text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

 * Cantus - notified on Talk page
 * Netoholic - I am aware. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

 * I'll notify netoholic's mentors too. Kim Bruning 09:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:54, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

 * Requests for arbitration/Cantus (Aug 2004 case)
 * How is this qualified as a step in a resolution to this "dispute"? —Cantus… ☎   08:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco (Nov 2004 case)
 * How is this qualified as a step in a resolution to this "dispute"? —Cantus… ☎   08:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * request on his talk to use edit summaries (which Cantus blanked immediately)
 * I was blanking all messages, not just yours, because I was leaving the project. —Cantus… ☎   08:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check
I'd like to ask David Gerard to perform a sockpuppet check. Considering the recent report about User:Pages, and the hostory of abuse, it seems likely that Cantus is making use of many accounts/IP addresses. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

 * Appears that he is continuing to edit via sockpuppets, detailed info can be found here Jtkiefer 05:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Taxman's kid

Re: Account block
Thanks for your message, Taxman's kid. Are you saying that your choice of username had nothing to do with User:Taxman? I thank you for bringing me your concerns; I have asked for the opinions of other administrators on this matter. I also feel that this user name is inappropriate, as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have an answer to my question or Nichalp's question, I'd appreciate if you shared it. Otherwise, I am afraid that as I feel this user name is also inappropriate, I will block it as well. I would like it if you stayed at Wikipedia and helped us to improve our encyclopedia; I'm sure there are plenty of other names you can choose. If you find this account blocked before you have a chance to respond, please continue the discussion under your new account name; please do not create another derivative of User:Taxman or anyone else's user name. I did ask other administrators what they thought, and none felt I acted inappropriately. It is not my intention to be rude or arrogant to new users; it is just that it appears your user name was deliberately chosen to be similar to an existing Wikipedia user's. Selecting a new user name would make things a lot easier. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Identity
Could you prove your identity? Are there any websites/forums where we can authenticate your claims? = Nichalp ( Talk )= 08:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked this account, along with User:Taxman's child, due to the confusion/similarity with User:Taxman. In the absence of any reply to the questions Nichalp and I asked, and after consulting with other administrators, we feel that it would be better for you to choose a new account name. Please feel free to register a new name and continue your work on Wikipedia. Due to the nature of the MediaWiki software, your IP address may also get blocked. If this happens, please e-mail me or another administrator and we will remove the block. Please ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Taxman's kid


text: User talk:69.213.201.194

title: User talk:69.213.201.194


text:
User talk:Gafes

'''Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales. (GAFE) ''' Airborne Special Forces Group.

The first Army's Special Forces were created in 1986 with the creation of a Special Group called " Fuerza de Intervención Rápida" (F.I.R.) - Rapid Intervention Force. It was formed by members of the Military Police and paratroopers. In June 1st 1990 the group's name changed to Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales - Airborne Special Forces Group ( GAFE). However, their training was not the appropriate for the surprising EZLN  guerrilla uprising in 1994 in  the south state of Chiapas. The army realized the need for a more efective non-conventional force to properly deal with this threat. The army decided to send officers to receive training from the Guatemala army's Kaibiles; one of the best anti-guerrilla forces in America. Many officers also were sent to the United States to receive additional training from the Green Berets in Fort Bragg. The diverse operations the GAFEs* carried out in Chiapas remain in secret. Once the army had control over the EZLN guerrilla, they continued to send officers to receive training from different special forces groups like the Chilean Commandos, U.S. Navy SEALs, France's GIGN, Colombia's Lanceros, Bolivian Special Forces, Venezuela's Cazadores &  Brazil's Brigada de Operações Especiais. Another special trainining acquired was at the British Army's Jungle Warfare School in central Belize. Along came the creation of the Centro de Adiestramineto de Fuerzas Especiales- Special Forces Training Center, located in the outskirts of the  Iztaccíhuatl  volcano. The training given in this center consists of basic special forces skills,  and  its oriented to develop a high sense of responsibility, security and confidence in each operator. Jungle, desert, mountain & amphibious training takes place in the Northern, Central and South parts of the country. Nowadays there are several highly trained groups located in strategical points of the national territory, serving the nation's best interests.  TODO POR MEXICO - Everything for Mexico, its the slogan, which restates the highly nationalistic doctrine in the mexican special forces.

Main activities: Direct Action, Strategic Reconnaisance, Unconventional Warfare, Civil Affairs, Psychological Operations. Known transportation: UH-60 Black Hawk, MI-17/8, Yassur 2000 CH-53, MD-530F,  Bell 212, 206 L,  206-B-III & 412 helicopters. Chenowth fast attack vehicles, HMMWVs, Customized RAM pick-ups, 4 wheelers & all terrain motorcycles. Inflatable/fast boats. Known weaponry: HK G36, HK33, G3, M41 assault rifles. MP5, FN P90 submachineguns. BARRET .50, HK PSG-1, REMINGTON 700 & the Fusil de Precision Morelos  sniper rifles. Remington M1100 tactical, Mossberg 500 shotguns. B-300, RL-83 Blindicide & RPG-7 rocketlaunchers. HK P7M13, Beretta 92F & Colt .45 pistols. HK21E & M249 SAW light machineguns. MGL Mk-1, M203 40mm grenade launchers.

 * GAFEs is a plural way of referring to several groups or members of the GAFE.

Image Tagging Image:Gaf1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Gaf1.JPG. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Could you add a tag to let us know its copyright status? (If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .)  If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --Donar Reiskoffer 14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gafes


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Violations of previous parole

 * Cantus has broken his revert parole on numberous occasions and has been given blocks of various lengths (Block log). These do absolutely noting to help him avoid the problems leading up to revert wars. After a block, his usual first actions are to re-revert each and every change.  Please note this recent report where hs is shown to have broken the parole four times in one day

Improper use of sockpuppets/anonymous proxies
When blocked, or to violate his editing parole, Cantus has employed anonymous proxies and sock puppet accounts to evade detection. For example, the histories of "Developed country" and "Template:Europe" show IP addresses which are reverting to Cantus' preferred version. In Jan 2005, Cantus employed anon proxies to edit war with Gzornenplatz.

Likely users which have recently been used to perform edits which revert directly to Cantus' prefered versions:

Revert warring
Wherever Cantus is in disagreement over a page, "slow revert wars" often start. No meaningful dialogue is happening, but Cantus persists in reverting at the rate of about once a day.

Intensive revert war over country infobox
Around January 6-8 2005, Cantus and Gzornenplatz/Wik, along with other editors, became involved in a massive edit war over that nature of the infoboxes used in the various country articles. At the heart of this was whether the long, and somewhat incomprehensible, wiki-code belonged in the article text itself. Cantus pushed for an idea that created a new "Template:countryname infobox" for each article, where the complex code was moved to and then inserted as a typical template. Gzornenplatz pushed for leaving the code in the articles, so that they could be more easily edited.

In the end, an alternate solution (reviving use if Template:Infobox Country) which accommodated both desires. Unfortunately, these two parties primarily reverted each other ad nauseum rather than try on their own to reach a compromise.

I will point out that Cantus didn't originate this idea -- it seems to have been done slowly over the prior couple of months. The problem is that Cantus was responsible for dozens of reverts during January and escalated the conflict by actually creating more of these individual infoboxes where they had not been before, inserting them, and unsurprisingly reverting when they were removed. Cantus also used various sockpuppets during this war, even after he was blocked for parole violations.

 * An example of what sort of change was being made.
 * Here is a link to Cantus' edits from near that timeframe.

 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive2 - David Gerard describes blocking Cantus for one week, and also noting a "pile of sockpuppets" and anon IP edits which came after the block.
 * Special:Contributions/TimComm
 * Special:Contributions/80.237.206.93
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive2 - A complaint made about more block evasion, this section includes posts made by Cantus even while he was blocked as User:213.21.136.4.

Developed country
Cantus has been revert-warring on this article since mid-2004. Various wars have been fought, mostly over the list of developed countries presented in the article.

A complete list of reverts would be impractical to produce because they number in the dozens. I invite the Arbitrators to view the history of the page, specifically from May 2005. Reverts by Cantus proceed on a daily basis. When those changes are reverted, he employs, , , and  to revert to his version.

Template:Europe
Mar 10 to present - over a seemingly minor bit of formatting involving the inclusion of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the visible appearance of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in the template.

