz is a Canadian-American ice hockey coach..." 2600:1004:B12F:8AAB:0:36:F923:9301 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only source that I can find is this, but it does not say whether he became a U.S. citizen. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Barry Trotz


text:
I Feel Free

"I Feel Free" is a song first recorded by the British rock band Cream. The lyrics were written by Pete Brown, with the music by Jack Bruce. The song showcases the band's musical diversity, effectively combining blues rock with psychedelic pop.

"I Feel Free" was released in the UK by Reaction Records as the group's second single and reached number 11 on the singles chart. In the US, Atco Records issued it as their debut single as well as the opening track on the group's first album, Fresh Cream (1966).

Background
"I Feel Free" was recorded in September 1966 at Ryemuse Studios. The song was recorded on an Ampex reel-to-reel audio tape recorder by Robert Stigwood and John Timperley. Stigwood made the decision to omit the song on the British release of Fresh Cream, and instead released it as a single.

Charts
"I Feel Free" first entered the UK Singles Chart on 17 December 1966 at number 50, hit its highest position on 28 January 1967 at number 11, and was last seen on 4 March 1967 at number 49; the song spent a total of 12 weeks on the charts. In the US the single reached number 116 on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart in December 1967. In Finland it reached number 39.

Personnel

 * Ginger Baker – drums, percussion, backing vocals
 * Jack Bruce – lead and backing vocals, bass guitar, piano
 * Eric Clapton – guitar, backing vocals

Cover versions
In 1984, a version by Mark King of Level 42 was featured on his solo album Influences. This was released as a single and reached number 96 in the UK.

In 1986, a solo version by Jack Bruce was featured on a Renault 21 commercial and became his only solo UK hit, appearing for only one week at 95.

In 1987, American singer Belinda Carlisle recorded the song for her second studio album, Heaven on Earth (1987). The recording was produced by Rick Nowels. It was the fourth single released from the album, only released in the US. It peaked at number 88 on the US Billboard Hot 100. The 7-inch single's B-side was "Should I Let You In?", while the 12-inch single includes an extended mix and a dub version. The extended version of the song was used in the 1988 film License to Drive. An accompanying music video using concert footage was produced to promote the single.

In 1993, a version by David Bowie appeared on the album Black Tie White Noise. Bowie cited a connection with his step-brother, who was the subject of a different song on the album, as his reason for including the cover on the album.

title: I Feel Free


text:
Talk:Stephen F. Austin

Was he four or five when "his family moved forty miles west of the Mississippi River"?
Someone keeps changing the number. Xiner (talk, email) 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great question. I didn't touch the last change by the anon since it is mathematically correct - according to that date (June 1798), he would have been four.  I just can't find a cite for that date.  To make matters worse, the three major references/external member of the tribe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.229.196 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen F. Austin
He has done so many things in Texas and many others historyback then

Words can not explain what he has done. Thanks to him life is much better for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.135.34.101 (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going through this article to improve the information where citation is needed. I will be asking Draeco (who adopted me) to verify my work on this article about such an important person. Thank you. Bull Market 14:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

While I did not write the original article, some requests for references are more than two years old. I am open to adding back any information removed if someoe comes forward with references or citations that can verify the claims made. Thank you.

For example, I have found no reference to Hawkins being the decisive persuader of SFA to carry out the Empressario grants and colonize Texas.Bull Market 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening Bio Unclear
Especially the sentence "He was known as the Father of Texas, led the second, but first legal and ultimately successful colonization of the region by bringing 300 families from the United States."

This needs tidying up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bc22233 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

when was stephen f austin born and when did die and where  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.146.225 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen F. Austin Mexican citizenship
Stephen F. Austin was granted Mexican citizenship on March 9th, 1824 and probably baptized a Catholic to receive the land he claimed in his father's name. The 300 families to whom he granted land had to abide by the same guidelines. It might be worth investigating these claims to insure the integrity of the article.http://www.cah.utexas.edu/texashistory/annex/view.php?wrkid=txu-crra-2a149-03091824&pn=1 This link shows a copy of the original document. I am not good at citing rules, and I do not want to infringe any laws by using somebody else's materials, but surely you can investigate. Thank you! --66.199.62.19 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Monica Mata