 * 08:39, 2005 Mar 10 by Cantus
 * 23:05, 2005 Mar 17 by Cantus
 * 03:14, 2005 Apr 24 by Cantus
 * 02:45, 2005 May 2 by Cantus
 * 02:50, 2005 May 6 by Cantus
 * 07:22, 2005 May 7 by Cantus
 * 01:12, 2005 May 8 by Cantus
 * 23:26, 2005 May 11 by Cantus
 * 09:11, 2005 May 15 by
 * 13:04, 2005 May 15 by
 * 00:44, 2005 May 16 by
 * 03:41, 2005 May 16 by
 * 04:26, 2005 May 16 by
 * 06:18, 2005 May 16 by
 * 06:35, 2005 May 16 by
 * 05:38, 2005 May 17 by
 * 06:05, 2005 May 17 by
 * 11:07, 2005 May 17 by
 * 00:24, 2005 May 18 by
 * 05:27, 2005 May 19 by Cantus
 * 07:00, 2005 May 26 by Cantus
 * 22:16, 2005 May 26 by
 * 23:11, 2005 May 26 by
 * 23:16, 2005 May 26 by
 * 01:33, 2005 May 27 by  (note edit summary which threatens "Revert. Respect the poll results or you will be blocked."
 * 04:35, 2005 May 27 by
 * 05:38, 2005 May 28 by Cantus
 * 03:29, 2005 May 30 by
 * 06:01, 2005 Jun 1] by Cantus
 * 18:46, 2005 Jun 3 by Cantus

Terri Schiavo
Insertion of a particular Infobox template and bit of text. Slow revert war started with Cantus, but then progressed to using anonymous proxies.

 * 00:22, 2005 May 8 by Cantus' initial posting of the infobox and text from intro
 * 05:19, 2005 May 9 by Cantus
 * 23:39, 2005 May 11 by Cantus
 * 05:32, 2005 May 12 by Cantus
 * 07:17, 2005 May 14 by Cantus
 * 07:58, 2005 May 15 by Cantus
 * 00:44, 2005 May 16 by
 * 03:41, 2005 May 16 by
 * 04:26, 2005 May 16 by
 * 06:18, 2005 May 16 by
 * 06:35, 2005 May 16 by
 * 06:47, 2005 May 16 by

Others
Similar repeated reversion (ownership behavior) can be found in the following article histories:

Bad editing practices

 * Cantus fails frequently to submit edit summaries (contribs). Many of these represent reverts or major changes which were not noted.

 * On May 8/9, Cantus made a change to a very commonly used template (see Template talk:Infobox Biography). Before gathering further opinion, he implemented that change. At first, the change was made just to the template, but that broke all the articles.  After User:PRiis fixed the template back, Cantus reverted the template to his version, and proceeded to make an alteration to about 250 articles without leaving edit summaries. This was all done before even 24 hours had passed since he first made his proposal.

Improper behavior

 * Cantus vandalized User:Netoholic's user page

 * Cantus' user page (as of today) has a misleading message indicating he is no longer with the project, but this is far from the truth.

Evidence presented by Talrias

 * On 4:43am, 24 June, Cantus provided a false edit summary when he reverted Talrias' edits to current with the edit reason "a wee bit larger image". The image stayed the same size as in the previous version of the template. As Netoholic mentions above, he has previously reverted changes to this template at a rate of once per day to avoid 3RR. I've requested he provide reasoning twice on his talk page, he has ignored it and provided either no edit summaries, false edit summaries or confrontational ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACurrent&diff=15740889&oldid=15729226

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 2 Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Limited sanctions
1) In order to maintain the principle that anyone may edit Wikipedia all sanctions placed on Wikipedia users by the Arbitration Committee are limited to a maximum of one year.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * Arbitration policy makes no such limitation. The one year maximum is a self-imposed convention, albeit one that has tremendous momentum and will probably never see an exception. Also, I disagree with the purpose—it has nothing to do with the anyone-may-edit mentality; it's more a recognition of the fact that 'internet time' is much faster than real-world time; a one-year prohibition is akin to a ten-year jail sentence. →Raul654 02:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Per Raul. We have also imposed indefinite sanctions before—just not bans. Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sez who? ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

Sustained edit warring
2) Sustained edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 02:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * We've used this principle before, and the wording was better then - why not use it?

Use of Sockpuppets
3) The use of anonymous editing or sockpuppets to evade editing bans is prohibited.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note - I changed the above from 'strongly discouraged' to 'prohibited'. →Raul654 02:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * Stick to the usual wording - it covers things better. Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Prior cases
1) User:Cantus has been the subject of two prior arbitration cases. Requests for arbitration/Cantus and Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 02:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Cantus 1
1.1) The decision in the first case which involved Cantus Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus provided:

1 Cantus is placed on revert parole, indefinately, as was applied to Wik. As a result, he may not revert any page more than three times in any 24 hour period. This may be enforced by 24-hour temp-bans at sysop discretion, as per Wik.

2 Cantus is reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikiquette, and is instructed to not engage in personal attacks, harrassment, or provocation.

3 If Cantus gets into further sterile and pointless revert wars in the future, the Arbitration Committee may ban him from editing the pages involved in order to discourage him from wasting his valuable Wikipedia time.

Decided August 1, 2004

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 03:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Cantus 2
1.2) The decision in the second case which involved Cantus, Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco, provided, in relevant part:

1) Cantus is banned from editing Clitoris and Siberia and the articles' associated talk pages for a period of one year, for engaging in sterile and pointless edit wars.

3) Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).

Decided November 24, 2004

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 03:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Slow revert wars
2) User:Cantus, has engaged in lengthy edit warring with respect to a number of articles, see Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_3/Evidence, Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_3/Evidence and Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_3/Evidence

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 03:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Use of sockpuppets in revert wars
2.1) User:Cantus has used sockpuppets and anonymous editing in the conduct of these revert wars.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Having discussed with David, I am now convinced. Added "and anonymous editing".
 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * I have no issues with this, but it would be nice to cite the sockpuppets used. Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC) as Ambi

Template talk:Infobox Biography
3) User:Cantus, after minimal discussion, made a change to Template talk:Infobox Biography which did not work on a number of pages and was strongly objected to by other editors, after a time he retracted his change, see Template_talk:Infobox_Biography

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 14:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Edit summaries
4) User:Cantus frequently does not enter adequate edit summaries, see his user contributions.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * Eh, I'm on the fence -- he certainly doesn't use them often, but I'm not sure how he compares to the average wikipedian. His edit summaries can be helpful when he makes them. →Raul654 15:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Limitation on prior remedies
1) All prior remedies which are not limited to a one year term are limited to a term of one year.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:23, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * See Raul. Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

Cantus banned from certain articles
2) User:Cantus is banned from editing the articles Developed country, Template:Europe and Terri Schiavo

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 15:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC) I'm not convinced this is enough of a solution, but will at least allow these to escape the edit warring
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Edit summaries
3) User:Cantus is reminded to provide adequate edit summaries.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 15:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Further revert limitation
4) User:Cantus is limited to one revert per article or other page per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).

 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (the previous ruling said "article" only) Second choice
 * Fred Bauder 16:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Third choice
 * ➥the Epopt 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) — third choice

 * Oppose:
 * →Raul654 19:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC) - been there, done that, didn't work.

 * Abstain:

4.1) User:Cantus is limited to one revert per article or other page per 7 day period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Second choice
 * sannse (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) First choice
 * →Raul654 19:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC) - second choice
 * ➥the Epopt 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) — second choice

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

4.2) User:Cantus is limited to one revert per article or other page per 30 day period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC) First choice
 * sannse (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) third choice
 * →Raul654 19:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC) - first choice
 * ➥the Epopt 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) — first choice

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets and reverts
5) Should User:Cantus break his revert limitation on any page by using sockpuppets or anon editing, an admin may ban him from that page for up to a month. A list of pages that Cantus is banned from shall be kept for the reference of all.

 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 16:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Enforcing bans
1) Should User:Cantus edit any article from which he is banned he may be banned from Wikipedia for a short period, up to a week for repeat offenses.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 21:01 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets
1.1) Should User:Cantus use a verifiable sockpuppet to edit articles from which he is banned he may be banned from Wikipedia for one month.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Motion to close
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

We have all the votes we need, and clearing the Arbitration backlog is important at this time. I move to close. Neutralitytalk 14:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see talk page for Netoholic's comment. Fred Bauder 21:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see new proposals -- sannse (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close 2

 * It seems that everything likely to pass has the requesite 4 votes. →Raul654 08:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree -- sannse (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree Fred Bauder 12:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 04:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Frank Coe (government official)

Virginius Frank Coe (1907 – June 2, 1980) was a United States government official who was identified by Soviet defectors Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers as being an underground member of the Communist Party and as belonging to the Soviet spy group known as the Silvermaster ring.

Background
Born in 1907 in Richmond, Virginia, he attended public schools in Tennessee, Alabama, and Chicago. He attended the University of Chicago, earning his bachelor of philosophy in 1926 and continuing graduate work into 1928. Coe was Jewish.

Career
From 1928 to 1930, he was a member of the staff of the Johns Hopkins University Institute of Law, returning to the University of Chicago as a research assistant and to write his thesis from 1930 to 1933. From 1933 to 1934, he was a member of the staff of the Brookings Institution.

Government service
In the summer of 1934, he was a consultant in the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury Department; in the summer of 1936 and spring-summer 1939, he was again a consultant at the Treasury. From the autumn of 1934 until the spring of 1939, he taught economics at the University of Toronto, remaining a member of its staff on leave for several years thereafter (in his testimony, Coe says "4, 5, or 6 years"). Beginning in 1939, he worked adviser to Paul McNutt, then head of the Federal Security Agency, and in 1940 as assistant to Leon Henderson in the Office of Price Administration (then known as the National Defense Council).

Late in 1940, he returned to the Treasury Department as an assistant director of monetary research, where he stayed for about a year, during which he was special assistant to the United States Ambassador in England. In 1942, he became Executive Secretary of the Joint War Production Committee of the United States and Canada and an assistant to the Executive Director of the Board of Economic Warfare (later renamed the Foreign Economic Administration). In late 1944/early 1945, Coe was named Director of the Division of Monetary Research in the Treasury Department, serving as technical secretary at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944, he accepted a position as Secretary of the International Monetary Fund in 1946, his successor at Treasury being Harold Glasser.

Coe resigned from the Fund in December 1952 after public calls were made by Congress for his ouster. The IMF announced his resignation on December 3, 1952.

Allegations and evidence of espionage
The evidence against Coe stems from his being named by two defected spies and ex post examinations of his career.

In 1939, former Communist underground courier Whittaker Chambers named Coe to then-Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle as a communist sympathizer who was providing information to the Ware group.

In 1948, former NKVD courier Elizabeth Bentley, testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee, mentioned Coe, whom she remembered as one of several important Treasury officials who passed on information to Silvermaster.

Called before the HUAC (chaired by Congressman Karl Mundt), Coe denied under oath having ever been a member of the Communist Party USA. Subsequently, he was questioned intensely in the IMF about his activities, but he was not sanctioned or removed from his duties. In late 1952, he was called before a Grand Jury in New York (presided over by Senator Herbert O'Conor) and then before the McCarran Committee on December 1, 1952, both of which were investigating alleged Communist affiliations of U.S. citizens working for the United Nations and other international organizations. On the latter occasion, he declined to answer the question of whether he was a member of the Communist Party on Fifth Amendment grounds, citing the example of Alger Hiss's conviction for perjury.

His final appearance before McCarthy's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) came on June 5 and 8, 1953, chaired by then Senator Karl Mundt.

Nominally, the investigation was into interference with negotiations to devalue the Austrian schilling in November 1949 as the Soviets had apparently been profiting from the black market. U.S. officials with the European Cooperation Administration (the Marshall Plan aid agency) reported that a command came via a tickertape telecon to break off negotiations at the last minute. The telecon, which was with an anonymous person at the State Department, cited Coe in his capacity as Secretary of the IMF as the source of the order. (In truth, the devaluation had been discussed by and was supported by the Executive Board of the IMF.)

The PSI ascertained that Coe could not have been the source of the communication as he was in the Middle East at the time, and quickly turned to investigating Coe's alleged Communist activities. Coe, who consulted constantly with his lawyer Milton S. Friedman, maintained his Fifth-Amendment plea, stating at one point that he did not want to see the blacklist extended to include those who had helped him in his search for work.

The subsequent report of the Senate Sub-Committee on Internal Security stated: "Coe refused to answer, on the grounds that the answers might incriminate him, all questions as to whether he was a Communist, whether he was engaged in subversive activities, or whether he was presently a member of a Soviet espionage ring. He refused for the same reason to answer whether he was a member of an espionage ring while Technical Secretary of the Bretton Woods Conference, whether he ever had had access to confidential Government information or security information, whether he had been associated with the Institute of Pacific Relations, or with individuals named on a long list of people associated with that organization.

Later career
Coe was Blacklisted, the US denied his passport (in late 1949) and prevented Coe from traveling to neighboring countries (June 1953) due to his ties to Soviet espionage. Coe sought work abroad. He moved to China, where he was among a group of expatriates working with the government. Like most Americans working in China in the 1950s and 1960s, Coe worked as an English language expert. Along with Solomon Adler, Sidney Rittenberg, and Israel Epstein, Coe was a translator for the fourth volume of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong.

Coe did work in the International Liaison Department of the Chinese Communist Party. Coe's value to his superiors was evidently substantial given that Kang Sheng shielded Coe from being purged during the Cultural Revolution, even allowing him to stay in his residence to protect him from the Red Guards. Coe was one of the only people, both Chinese or Foreign, who was ever protected in such a manner by Kang. In 1962, he was joined by Solomon Adler in the circle. Coe participated in Mao's Great Leap Forward, a plan for the rapid industrialization and modernization of China. Coe sought works included articles justifying the Rectification campaign.

Personal life and death
Coe married Ruth Coe, who lived with him in China.

Frank Coe died age 73 on June 2, 1980, in Beijing, China. The New China News Agency listed the cause of his death as a pulmonary embolism and indicated that government officials visited him often during his illness. His brother indicated that he had undergone surgery for cancer eight months earlier.

Legacy
Regarding his policy actions, it is often mentioned that Coe, together with Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White and Treasury economist Solomon Adler, opposed President Franklin Roosevelt's gold loan program of $200 million to help the Nationalist Chinese Government stabilize its currency in 1943. However, White's documents indicate while he favored giving economic assistance, he had concerns that cash assistance might be misused or fall into enemy hands.

Arlington Hall cryptographers identified the Soviet agent designated "Peak" in the Venona project as "possibly" Coe, but there is no clear reason for the identification. (One secondary source suggests it was because there was no additional information on Peak. ) The decrypt in question reports that five reels of Peak's documents concerning U.S.-British Lend-Lease negotiations were en route to Moscow.

A 1999 investigation into the KGB archives claims that files show Coe to have been a Soviet agent. However, the authors do not quote or reproduce the documents in question and at least one scholar argues that their testimony should be suspended until the primary sources become available.

title: Frank Coe (government official)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naeem Akhtar Bhatti

 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Naeem Akhtar Bhatti
Pakistani political aide of questionable notability. Article is an orphan. EvilPhoenix 18:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Pakistani senators are notable; I don't think their personal assistants are. Delete. - Mustafaa 18:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:52, 2 Jun 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:
Talk:Liskov substitution principle

Dead link
04. Jan. 2011: The external link: The Liskov Substitution Principle, T. S. Norvell, 2003 is not available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.103.254 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Why 'mutable'?
On Aug.25, 2009, a word 'mutable' was added to 'The Principle' paragraph. I could not find any place in Liskov works where she insists that this "principle" somehow depends on the objects mutability. Although it may be true that the principle is trivial for immutable objects, the mutability issue should probably not be inserted without a proper comment, if ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Patryshev (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect citation of original paper
The article states that LSP was introduced in 1993 by Barbara Liskov and Jeanette Wing. However, the term was already in use by 1993, having been used by Jim Coplien in Advanced C++ Programming Styles and Idioms, the copyright date for which is 1992. The paper normally credited with advancing the principle is Barbara Liskov's "Data Abstraction and Hierarchy", which was published in 1988: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/context/93923/0 -- Kevlin 08:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I found a keynote speech with the same title from 1987 and changed the article intro to point to that. --Doradus (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that wasn't the earliest either. I checked the October 1979 edition of the CLU reference manual, and that is definitely too early: http://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-225.pdf, though it brushes up against the topic with mention of the type inclusion rule. I think it likely that if you scan all the LCS TRs and TM's between that point and 1987 by Liskov or her grad students, you'll find an earlier reference. Bob Kerns (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, rather than the 1979 CLU reference manual, Wing's PhD thesis (http://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-299.pdf, 1983) is a better early endpoint for a search. The seeds are there, but nothing (in a quick scan, anyway) that captures the idea of substitutability concisely. Bob Kerns (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The incorrect citation is still there, at the end of the first paragraph. The correct succinct quote should be "“What is wanted here is something like the following substitution property: If for each object o1 of type S there is an object o2 of type T such that for all programs P defined in terms of T, the behavior of P is unchanged when o1 is substituted for o2 then S is a subtype of T." This is from the 1988 paper.ADKolsky (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Design by Contract inference
The article currently includes this:

 * In general, the principle mandates that at all times objects from a class can be swapped with objects from an inheriting class, without the user noticing any other new behaviour. It has effects on the paradigms of design by contract, especially regarding to specification:
 * postconditions for methods in the subclass should be more strict than those in the superclass
 * preconditions for methods in the subclass should be less strict than those in the superclass
 * no new exceptions should be introduced in the subclass

As much as I like Design by Contract, I don't think it's valid to infer anything about preconditions, postconditions, new exceptions, or "any other new behaviour" based on Liskov and Wing's original forumlation. That may be one interpretation or application of the Principle, but to claim that it is "mandated" by the Principle is an opinion that may not be shared by the bulk of practitioners in the field, and at the very least, should be accompanied by a reference. --Doradus 18:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * You are very probably more knowledgeable than me about the topic (I'm following a reduced CS curriculum - one year). I have learned this from a theoretical Dutch 2nd bachelor-level textbook on OO, given by a prof enamoured of Design by Contract. My perspective on it is small. And mandating is a bit strong, yes. But isn't saying "mandating transparent swapping" just a more practical approach to the previous paragraph, i.e. this:

 * Thus, Liskov and Wing's notion of "subtype" is based on the notion of substitutability; that is, if S is a subtype of T, then objects of type T in a program may be replaced with objects of type S without altering any of the desirable properties of that program (e.g., correctness).

 * Feel free to put in perspective and change whatever you want:)--Phlebas 12:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Reflecting on it, perhaps the preconditions and postconditions are warranted. It's hard to imagine an interpretation of LSP that allows preconditions to be weakened in subclasses, for example.  As for the rest, I'm still pondering that...  --Doradus 14:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

comparison by strength
I just put up some changes - I found a little confusion in the "preconditions are weakened" vs "preconditions cannot strengthen" area: my formal logic background and some confusion in my undergrad students who referenced this article made me change it. I also added a bit about the functions using classes and the open/closed principle (slightly modified from foldoc.org, also repeated else where) since there were no articles with both bits of information together. Jgorman2 11:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

 * One of my professors pointed out the concept of comparability was missing, so I tightened up the previous changes further and added a short bit on comparability. This can probably do with expansion if I have missed any cases of comparability. 202.7.166.163 06:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't understand the comparability thing. Clearly if predicate A is weaker than or equal to B, they are necessarily comparable.  --Doradus 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * In the normal case we have type T with precondition A and subtype S with precondtion A' same or weaker than A. In the incomparable case take T with conditions A and B and S with A' and B' where A' < A and B' > B. In this case the individual conditions can be compared for strength but not the whole condition. Does this make sense (it may not, it is late at night)? If it does, should it be added do you think? Jgorman2 14:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge
This page should be merged with ThomasOwens (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Disagree. This is a subtyping issue, not an inheritance issue.  --Doradus (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Definitely disagree. Liskov and Inheritance are two separate issues. For example, you can have an inheritance relationship in an OO program while still violating the Liskov Substitution Principle. Trumpi (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Disagree. Liscov substitution principle stands on its own. It is more abstract than its source link, if people want the abstraction, let them click. Removing fancy abstractions to their own articals makes the source-link-articals more readable for introductory readers. Artical design should encourge learning and exploring of people at many levels of understanding. Here I am thinking like a teacher. --[Eric Evers] - Sat Nov 8 10:02:35 EST 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.235.201 (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DO NOT MERGE! Inheritance is about shared implementation. LSP is about contract and interface. LSP applies even with no inheritance. And as noted above, you can break LSP in a subclass -- for example, by reducing the range of values accepted in a method. This renders the subclass not a valid substitute for the base class. It's bad practice -- but it's bad practice because it violates LSP. Bob Kerns (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge FROM Subsitutability, not merge TO there
I removed the mergeto|Substitutability for the following reasons: --76.247.105.43 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since last July, actually since never, there has been no discussion on the subject of mergeto|Subsitutability.
 * There's a newer mergeto| tag. It's patently ridiculous to have two mergeto proposals at the same time.
 * mergefrom|Substitutability is what I'm actually going to argue for -- over there.

It's worse than I thought. REDIRECT is more like it. --76.247.105.43 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Missleading link to Property_(programming)
Even though this is an article about programming, the word property in the LSP doesn't refer to the concept of computed object attributes. The link is missleading to the reader, it should either be removed or changed to Predicate_(logic), or maybe even to Property_(philosophy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.14.131.92 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Who coined it as "The Liskov substitution principle"?
This point is unclear to me. It appears that Robert Martin did, but we need a citation for something like that. Pcap ping  08:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Undecidable Does Not Mean Impossible to Prove
This is a common misunderstanding. An undecidable property could possibly be proven;  a program with one statement -- Halt --  is trivially provable as halting, even though in general halting is undecidable. The problem is, for any particular program, failure to construct a proof might mean the property is truly undecidable, or if additional time/memory would succeed in finding the proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseydoubleyew (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What post conditions?
The article mentions "the postconditions" for a rectangle object without identifying or describing what those postconditions would be. This text is currently ambiguous and unclear. 159.54.131.7 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The "post conditions" listed for the rectangle object are wrong
Neither an ellipse nor a rectangle are mathematically required to have their x and y axis vary independently of each other. In fact, this is the defining property of Circles and Squares as sub-classes of Ellipses and Rectangles.

By insisting that the two values *MUST* be required to vary independently, you have lost an important mathematical property of the object in question! In fact, you've forbidden the very property that lets you define a Circle or Square in the first place.

In effect, you have now contracted not to subclass Circles nor Squares; which is why you have trouble later on when you try.

This is why removing the post condition eliminates the problem; contrary to the article's claims, however, removing such a false-promise was doesn't "weaken" the contract; it merely makes it possible to write a mathematically correct one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.119.10 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Two way inheritance
Object inherited from can be seen and/or used in two ways: 1) bottom-up: as parent class (top) or 2) top-down: primitive library one want to use and extend from. In second case "Liskov substitution principle" does not apply and contract inheritance is nuisance.

Dirk van Dijk (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is The Article Even Correct
It seems to me that the article was written based on the 1994 paper and not based on the 1988 paper. This means that most of the discussion within is not relevant to LSP. Thoughts? ADKolsky (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Covariance in exceptions
In the Principle section, the statement
 * No new exceptions should be thrown by methods of the subtype, except where those exceptions are themselves subtypes of exceptions thrown by the methods of the supertype.

looks to me suspiciously like a cumbersome way of saying that methods must be covariant in exceptions thrown; this could even be unified with covariance of return value into a generalised "covariance of response" - function types are covariant in the return, in any throws and indeed in any other form of response mechanism a language might invent. Of course, not actually throwing a given type of exception is an acceptable implementation of covariant throwing, just as (accepting but) not requiring some input parameter is an acceptable implementation of contravariance for inputs. -- Eddy. 84.215.30.244 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

First sentence rephrasing suggestion
I suggest changing the first sentence of the introduction

"Substitutability is a principle in object-oriented programming that states that, in a computer program, if S is a subtype of T, then objects of type T may be replaced with objects of type S (i.e., an object of type T may be substituted with any object of a subtype S) without altering any of the desirable properties of T (correctness, task performed, etc.)."

to the more clean

"Substitutability is a principle in object-oriented programming that states that, in a computer program, an object of any type T may be substituted with an object of any subtype of T without altering the desirable properties of T. Desirable properties can for instance be correctness and task performed."