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Stephen F. Austin. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20000210020912/http://www.co.hidalgo.tx.us/ to http://texashistory.unt.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mexican link
please change ((Mexican)) to ((Mexico|Mexican))
 * Yes check.svg Done  JTP ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Austin as an "American Empresario"
He moved to Spanish territory and his father became a Spanish citizen, changing his citizenship as well, as a child. 1803-1812 They were still Spanish Citizens, there is nothing written that his family changed back to American citizenship. AFter 1822 when he moved to Mexico, not Texas, since the region was still considered Couhilla part of Mexico. This is where everyone gets this wrong. He moved to Mexico and not Texas, and was a devoted Spanish Citizen. He died a Spanish Citizen, not an American citizen. He wanted nothing to do with the rules of America and tried to change the rules everywhere he lived (Arkansas, Louisiana). He was a despot, and not my fellow American. Please get this correct in your files. He was a Spanish citizen for since he was 4 or 5 years old and there is no proof that he ever dropped his Spanish citizenship and or declared his double citizenship.

Tewoodson (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Timothy E Woodson

Consensus Request
I am requesting that the 20:15, 21 July 2017 version of this page, which I contributed, be restored in full.

Not only was the edit made in good faith, but it was also cited with five reputable sources. The edit was uncontested for 10 days, until reverted it citing my need for "better sourcing." However, there is some context to express here:

recently reverted an entire edit I made to a different page. It was an edit that had been cleared by three previous editors, and one for which I received encouragement and support. However, my edit was on a page that has been the primary editor for the last 10 years. This is relevant given Montanabw's established history of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I provided solid sources and learned of no issues of the edit until Montanabw appeared, and reverted my entire edit, which included sections about cowboys of color, cowgirls of color, and homosexual cowboys. Then this happened...

Initially Montanabw said he/she reverted my edit to "Remove a lot of changes that are not supported by appropriate source material." When I challenged this, he/she then said, "Discussion is appropriate." Then, he/she disregarded by edit with his/her opinion that "There is a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there and a lot of bad sources." Yet, in the same breath, he/she implied that my sources weren't, in fact, the issue, but that, "This article is in need of careful development..." After that, he/she accused me of copyvio. And then, on the Talk page, he/she listed off a myriad of "other" things I supposedly violated.....including several of my edits not being "very good." While the target of his/her accusations kept moving, the accusations were also illogical given that, if I was guilty of these things, at least a few of them would have been flagged by the copyviol tool I used (which was provided to me by other admin) when I submitted the edit, or by any of the three admins I asked to check it when I submitted it. While I thoroughly refuted Montanabw's accusations, and am working to get my full edit restored on the Cowboy page...Montanabw belittled me i.e. "...you are someone who hasn't quite yet learned how to edit around here," and seemingly followed my edit history to this Stephen F. Austin page with an obvious intent revert my edit. Otherwise, it's quite a coincidence that Montanabw, who has never been an editor on this page, suddenly appeared and took no issue with any other edit on the page...only mine.

My edit to the Stephen F. Austin page was primarily on slavery, which was the largest economic driver of Austin's colonies. This is important, as it was a practice that Mexico opposed and tried to ban (twice). Austin viewed this as government overreach, and it was a big factor of the Texas Revolution. This is important, and it should not remain omitted from this page, as it distorts history, along with Austin's motivations. However, Montanabw reverted my entire edit, chastising me for needing "better sourcing." After I noted that the reversion was petty, Montanabw restored one sentence, and used two of my references for his/her own edit, which doesn't make any sense because if my edit needed "better sourcing" to begin with...and my sources were so bad as to necessitate the entire edit to be reverted in the first place, then why restore any of the edit or restore any of the sources?

That said, these are the sources I used for my edit:

 * Texas State Historical Association
 * Cambridge Scholars Publishing (#4 in the Library of Social Science's ‘World’s Top Ranked Publishers’ List)
 * Hardin, Stephen L. (1994). Texian Iliad – A Military History of the Texas Revolution. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-73086-1. OCLC 29704011
 * Lack, Paul D. (1992). The Texas Revolutionary Experience: A Political and Social History 1835–1836. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 0-89096-497-1
 * Stuntz, Jean A. (2012). "Tejanas: Hispanic Women on the Losing Side of the Texas Revolution". In Scheer, Mary L. Women and the Texas Revolution. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press. ISBN 1-57441-469-0.

I concede that I could have clarified three of the above better; however, Montanabw never gave me the opportunity to do so. Rather, Montanabw implied that my sources were not reputable.