I find the current wording rather messy and therefore hard to read, and I believe it is important that the very first sentence is clear, easy to understand, and to the point. Note that with the new wording, there is no need to name the subtype, so introducing "S" is avoided. Also, the parenthesis "(correctness, task performed, etc.)" is moved to a separate sentence to make the first sentence more clean. Finally, it is my belief that everybody understands that "substitute" means "replace", and as "substitute" is the word normally used in computer science, and in the name of the article, I suggest simply using that. If not, " (replaced)" could be added after "substituted".

--Jhertel (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

LSP, substitutability are misnomers
I believe we should all do our best to erase all traces of the terms "Liskov Substitution Principle" and "substitutability" from the Internet, starting with this article. Behavioral subtyping is a very meaningful and important concept, and the name "behavioral subtyping" is a great name for it, but LSP and substitutability are terrible names for it. Nothing is being substituted for anything! The principle is about a single object being of two different behavioral types (one of which is a behavioral subtype of the other), not about two different objects! If the supertype is an abstract class, there cannot even *be* any objects whose class is that class, even though behavioral subtyping is perfectly applicable to such cases!

I think Liskov herself feels the same way. If she used substitution-like terms in preliminary work, as far as I know she did *not* use any such terms in the published literature!

If it's okay with people, I'll start by editing the Behavioral subtyping article to make it not be a redirect to this page. I'll copy over all of the content from this page that does not promote the "substitutability" error.

I think the desired final state is that the terms LSP and substitutability are mentioned in a subsection somewhere towards the bottom of the Behavioral subtyping article for historical and debunking reasons, and that the LSP article is turned into a redirect to Behavioral subtyping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liskov substitution principle


text: User talk:80.58.0.46

title: User talk:80.58.0.46


text:
User talk:Jmabel/Archive 16

Vermont Republic
J, I reverted your edit regarding the Vermont Republic in Historic regions of the United States (I see the talk has been removed from the latter to that former article's talk page). The previous discussion on this concluded with a consensus to include it under the "self-declared" category (where it is now) instead of independent nation, primarily because none of us could find any evidence that any foreign nation (including the U.S.) had ever recognized its existence (in contrast to the other nations on the list, which definitely did achieve international recognition). As such, as far as I know, the acquisition of those nations' territories was negotiated as an agreement between sovereign powers. Granted this is only one criterion. If you're of the mind to put forth other evidence or a different argument, please feel free to do so. -- Decumanus 01:34, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

 * No problem. I figured as such. By the way, I'm heartened by your defense of Armenian people. -- Decumanus 21:55, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

U.S. regions vote
The vote has ended. You can find the results here. Please feel free, to participate in a follow up discussion. Thanks for your partipation. -JCarriker 06:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know that U.S. Southern states has been moved to Southern United States. There seems to be no problems as yet, hopefully this will hold up for this one and also other article in the future. Again, thanks for your input. -JCarriker 06:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Caption on the OW page
When I saw the addition to the caption that you mention on the Wilde talk page I had the same question that you do. I agree that it doesn't seem quite appropriate for the article, although, if true, it is a somewhat interesting fact. I just hope that it is not a way of slipping the vandalism that ocassionally occurs on Oscar's page through the side door. Maybe it could be moved to the talk page.MarnetteD | Talk 14:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I just found a wiki page entitled Dublin statues and their nicknames where this moniker is mentioned. Maybe some kind of link between the caption and this page would be appropriate. I'll let you decide. MarnetteD | Talk 16:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

disrupting wikipedia policy vote
You voted once for the policy at Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεx  τ  urε  17:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Please review U.S. regions page
Please review the WikiProject main page. I believe I've successfully merged the new policy, with the policy we decided to keep. I could be wrong and as you know can be notorioulsy unclear at times. I'll post my idea for instituting the new policy on the talk page soon, but I believe my proposed way will take some time as such it will probably take place when you are un available. First on the list is my home region, U.S. South and it's related articles. P.S. I'm stretched right now but I'll try to make it to ]]Wiley next Tuesday or Thursday so you'll know something before you leave. -JCarriker 21:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Economics
"Your recent edits at Economics may not be vandalism in the narrow sense, but they are certainly unencyclopedic." Yeah, I knew that at the time. It seemed clever, though, and the damage was minor. It took 46 minutes to get reverted, which I was most interested in. My apologies if it caused you to have a heart attack. One question, though: the fellow who reverted my edit also deleted the "associative economics" section already present. Was that really vandalism as well? --Orborde 05:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I was up way late and binging on Uncyclopedia, so I'm not sure I could have been called rational at the time, either. Side note: This seems like a somewhat silly way to communicate. Is there a more efficient way to use talk pages that doesn't induce fragmentation? --Orborde 05:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The way you avoid fragmentation is to copy, like I just did. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're a stinking genius. Thanks. --Orborde 05:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Federico García Lorca
You ask (somewhat rudely) in your edit summary for your recent edit to Federico García Lorca, 'What is this with people continually removing citations?'. If you look at the previous edit it was far from obvious that this link was a citation -- it was simply included in the middle of the page with the link text 'Democratic Development and Reckoning with the Past: The Case of Spain in Comparative Context'. That's why I removed it. Now that you've actually made it *look* like a citation instead of an external link in an inappropriate place I have no problem with it. --Ngb 08:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

IZAK's images on PUI
The reason all those are listed there is that we got the run around from him on one image, so I just listed everything. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 10:47, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Jewish language
You may be interested in the discussion brewing at Template_talk:Jewish_language. Tomer TALK 17:38, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Margaret McBride
I'd almost surely have tried to resolve our ed-conf by merging your stub in, rather than clobbering it after rescuing it to the talk, except that i had just said "Yes, i know i said i'd wind it up quickly, and i just saved the article; it'll be 30 sec." It sounds like you may be too busy to consider it a kindness if give you the chance to come up with the right merge. [smile] But i'll put it off until the 21st, or longer if you ask me. I certainly don't mind doing the merge, but it would have seemed like a waste not to give you the chance if you prefer. Thanks in any case. Reply here, and i'll check for any response. --Jerzy~t 00:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why Jerzy thinks he and I had an edit conflict over this page; I've responded on his talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[Smile] You have no reason to think we had an ed conflict, bcz you were at the end of it that finished first. I know we had one, bcz i was on the other end, the end the system notifies of the conflict (and bcz the history shows that the version other than mine is what you added in your edit). What is unusual about this is that i started editing before you (which you have no way of knowing until i tell you), wrote a big bunch without saving, went to bed, got up, read the paper, wrote more, and finished my edit, as you say, long after you. What i quoted myself as saying was, no, not said to you; its relevance was by way of excusing my lack of effort to resolve the conflict other than by overwriting your edit, which was the quick way out. (Perhaps you don't have occasion to make promises, outside cyberspace, about when you are going to leave your terminal; if not you might not appreciate the situation.) I regret any impression i left that you did anything wrong or caused me any avoidable inconvenience. My sole intent was to give you information, and enhance your degree of choice about what comes next. Likewise, the "right merge" didn't refer to any "wrong merge" by you, but rather to the prospect that i might rush, in deciding how to merge our contributions, or misvalue yours in light of my excessive immersion in researching and composing mine; my hope was and is that you are more likely to make the right merge than i would be. I'm pleased that you are finding the time, despite your obviously much more burdened schedule, to have that chance. Thanks for the collaboration. --Jerzy~t 04:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism in the United States
I see that in previous edits you have done some valid edits. Your approach with regard to my edit, however, I believe is considered vandalism. You totally erased an edit with almost no justification and before discussing it on the board. This is entirely contrary to Wiki policy. Because you seem to have done other valid edits and are not normally known as a vandal, I will give you an opportunity to use the discussion to revert to my edit, or to improve what I edited. But if you insist on erasing it, we will be in an edit war just as you seem to frequently get in, only this time it is my edit that is the valid approach. --Noitall 03:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate discussing the subject of the edits. In your first edit, you change the definition back to "controversial" from my "perjorative." In your second edit, you change the meaning by stating that the perjorative usage primarily comes from paleoconservatives. My argument in the talk page is that the term neoconservative is by definition perjorative, whether it is used from people from the left or right. Also, although I have not edited it yet, I think the change in meaning over the years or change to make the term meaningless is significant. --Noitall 04:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, what I did was by no means vandalism. Here are the edit summaries in question: …and this shows the cumulative effect. See also the relevant discussion on the talk page of the article in question. Some people have been throwing accusations of vandalism pretty lightly, lately.
 * 1) (cur) (last) 11:28, May 15, 2005 Jmabel m (fix typo in my previous, more major, edit)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 11:25, May 15, 2005 Jmabel (...but having done that, I guess "pejorative" should be restored in terms of use by the paleos. Also, some disambiguation)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 11:18, May 15, 2005 Jmabel (The term is clearly not inherently pejorative, since Irving Kristol used it in the title of one of his books)