So, I decided to ask for consensus to restore the 20:15, 21 July 2017 version of this page for three reasons:

 * 1) I fear that, by trying to edit and re-submit, Montanabw may just revert me again for "some other" reason, and the target will remain elusive.
 * 2)  is an has a well establish edit history, and the power to go with it, so getting into a back-and-forth seems futile.
 * 3) I am fairly new at this, as my history of edits have mostly been minor, and am trying to keep my budding history/record as a contributor in tact.

So, I'm coming to the Wiki community because I believe in Wiki's Five Pillars and because I think my contribution here is important...and worth fighting for. Thx Justbean (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 * "Consensus" does not mean, "restore my edit in full." The correct guideline is WP:BRD.  Here, there was clearly a very long, unfocused set of edits that went well beyond anything to do with Austin.  I reverted but then went in and restored part of the new content where it seemed appropriate and potentially useful.  The entire history of slavery in Texas is beyond the scope of this article and so it needs to go elsewhere.  The rest I think needs to be reviewed by those who have edited this article more often, as there may be additional problems with even the remaining content, but as it has been pointed out, I do not regularly edit articles about Texas history, so other eyes with greater expertise may be useful.   Montanabw (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 * , as mentioned, I know "Consensus" does not mean, "restore my edit in full." However, I requested the restoration because the edit stood for 10 days, without issue, before you reverted it.  If there was an issue with the content, I think those who regularly edit/know this Page/History would have pointed it out in that time.  Also, this was far from the entire slavery in Texas, so that's not fair, or even accurate, to say.  I literally contributed 13 sentences that put the importance of slavery in context of this page.  Without slavery, Stephen A. Austin does not exist...as there would be no economy, which would discourage other settlers from coming to Texas.  And, without slavery, there would likely be no Texas Revolution.  So, it was vital to the development and success of Austin, as a man...and Austin as a city.  To take exception to fewer than 15 sentences providing context for that...well that's, in part, why I'm requesting the full restore.  Thx Justbean (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 * So the article doesn't have a lot of watchers. My position is that I restored part of what you wrote, but the rest is beyond the scope of this article, plus the use of sources was not simply the quality of the source, but how it is used.  We have wikilinks to direct readers to other articles where things such as Slavery in Texas are explained in more detail.  So, 13 sentences in this context was more than needed.  There may be room for some expansion, but focus on Austin himself.  Try adding ONE paragraph of focused content and let's see how it goes.  Montanabw (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Thx ! Appreciate that.  Will take a stab at it. Justbean (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Retry
, I've given this edit another shot. I created this page: Talk:Stephen F. Austin/Temp

Rather than add one paragraph, I thought working an edit, on a separate page, could be helpful before I posted it. I took your advice and wrote about slavery, in relation to Austin himself. My edit clocks in at about the same word length as the Empresario section. I ask that you don't knock me on length, but look at accuracy and context. The thing is...slavery, and its effects, were major for Austin...without slavery, Austin doesn't have a colony, immigrants or an economy. And this is not accurately reflected on this page now.

I did a lot of research and tried to construct a solid narrative/flow of information. I would appreciate your feedback and, if it flies with you...I'd love to add it.

Prior to my initial edit, there was nothing about the importance/role slavery played with Austin...and what currently stands is positively biased toward Austin. Information exists that counters such a rosy picture. He was a man of his time, and a wealthy one at that. That information and context is missing on this page, despite being easily available. So...I hope my effort is strong enough to contribute to a useful/informative addition. Thanks! Justbean (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * The problem here is to not go into a complete history of slavery and cite only to sources that specifically address Austin... it's not a matter of whitewashing content, it's a matter of meticulously sourcing content so that the article is balanced and reliable.  Montanabw (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ... uh, it's extensively sourced. Mostly to four works that actually have Stephen Austin's name in the title.
 * If that's your concern, I'd say it's been addressed and the draft should be moved to article space. ApLundell (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not. Just because it's sourced does not mean it's relevant.  Many biographies go into the historic background of the subject, that doesn't mean it is necessary to do so in a wikipedia article -- we don't have 500 pages to work with here.  See WP:UNDUE.   Montanabw (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Genocide against Karawanka people
Austin seems to be documented as one of successful genocide planners against Texas Indians whose land he stole. Should be mentioned. ref F Todd Smith (2006), From Dominance to Disappearance, The Indians of Texas..., page 127 Kipala (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018
I believe there are incorrect dates/ages in the STEPHEN F AUSTIN article on Wikipedia. Specifically, the article states that Austin was age 24 when he led the "Old 300" to Tejas, yet it also says that this trek occurred in the years 1821 to 1825, and that Austin was born in 1793. If he was born in 1793, that would make him ages 28 to 32 during this migration. Clearly his birthdate, age at migration, and/or the time-frame of the migration is incorrect.

Thank you. 2603:900A:780:2200:450A:6061:572B:5714 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * you added his age at that time with this edit. Was the age taken from the Todish source given for that material, or was that a typo?  Kuru   (talk)  01:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Three years later, I have no idea. You are welcome to change his age at the beginning of the migration to be consistent with his birth year. Thanks for catching that.Parkwells (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood; I've just dropped the age for now. Kuru   (talk)  23:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding his Spanish Name?
It appears Austin signed his name "Estevan" on documents in Spanish Thegunkid (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

arrest of stephen f. austin
he got arrest in 1834. for sending a letter to start a new goverment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.157.40.94 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020
need to change the year he settled in Texas form 1825 to 1824. EthanJB1322 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

White supremacist
OK, any RS that say he was one, he might well have been but we need RS to say it?Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, I am not sure whether this is a question or a statement, but here is my answer nonetheless. I think two policies makes the course of action very clear. The first policy concerns the inclusion of categories to an article. Per WP:CATVER, any category must conform to statements in the body of the article which cite an RS. There is no way to avoid making editorial judgements regarding rephrasing of texts; in fact, it is a Wikipedia requirement that we avoid close paraphrasing. This is where a second policy is relevant. MOS:WTW says, "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint."
 * Slatersteven, I am not sure whether this is a question or a statement, but here is my answer nonetheless. I think two policies makes the course of action very clear. The first policy concerns the inclusion of categories to an article. Per WP:CATVER, any category must conform to statements in the body of the article which cite an RS. There is no way to avoid making editorial judgements regarding rephrasing of texts; in fact, it is a Wikipedia requirement that we avoid close paraphrasing. This is where a second policy is relevant. MOS:WTW says, "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint."

 * The MOS designates a special category of words-to-watch under the header of "Contentious labels," or alternatively linked as MOS:LABEL or MOS:RACIST. "White supremacist" should fall under MOS:WORDS: "racist," "neo-Nazi," and "terrorist" are all examples of contentious labels specified by the MOS. While not strictly proscribed, the MOS establishes a higher standard of care for such labels if they are to be used in articles: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Notice that it says "widely used by reliable sources." One RS does not do the job according to this policy. Second, the policy is explicit in tying these statements from RS's to "describe the subject." Therefore the burden for characterizing Stephen F. Austin in the article as a "white supremacist" is many RS's (or an RS which claims that this is a widely held view among historians) calling Austin a "white supremacist," and such a claim should "use in-text attribution."

 * In conclusion, if the Stephen F. Austin article should only cast him as a "white supremacist" if there is a consensus of reliable sources (and they should be historians) that state Austin is a white supremacist or a credible historical survey that claims that there is a historical concensus for this claim. This is the standard for this expression to be included in the article per MOS:LABEL. And if it can not meet this standard for inclusion as in-line text, WP:CATVER says it should not be included as a category. This not my opinion. This is policy. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that was my point, if RS do not call him a white supremacist neither can we (even by implication, categories are not their as a get round policy), wp:BLP makes that quite clear.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Stephen Austin died in 1836; BLP does not apply here. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP does not apply here, but neither of the two policies I cited depended on BLP. If it were a BLP, there would be a greater burden to justify the contentious label. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Opps, still it has to be sourced even without blp.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CATVER and WP:MOS are guidelines, not policies. They provide guidance, but neither of them require any outcome in this case. MOS:WTW doesn't discuss categorization at all, and it's not technically possible to provide in-text attribution (as MOS:LABEL recommends) to a category. CATVER doesn't say that the exact verbiage of every category must be in the article body, or that every category must be supported by an inline citation somewhere in the body. CATVER says: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. My opinion is that it's clear from verifiable information in the article why this article was placed in Category:White supremacist politicians. (WP:CATVER, by the way, says if a category is unsourced, to use the Category unsourced template. That should have been done rather than reverting the edit and removing the category.)