By the way, I think the claim that I "frequently" get in edit wars is ridiculous. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

On this one talk page, you claimed yourself to be in 2 edit wars (not counting the unjustified edit war with me) and were "appalled" at another edit done by a well-meaning person. If you do not listen to reason, that's ok. I made my arguments on the talk page, not on the article itself. But I will give up on this page since it is obviously "yours" and you will get what you want. I suppose that I will not respond to some of your other arguments that may or may not be valid, because you obviously have a vice grip on "your" article, and it is pointless to make a reasonable argument. I do not think that these are good qualities for an adminstrator and, as I said before, some of these practices are contrary to Wiki policy. --Noitall 06:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A "consensus" vote of 3 by the blind, deaf and dumb does not make it accurate or right. --Noitall 07:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Whereas, apparently one vote by the arrogant does.
 * FWIW, I did not engage in "2 edit wars" on that page: the comments are precisely my requests for a third party to look into a disagreement with someone who was not willing to have a discussion, and was simply reinserting information I objected to. In both cases, the third party concurred with me. The edit by which I was "appalled" was insertion of a wildly anti-Semitic attack on the neoconservatives by Kevin MacDonald as if it were simply factual. Judging by Noitall's own edits, I'd expect him to share my opinion in this matter (he, after all, wants to say that the very term "neoconservative" is pejorative). But apparently he'd rather have a grievance against me than look at what I actually do around here. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Neoconservatism in the United States
FYI, I ghuess I wasn't clear in my remarks. I was responding to Noitall, who wrote (in response to a comment of my own):
 *  I will not respond again to stupidity when the answer is before your nose.

Thus, when I wrote: "I apologize for being such a stupid editor, but this stupid editor... " the "stupid editor" in my question was myself. Not only am I a stupid editor, but I'm an unclear writer too! Yikes. -Willmcw 05:05, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please read
I asked you previously to help me merge U.S. West and American West, and in this post I am not asking it again, but rather that you read American West and give me your opinion on my talk page. The article is riddled with POV (especially romanticism), tons of presumably original "adjusted" research, and a rather ardent condescension towards WikiProject U.S. regions policies. The definition, as per states included, is a common one, but the statement that it is more prominent than the Census Bureau region.... I'm going to babble incessantly and waste your time if I continue so, let me cut to the chase in rather uncharacteristic bluntness; I'm too biased to look at this article and merge it without getting a second opinion. I can do the work, but I need help in seeing other vantage points, that I so easily see with other issues. Everyone has faults; this is one of mine. -JCarriker 11:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your insight. I agree, its not much of an article, I find the deletion button at the side of the article rather tempting, but that little inclusionist voice in my head tells me surely something can be salvaged. If you haven't read U.S. West (soon to be Western United States) it's a rather extensive article and includes most of this information in a more encyclopedic way. For that reason, as well as the snide tone, I suspect the article was created to go around the other article.

 * I'm bulleting my remaing response because I've already written three 1,000 word post on this subject, only to realized I was preachign to the choir, delete, and start again- this format should moderate my verbosity, some. (Jmabel's posts are italcized; JCarriker's are not, for those who read other people's talk)
 * I don't think Americans would have any real agreement on what is meant by "the West".
 * Agreed.
 * Most of us here on the Pacific Coast do not consider ourselves part of "the West" which, ironically, we use to refer to the states east of us. Which is to say that on a map, I'd show California, Oregon, and Washington in the color indicating states that may or may not be included.
 * I already supected as much, having someone with authority saying it helps. I'll do what I can to amend the map. However, please note that Texas is east of California and likewise may or may not be included. It's also root strong ties to the another region the South, IMO that mean it has more of a reason to not be included than California, and indeed is certainly exclude from the region more,
 * As for the remark about the census region: you are right that it seems a bit snide, though not inaccurate. Almost no one other than the government uses the government's definition of "the West".
 * As I've said before, it is the most common defintion. It is the one taught in schools and is used outside of the government. Junior Scholastic uses it, and the Weather Channel uses an amended version. That said, its not the only defintion of the region and should not be used to exclude other interpretations.
 * A "West" that doesn't include any of Texas or Oklahoma? I've never heard anyone in colloquial conversation use the term that way.
 * I'm not really sure where you get this from. I'd say the western portions of TX & OK certainly should be included. The only way I would say Texas should be excluded was if it could only be shown in one region-- I find its exclusion from the South highly offensive as the South has a history and culture and by removing my homestate it implies, nay states that millions of both white and black Southerns in Texas are not Southern in effect stripping them of their heritage. This engages my surrvival instincts, and only under such circumstances would I respond by excluding Texas from any other region. This is precisely the type of situation that WikiProject U.S. regions tries to prevent.

 * Again. Thanks, for your help. Also on your writing project, and impending absence Bonne chance! -JCarriker 12:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

"DAM, Da Arabic MCs" in Lod
Sorry. I have put this line back. However, search in Google found only one reference to the "DAM, Da Arabic MCs", except sites which echo Wikipedia. It would be useful if you could make a page DAM, Da Arabic MCs to explain who or what they are. Otherwise, there will always be those who look quickly and class them as "yet another non-notable pop music group". Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve Ballmer
Ooops, I missed the chanting part while reverting! thanks! So, how can i inject into the article something like "Monkeyboy, lose some weight!" ? :)

Project2501a 08:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Librarians
I recall that you had expressed some interest in outreach to librarians about Wikipedia, and I thought I'd call the new WikiProject Librarians to your attention. It has some professional and student librarians getting involved, looks interesting, and I think the endeavor might benefit from your input. --Michael Snow 17:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yehudei sheqolenique
Yehudei sheqolenique, ever heard of them? Can you look at and verify the article at all? Thanks IZAK 10:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Tables
Hello there !. this is messhermit again. Say, could yo help me to fix this tables in a much more accurate way? they are a little messy right now, and I don't known how to fix them. Take a look when u can: List of Presidents of Peru. thanks. Messhermit 18:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * done, I think -- Jmabel | Talk 18:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Party (Romania)
Try it now.
 * MSTCrow 08:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorist categories again
As you know, Category:Terrorist organizations has now been deleted. However, much to my dismay, I have discovered that its six subcategories still exist. Hence, we still have:

 * Category:Islamic terrorist organizations
 * Category:Leftist terrorist organizations
 * Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations
 * Category:Terrorist organizations based in the United States
 * Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland
 * Category:Zionist terrorist organizations

which are now subcategories of Category:Irregular military. I would have thought that a vote to delete a category would also be a vote to delete its subcategories (how could the inclusion/exclusion criteria be any different?), but alas this appears not the case. Thoughts? -- Viajero 11:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Nominate them for deletion. Obviously, I'll vote to delete them. Remind me when this comes up, because I'm only minimally on Wikipedia the next few weeks.

 * Ah, someone beat me to it. Good. -- Viajero | Talk 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have posted this proposal to amend deletion policy: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion_policies. Any comments, additions, qualifications welcome. -- Viajero | Talk 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Peruvian, Non-Peruvian's Wikipedians list
Hello! I thought you might interested in adding your self to the Peruvian Wikipedian's list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Peru

which one?
I wouldn't like to see you squander any of the little time you have available for Wikipedia at the moment on trivial matters, but I just wanted to point out that a link on your user page, Congo_Civil_War, points to a disambiguation page. -- Viajero | Talk 17:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jmabel/Archive 16


text:
File:DM&J Ghetto Pop Mix.jpg

Summary
Cover of DM & Jemini's Ghetto Pop Mix (extended version). © 2003 Lex Records. Used with permission.