Category:White supremacist politicians is easily verifiable. Googling "Stephen F. Austin" "white supremacist" returns:

There is also Austin's own self-identification statements, such as the well-known 1836 letter I posted at the ANI thread (and that's quoted in the first book above):

The city of Austin, Texas has recently considered changing its name because of this.

In my view, that Stephen F. Austin was a white supremacist is not controversial and is widely reported by RSes. Adding the category complies with CATVER and MOS:LABEL, based on the article as it stands now. It would be better to expand the article with additional information about Austin's white supremacist beliefs and writings. For example, the famous "mongrel Spanish-Indian and negro race" quote should be added to the article. That will give additional support for the categorization, as well.

There is a policy that requires a specific outcome, and it's WP:V, specifically WP:ONUS: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion ... The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. added the category; the onus is on Docktuh to achieve consensus for its inclusion. But if there were an RFC on this, I'd !vote support. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for finding relevant material. I will need to take a look at them once the libraries reopen. The first three examples you cite are on point: they offer textual support for the expression "white supremacist" as it applies to SFA. After all, the headings in the MOS are "contentious labels" and "words to watch," not "concepts to watch." These first four would appear to be peer-reviewed, which is preferable for history articles. The link to the article from the radio station is not helpful: it is neither directly on point, nor should it be considered an RS in this context. Going back to your first three examples, they are definitely RS's on the subject, they all use the contentious label, and three recent sources should qualify as "widely used." On the other hand, how do we write this up without violating WP:OR? "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." I recently used one of the words to watch in this edit [] to History of Texas (1865–99). "Carpetbagger" might be a contentious label, and "myth" is a named contentious label. There is no synthesis with this edit: the article cited includes a brief survey of historical literature on Texas reconstruction, and the author summarizes his findings on the subject of the "carpetbagger-rule myth." Another consideration is tone. Do we really add anything to the dictionary by adding heated labels? If an RS reports that FOO held fifty black persons in bondage, this should be included in FOO's article. Do we really think so little of our readers that we have to explain to them that this is bad? And if they did not think this was bad, would heated characterizations help to drive home the point? (In the case of "carpetbagger-rule myth," "carpetbagger" was a term that pro-Southerners used as an expression of anti-Republican sentiment, so this version of history is described as "carpetbagger rule.") I definitely think that we should include at least three of these sources in the SFA article. You don't even need my cooperation to make these changes yourself, so my thinking may be irrelevant to the outcome. I changed at least one other category to SFA: nothing in the article supports that he was an American politician. Running the ayuntamiento, a local government established by the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas, he was a Mexican politician. He was also for a brief time a Texas politician under the Republic, which was not at that time in the United States. These are all spelled out in the article—but no contentious labels are involved.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand .... If I understand you correctly, all of the objections in your post below this point are answered by ... your post above that point. (Also FWIW I rather doubt that Stephen Austin would not have found the classification "white supremacist" to be contentious: the people running the Republic of Texas understood their project very well.) --JBL (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "nothing in the article supports that he was an American politician": the article says he served in the legislature of the Missouri territory. IMO that counts as being an American politician, since it was an American territory. I'd say he was both an American and a Mexican politician. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Boy, this turned out to be a surprisingly controversial move on my part, huh? Course I am still kinda new around here, so I guess it's to be expected from me. Regardless, I'll open a conversation separate from this to achieve consensus. Docktuh (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would rather we had a source that directly called him a white supremacist, awe should not rely on guilt by association.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WTF? --JBL (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Its simple "Stephen F. Austin was a white supremacist" is someone calling HIM a white supremacist "Stephen F. Austin knew a white supremacist" is not, it is guilt by association. We gain nothing by not applying our rules to racists (past or present), we do by applying them (credibility and integrity).Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources I posted say Stephen F. Austin knew a white supremacist? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that was the whole point, he belonged to, help set up ect. Guilt by association. Which of them says (using the words "he was" or similar) a white supremacist? It should not this hard to find a source saying he was one, if he was one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They all say he was one, none say he "knew" one, and two say he founded a white supremacist organization. My paraphrasing: the first three say he was an example of white supremacists who settled Texas in the early 1800s; the fourth and fifth say he founded a white supremacist organization (the Texas Rangers) (founding a white supremacist organization absolutely means you are a white supremacist... surely you don't disagree about this?); the sixth is Austin himself saying he believes in white supremacy. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I do disagree, because founding an organisation does not agree with what it becomes. It implies it, yes, it does not say it. wp:v is the clear the source must explicitly say what you are using it to support. If we water down that in this article case why not others? If we are no consistent we cannot complain when others twist or bend the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say the Texas Rangers became a white supremacist organization. They explicitly say that the Rangers were "created by Anglo settlers to fight in the ongoing war for racial supremacy" (4th quote) and "The Rangers were a force of white supremacy at every stage in their development" (5th quote). And, anyway, that's just quotes 4 and 5; there's still 1, 2, and 3–which explicitly cite him as an example of white supremacists in Texas–and 6, where he explicitly says he thinks white people are superior to others. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, and it does not say Austin was a white supremacist either, that is the point. And no 1 does not say he was an example of white supremacists it talks about white supremacists then him. My concern is if we allow this (based on the sources so far provided) when someone wants to label someone else based upon this argument. Want to label Barrack Obama an Antisemite, well. Its about no setting a precedent that ignores wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What does "no" mean? Did I misquote the sources? These two sources are saying the Rangers were white supremacists, and that Austin founded them. What is there to disagree about?
 * And what kind of statement is "1 does not say he was an example of white supremacists it talks about white supremacists then him"? If it talks about white supremacists and then him, it's using him as an example of white supremacists. For example, the sentence "Cows have spots. Dorothy's spots are black." is saying that Dorothy is a cow because it's talking about Dorothy as an example of a cow.
 * If Barack Obama had founded the Nazi Party, then I'd say yeah, put him in Category:Anti-semites. But not wanting to follow the sources in this article because you're concerned about people not following sources in other articles in the future, makes no sense to me. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do find it odd that no RS seems to have come out and actually said it, they dance around it, they imply it (very strongly, but still only an implication) but none say it (yes by the way I have looked).Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer IMO is because RSes don't write that way. People just don't write "John Doe was a white supremacist" or "John Doe was an anti-semite" or "John Doe was a Jew" or anything like that. They write, "John Doe was a member of the KKK" or "was a Nazi Party official" or "went to synagogue every week". That's just how people write: "[Person] is an [label]" is rare, mostly because people prefer to "show" rather than "tell". I don't think our article needs the sentence "Austin was a white supremacist" – again, we should show rather than tell – but I do think the sources very much support putting him Category:White supremacist politicians. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And neither do we. So we will include a category with zero explanation of why. And yes, they do [], [].Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is nucking futs. Yes, in completely other kinds of writing, people write in completely other ways.  Can you answer some very basic questions about your input here, please?  (1) Do you think it is correct to say that Stephen Austin was a white supremacist?  (2) Do you think that that position is supported by the sources above, or already in the article?  (3) Do you think a categorization that includes the words "white supremacist" or "white supremacy" is appropriate for this article?  --JBL (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) I have no idea I have not gone into his writings, snippets tell me nothing. (2)No I do not think either, I think the sources here imply it, but do not actually say it, and no we do not say it in the article. (3) Again (as with 1) I have no idea as I do not know him, thus (like our readers would) I want to see unequivocal sources that say it, so I can see it as being supported by RS and not OR. I can say he was (from what I have seen) a racist, but racism and white supremacy are not the same thing. And this is why I want to be careful, we cannot (in effect) undermine out treatment of bigotry by over egging the cake, all that does is give ammunition to dismiss us.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is nucking futs. Yes, in completely other kinds of writing, people write in completely other ways.  Can you answer some very basic questions about your input here, please?  (1) Do you think it is correct to say that Stephen Austin was a white supremacist?  (2) Do you think that that position is supported by the sources above, or already in the article?  (3) Do you think a categorization that includes the words "white supremacist" or "white supremacy" is appropriate for this article?  --JBL (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) I have no idea I have not gone into his writings, snippets tell me nothing. (2)No I do not think either, I think the sources here imply it, but do not actually say it, and no we do not say it in the article. (3) Again (as with 1) I have no idea as I do not know him, thus (like our readers would) I want to see unequivocal sources that say it, so I can see it as being supported by RS and not OR. I can say he was (from what I have seen) a racist, but racism and white supremacy are not the same thing. And this is why I want to be careful, we cannot (in effect) undermine out treatment of bigotry by over egging the cake, all that does is give ammunition to dismiss us.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
There is no such thing as a family coat of arms. Arms are issued to individuals only. The notion of a family crest was invented to sell books on heraldry. One can do a simple Google search and find multiple credible sources that explain this. There is no Austin family crest and it has no place on this page. Here's the Google search- https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=no+such+thing+as+family+coat+of+arms

Please don't add the CoA back unless you can find a credible source to prove it (which you won't). It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Laws of Heraldry in modern Australia have NO bearing on this subject It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * MAybe not but [] "family coat of arms of Stephen F. Austin ".Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll need to get some sort of consensus then. You should take of that. Or I can talk to an admin. It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yiou asked for a source you have one, what is the issue?Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well? Your concerns has been addressed we now have a source for it, so do you have any other objections?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Opening bio a bit racist
Instead of "300 families and their slaves," I suggest something like "300 white families and the black people they enslaved." Christafrench (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it racist? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the proposed rephrasing changes the meaning and only serves to make it wordy.

Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Did he graduate from Transylvania?
The Transylvania university Wikipedia page states he did not, and that he just obtained a certificate after dropping out in 1810 that he conducted himself well. Can we clarify on this? 68.95.59.151 (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect the Wikipedia page does not list everyone who ever graduated. Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Angleton TX Stephen F Austin statue DSC 6291 ad.JPG

Birth Place
Not sure if Stephen F. Austin was born in Virgin or Connecticut, but he did attend school and graduate from Bacon Academy in Colchester CT

https://www.colchesterhistory.org/colchester-history/old-bacon-academy/ Littlewellknowfacts (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stephen F. Austin


text:
Rodrigo Santoro

Rodrigo Junqueira Reis Santoro (born 22 August 1975) is a Brazilian actor, voice actor and model. He is the winner of several awards, including a Grande Otelo, an APCA Award, a Guarani Award, two Prêmios Qualidade Brasil, as well as the Trophée Chopard at the Cannes Festival, in addition to having received nominations for a Screen Actors Guild Awards, one Troféu Imprensa and a Phoenix Award. He is perhaps best known for his portrayal of Persian King Xerxes in the film 300 (2006) and its sequel 300: Rise of an Empire (2014). Others include Brainstorm (2001), Carandiru (2003), Love Actually (2003), Che (2008), I Love You Phillip Morris (2009), and Rio (2011). He also appeared on the television series Lost, portraying the character Paulo, and on HBO's Westworld (2016–2020) as Hector Escaton.

Known in Brazil for his appearances in soap operas, he became known internationally for his performance in the television series Lost and Westworld, as well as for playing Xerxes I in 300 and 300: The Rise of the Empire.

Biography
Rodrigo Santoro was born in Petrópolis, the son of Francesco Santoro, an Italian engineer with origins in Paola, province of Cosenza, in Calabria and Maria José Junqueira dos Reis, a Brazilian artist of Portuguese ancestry.

Career
In 1993, while studying Journalism at PUC-Rio, Santoro entered the Actor's Workshop of Rede Globo. He went on to play parts in many of Globo's telenovelas, such as Olho no Olho (1993), Pátria Minha (1994), Explode Coração (1995), O Amor Está no Ar (1997), Suave Veneno (1999) and Mulheres Apaixonadas (2003), as well as the miniseries Hilda Furacão (1998), in the role of a priest. Santoro also voiced the titular character in Stuart Little and its sequel Stuart Little 2 in the Brazilian-dubbed versions.

His first major role in a film production came in 2001, with Bicho de Sete Cabeças (Brainstorm) from Brazilian director Laís Bodansky. By the end of the film, he received a standing ovation from the audience. He also went on to win the festival's best actor trophy. After Bicho, his reputation as an actor had been solidified and he was cast as the male lead in Abril Despedaçado (Behind the Sun), one of the nominees for best foreign film in the 2002 Golden Globe Awards. In the 2003 Hector Babenco film Carandiru he played Lady Di, a transgender prisoner.

Canadian director Robert Allan Ackerman signed Santoro for his TV production The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone after being mesmerized by his performance in Bicho de Sete Cabeças. Since Santoro did not have an agent in North America, Ackerman contacted Santoro's father. He spent two months filming in Rome, alongside such actors as Helen Mirren and Anne Bancroft. Soon after he finished shooting for Mrs. Stone, he received an offer from Columbia Pictures for a part in the blockbuster Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. This role kick-started his career in Hollywood. After Charlie's Angels, he played Karl, an enigmatic chief designer and the love interest of Laura Linney's character, in the romantic comedy Love Actually.