Fair use for Ghetto Pop Life
The use of the image linked here (DM%26J_Ghetto_Pop_Mix.jpg) in the Wikipedia article Ghetto Pop Life is claimed to be under fair use as:
 * The image is only used for nonprofit educational purposes, for identification and/or critical commentary on the copyrighted work.
 * It is an image representing only the cover and not the actual content of the product in question.
 * The image is of a resolution far inferior to that of the original, and due to the resulting lack of detail it could not be used for media piracy (e.g. to manufacture illegal copies of the product).
 * Given that the image used only constitutes a small part of copyrighted work, and is of inferior quality, it is assumed that the use does not lessen the commercial value of the copyrighted work.

title: File:DM&J Ghetto Pop Mix.jpg


text:
1998 French Open

The 1998 French Open was a tennis tournament that took place on the outdoor clay courts at the Stade Roland Garros in Paris, France. The tournament was held from 25 May until 7 June. It was the 102nd staging of the French Open, and the second Grand Slam tennis event of 1998.

Men's singles
🇪🇸 Carlos Moyá defeated 🇪🇸 Àlex Corretja, 6–3, 7–5, 6–3
 * • It was Moyá's 1st and only career Grand Slam singles title.

Women's singles
🇪🇸 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario defeated 🇺🇸 Monica Seles, 7–6(7–5), 0–6, 6–2
 * • It was Sánchez's 4th and last career Grand Slam singles title and her 3rd title at the French Open.

Men's doubles
Jacco Eltingh / Paul Haarhuis defeated  Mark Knowles / 🇨🇦 Daniel Nestor, 6–3, 3–6, 6–3
 * • It was Eltingh's 5th career Grand Slam doubles title and his 2nd and last title at the French Open.
 * • It was Haarhuis' 4th career Grand Slam doubles title and his 2nd title at the French Open.

Women's doubles
Martina Hingis / 🇨🇿 Jana Novotná defeated 🇺🇸 Lindsay Davenport / 🇧🇾 Natalia Zvereva, 6–1, 7–6(7–4)
 * • It was Hingis' 4th career Grand Slam doubles title and her 1st title at the French Open.
 * • It was Novotná's 10th career Grand Slam doubles title and her 3rd and last title at the French Open.

Mixed doubles
🇺🇸 Venus Williams / 🇺🇸 Justin Gimelstob defeated 🇺🇸 Serena Williams / 🇦🇷 Luis Lobo, 6–4, 6–4
 * • It was Williams' 2nd and last career Grand Slam mixed doubles title and her 1st title at the French Open.
 * • It was Gimelstob's 2nd and last career Grand Slam mixed doubles title.

Boys' singles
Fernando González defeated 🇪🇸 Juan Carlos Ferrero, 4–6, 6–4, 6–3

Girls' singles
🇷🇺 Nadia Petrova defeated 🇦🇺 Jelena Dokić, 6–3, 6–3

Boys' doubles
🇻🇪 José de Armas / Fernando González defeated 🇪🇸 Juan Carlos Ferrero / 🇪🇸 Feliciano López, 6–7, 7–5, 6–3

Girls' doubles
🇧🇪 Kim Clijsters / 🇦🇺 Jelena Dokić defeated 🇷🇺 Elena Dementieva / 🇷🇺 Nadia Petrova, 6–4, 7–6

title: 1998 French Open


text:
John H. James (mayor)

John H. James (July 14, 1830 – July 14, 1917) was an American banker, politician, and businessman who served as the 21st Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1871.

James was born in Henry County, Georgia, where he farmed until moving to Atlanta in 1850 to clerk for $10 a month and after three years was making $700 a year. After that he went into sales, running auctions of books, jewelry and other valuables throughout the Southern states.

During the American Civil War he and his wife travelled to Canada and Nassau, Bahamas, and afterwards they returned to Atlanta where he founded the James Bank. In 1869, he purchased a large city lot that stretched from Peachtree to Spring Street along Cain (today's International Blvd) and built a large mansion designed by William H. Parkins. Within a year it was purchased by the state of Georgia to become the Governor's mansion for which purpose it survived until 1923. He made over $30,000 on the deal and immediately built his next home on the south end of that same block (where the old Macy's building stands today).

He won nearly 100% of the December 1871 mayoral election as a Democrat which put an end to the brief surge of Radical Republican power in the city. He sold his home at Ellis and Peachtree in 1883 to the Capital City Club who used it until their new building on Harris was completed in 1913.

title: John H. James (mayor)


text:
Dennis Hammond

Dennis Fletcher Hammond (December 15, 1819 – October 31, 1891) was the 18th mayor of the American city of Atlanta, Georgia. He was in office from 1871 to 1872.

Early life and education
Hammond was born in the Edgefield District of South Carolina.

Career
He moved to Georgia where he was a lawyer and, from 1855 to 1861, judge in the superior court Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit.

In Atlanta after the American Civil War, he was politically influenced by William Markham and became a Radical Republican supporting black suffrage.

When Markham refused to run for mayor, Hammond did and was able to briefly unite working-class whites to win the office. This was the last-gasp of Republican power in Reconstruction-era Atlanta.

The Hammond administration was known for its commitment to law enforcement, including enforcement of the Sunday liquor laws.

Personal life and death
After serving one term as mayor, he moved to Orlando, Florida, in 1880.. He died there a decade later.

title: Dennis Hammond


text:
Category:Muntenia

 * Muntenia — historical region of Wallachia, in present day southeastern Romania.

title: Category:Muntenia


text:
User talk:Asparks1805

IT Audit page
Hi, I'd rather not remove this from the VfD page, let the vote run its course, it seems to be getting approval to keep, unfortunately. I say unfortunately, because it's not in Wikipedia format. Your categorization at the top of the pages is not Wikipedia standard. RickK 18:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Asparks1805


text:
Principality of Taranto

The Principality of Taranto was a state in southern Italy created in 1088 for Bohemond I, eldest son of Robert Guiscard, as part of the peace between him and his younger brother Roger Borsa after a dispute over the succession to the Duchy of Apulia.

Taranto became the capital of the principality, which covered almost all of the heel of Apulia. During its subsequent 377 years of history, it was sometimes a powerful and almost independent feudal fief of the Kingdom of Sicily (and later of Naples), sometimes only a title, often given to the heir to the crown or to the husband of a reigning queen. When the House of Anjou was divided, Taranto fell to the house of Durazzo (1394–1463).

Ferdinand I of Naples united the Principality of Taranto to the Kingdom of Naples at the death of his wife, Isabella of Clermont. The principality came to an end, but the kings of Naples continued giving the title of Prince of Taranto to their sons, firstly to the future Alfonso II of Naples, eldest son of Isabella.

Counts

 * Geoffrey (1063 – bef. 1072)
 * Richard (bef. 1072–1080)
 * Peter, as regent
 * Robert Guiscard (1080–1085)
 * Bohemond (1085–1088)

Hauteville (Altavilla) dynasty

 * 1088 - Bohemond I (1054–1111), later Bohemond I prince of the crusader state of Antioch;
 * 1111 - Bohemond II (1108–1130), also prince of Antioch;
 * 1128 - King Roger II (1093–1154), duke of Apulia, king of Sicily, unifier of Southern Italy;
 * 1132 - Tancred, son of Roger II, prince of Bari, received the principality from his father;
 * 1138 - William I, later king of Sicily, son of Roger II, became prince of Taranto at the death of his brother Tancred;
 * 1144 - Simon, son of Roger II, became prince of Taranto when his brother William became prince of Capua and Duke of Apulia;
 * 1157 - William II, later king of Sicily;
 * 1189 - King Tancred of Sicily, Count of Lecce;
 * 1194 - William III, king of Sicily (deposed), Count of Lecce;

Hohenstaufen (Svevia) dynasty

 * 1194 - King Henry, husband of Constance of Sicily;
 * 1198 - Robert;
 * 1200 - Guy Walter III of Brienne, husband of (Albinia, Elvira) Mary of Lecce of Altavilla, daughter of King Tancred of Sicily (Tancred of Hauteville, Count of Lecce). Title confiscated at the death of Walter;
 * 1205 - King Frederick;
 * 1250 - Manfred of Sicily, son of Frederick II, later also king;

Angevin (Angiò) dynasty

 * 1266 - King Charles I (1227–1285), defeated Manfred and was created King of Sicily by the pope;
 * 1285 - King Charles II (1248–1309), son of Charles I, king of Naples;
 * 1294 - Philip I (1278–1331), son of Charles II, and titular Latin Emperor;
 * 1331 - Robert of Taranto (1299–1364), son of Philip I;
 * 1346 - Louis of Taranto (1308–1362), son of Philip I, simultaneously king of Naples;
 * 1364 - Philip II (1329–1374), son of Philip I, and titular Latin Emperor;
 * 1356 - Philip III, son of Philip II, died in his youth, the title returned to his father;