Santoro began obtaining work in the advertising business as he appeared in a commercial campaign with Gisele Bündchen in 2002. He played the male lead in No. 5 The Film, a three-minute-long commercial for Chanel, directed by Baz Luhrmann alongside Nicole Kidman in 2004.

In 2006, Santoro joined the season three cast of the ABC television series Lost as Paulo, a survivor of the Oceanic Flight 815 crash. His first appearance was in the episode "Further Instructions", and his character was killed off in the episode "Exposé". He also voiced the character in the Brazilian-dubbed version of the series.

Santoro was cast as Persian emperor Xerxes in Zack Snyder's film 300 (2006), based on the Frank Miller comic of the same name. The job had many special requirements, which included intensive workout for the physicality of the role (Santoro had previously lost 24 lb to star in a Brazilian miniseries), extensive CGI work to portray the 6'2" Santoro as the seven-foot God-King, a four-and-a-half-hour makeup application process and the complete removal of Santoro's body hair first by waxing and then by shaving when waxing proved too painful. His eyebrows were kept intact, however, covered over with prosthetics and drawn in rather than being shaved. Santoro read the works of Herodotus, an Ancient Greek historian, in order to prepare for his part. Regarding Xerxes, he has stated:

"He's rich, he's arrogant, he's a very unstable megalomaniac. He just wants to conquer the world. His ambition is unlimited. He wants glory; he wants victory; he wants eternal fame. Underneath all that wanting, though, he's ultimately weak and very insecure."

After playing the footballer Heleno de Freitas in the 2012 film Heleno, Santoro co-starred alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 2013 film The Last Stand before playing Garriga in the Will Smith drama film Focus (2015).

Santoro played Jesus in the 2016 historical action film Ben-Hur and received personal blessings from Pope Francis for the role.

and in October of the same year, it was confirmed that the actor would return to soap operas after 12 years in Velho Chico, written by Benedito Ruy Barbosa, playing the role of protagonist Afrânio in the first phase, alongside Carol Castro.

Personal life
He dated actress Luana Piovani for three years, from 1997 to 2000, until it was discovered that she was cheating on him with businessman Cristiano Rangel. He was in Ribeirão Preto for the premiere of the film Meu País, directed by André Ristum. As the character Marcos, in the award-winning feature film, he emphasized his strong relationship with the city and the reasons that led him to select it as one of the locations for an avant-première: "My mother's entire family, Junqueira Reis, is from Ribeirão Preto. I've been coming here since I was little. I have a strong relationship with the city.

He dated model Ellen Jabour for four years, from 2004 to 2008.

He has been married since 2016 to actress and presenter Mel Fronckowiak. The two would have been introduced by an assistant director of the soap opera Rebelde, on RecordTV, in which Mel was one of the protagonists. After the soap opera, Mel was left without the flat provided by the broadcaster and, at Santoro's invitation, she started living in his apartment, in Leblon. The couple started dating in mid-July 2012 and kept their relationship discreet for 1 year. Santoro proposed to admit the relationship in public, at the launch of Mel's book, at Shopping do Leblon, in Rio de Janeiro, where the actor joined thousands of the actress's fans to receive his personal dedication in the book, on August 25 of 2013.

In January 2017, Santoro and Mel announced that they would become parents for the first time. The couple's daughter, Nina, was born on May 22, 2017.

Other nominations and honors

 * 2004: On People Magazine's 50 Most Beautiful list 2004
 * 2006: 12th position on People Magazine's 2006 Sexiest Man Alive
 * 2008: 16th position on E!'s 2008 Sexiest man of the world

title: Rodrigo Santoro


text:
Drudge

A drudge is a person who does tedious, menial, or unpleasant work; it can also refer to the work itself, known as drudgery.

Drudge can also refer to:

 * Matt Drudge, American Internet journalist
 * Drudge (TV series), Matt Drudge's former TV series
 * Drudge Report, news aggregator run by Matt Drudge
 * John Drudge, early 18th century sea captain who ended the career of pirate Nicholas Brown
 * Mr. Drudge, a character in the comic strip Motley's Crew
 * A race in the MMORPGs Asheron's Call and Asheron's Call 2, playable in the latter
 * A race of enemies in the first-person shooter video game The Conduit

title: Drudge