Baux (Del Balzo) dynasty

 * 1374 - James of Baux, nephew of Philip II, and titular Latin Emperor;

Welf or Brunswick (Este del Guelfo) dynasty

 * 1383 - Otto (1320–1398), widower of Joan I of Naples;

Orsini dynasty

 * 1399 - Raimondo del Balzo Orsini, also known as Raimondello, husband of the Countess of Lecce Mary of Enghien, the Brienne heiress;
 * 1406 - Ladislaus of Durazzo, king of Naples, second husband of Mary of Enghien;
 * 1414 - James II of Bourbon-La Marche, husband of Joan II of Naples and briefly king-consort
 * 1420 - Giovanni Antonio del Balzo Orsini, son of Mary of Enghien and Raimondello;
 * 1463 - Isabella of Clermont, niece of Giovanni Antonio

title: Principality of Taranto


text:
Utada Hikaru Single Collection Vol. 1

Utada Hikaru Single Collection Vol. 1 is the first compilation album by Hikaru Utada, released on March 31, 2004. It features all A-sides of her hit singles to that date, including 11 number-one hits and all 15 tracks reached the top 5. The album version was remastered by Ted Jensen. The album was released on iTunes in April 2004.

It sold over 1.4 million copies in its debut week, and became the number one selling album of the year in Japan (Their fourth consecutive time accomplishing this particular milestone, a record in Japan's music history.). This is Utada's longest charting release on any Oricon chart, with a 2-year trajectory and still growing. Utada Hikaru Single Collection Vol. 1 is the 35th highest selling album in Japan of all time. The album is Japan's 21st highest-ranked in debut sales. The album was the 19th best selling album worldwide in 2004.

title: Utada Hikaru Single Collection Vol. 1


text:
Category:Dog law

This is a collection of articles relating to laws about dogs, legal cases involving dogs, and similar topics.

title: Category:Dog law


text:
Talk:Casey Viator

Untitled
Sorry - got it wrong about the Universe title. i have now changed it. Still think its worth keeping.

On May 30 2005 this page was nominated for deletion. The result of the debate was to keep. See Votes for deletion/Casey Viator for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson31.htm
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Casey Viator


text:
William Ezzard

William E. Ezzard (June 12, 1799 – March 24, 1887) was a Southern United States politician who served as the 11th, 13th and 19th Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, in the 19th century.

Biography
Ezzard was born in Abbeville, South Carolina. He moved to Georgia and later represented Elbert County, Georgia, in the Georgia Legislature. He was twice elected as a state senator from that district. After a full term as judge of the Coweta circuit, he settled in Decatur in 1822, being one of the first settlers in DeKalb County. He was again sent to the legislature.

In 1826 DeKalb County Academy was founded and the next year, Ezzard, as well as Judge Reuben Cone and nine others, were named as trustees in the incorporation. In 1827, at the age of 28, he was sent to the Georgia state senate from DeKalb County.

He served as Solicitor General of the Cherokee Circuit from December 8, 1832, to December 1835. Then he was brigadier general of the First Brigade, 11th Division, in the Georgia militia. He resigned in November 1840 and was Judge of the old Coweta Circuit from November 6, 1840, until November 1844. While in that office, he administered the estate of Hardy Ivy and was responsible for subdividing his estate comprising land lot 51.

Ezzard moved to Atlanta in 1850, where he was a law partner to Judge John Collier and operated a dry goods and drug store Smith & Ezzard. He co-founded the Atlanta Bank in 1852 with John Mims, Clark Howell, Sr., Jonathan Norcross, Richard Peters, William Butt, Lemuel Grant, Joseph Winship, N.L. Angier, Joseph Thompson and other investors.

He served three one-year terms as mayor in 1856, 1857 (this was the first time consecutive terms had been served by any mayor. His term included him visiting Charleston, where Atlanta was named the Gate City) ) and finally in 1860.

In 1861, he was defeated for a fourth term by Whitaker by the count of 695 votes to 452. He was then a delegate to the Southern Congress, principally in the failed effort to secure the Confederate capitol at Atlanta. During the American Civil War, he represented Atlanta in the Georgia General Assembly house from 1863 to 1865, where he offered a bill to raise soldiers pay to $25 per month (which was passed). Coincidentally, one son, John F. Ezzard, died as a soldier at the age 33 in October 1864.

After the war, he continued his law firm with William Hulsey, and Judge Ezzard defeated Republican William Markham 819 to 762 when he served as mayor for his fourth and last time in 1870. In 1878 he was elected as tax receiver for Fulton County.

He made his home on the future site of the Piedmont Hotel on Forsyth Street. In April 1871, Ezzard joined fellow pioneers to found the Atlanta Pioneer and Historic Society, of which he was voted president with Jonathan Norcross as vice president.

He was buried at Oakland Cemetery in the family lot, but the grave was not marked. He is remembered by Ezzard Street in the southern section of the Old Fourth Ward.

Another son, William Lane Ezzard, co-founded the Gate City Guard in 1855. He died in 1903.

His granddaughter Catherine (daughter of Ezzard's biracial daughter Sinai Calhoun Webb, born a slave in 1830), married Antoine Graves, a prominent black realtor and educator in Atlanta.

title: William Ezzard


text:
Crown of Charlemagne

The Crown of Charlemagne (Couronne de Charlemagne) was a name given to the ancient coronation crown of Kings of the Franks, and later Kings of France after 1237.

It was probably created as a simple circlet of four curved rectangular jewelled plates for Charles the Bald, the grandson of Charlemagne, but later, four large jewelled fleur-de-lis were added to these four original plates, probably by Philip Augustus around 1180 and surmounted by a cap decorated with precious stones. At this time a similar but open crown, the one of the queen, existed too. One of them was melted down in 1590 by the Catholic League during the siege of Paris. The remaining crown was used up to the reign of King Louis XVI, who was crowned in 1775 in the Reims Cathedral. The crown of Joan of Évreux was then used for the coronation of the queens.

French kings had also their personal crowns, worn after the coronation, during the banquet held at the Palace of Tau, like the crown of Saint Louis called the Sainte Couronne de France, Henry IV or Louis XIV which were later donated to the treasury of the Basilica of Saint-Denis near Paris,  the traditional burial place of the Capetian dynasty.

Only one of the 11 personal crowns of the Ancien Régime remains, the Crown of Louis XV, manufactured for the coronation of Louis XV in 1722, and 5 crowns from the 19th century. The coronation crown, the Crown of Charlemagne, was destroyed in the French Revolution, like some of the regalia. From the Ancien Régime regalia, except for Louis XV's crown, the Throne of Dagobert, the medieval coronation sword of the French kings Joyeuse, the spurs, the brooch said to have belonged to Saint Louis, the ivory sceptre, called the Hand of Justice, the sceptre of Charles V, as well as the antique cup of the Ptolemies (or the coronation chalice) with its paten kept in Reims survived.

The Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire or Reichskrone, probably made for the coronation of Otto the Great in 962 at the workshops of the imperial monastery of Reichenau, was also later identified as the Crown of Charlemagne and as such appeared on the escutcheon of the Arch-Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire and at the top of the coat of arms of the Habsburg emperors, e.g. at the Hofburg Palace in Vienna.

When Napoleon proclaimed himself Emperor of the French, he also called his own imperial crown the "Crown of Charlemagne".

title: Crown of Charlemagne


text:
William Hulsey

William Henry Hulsey (October 1, 1838 – May 17, 1909) was an American attorney, soldier, and politician who served as the 18th Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia. He was an officer in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War.

Biography
Hulsey was born in DeKalb County, Georgia, and passed the Georgia bar in 1859, but didn't practice much until after the Civil War.

With Georgia's secession, Hulsey enlisted in April 1861 as a private in the "State Guards," which soon became Company F of the 6th Georgia Infantry. That unit saw no action before Hulsey left them in early 1862, when he returned home and was elected major of the newly raised 42nd Georgia Infantry on March 20. He subsequently fought in Tazewell, Tennessee, Cumberland Gap, the Kentucky Campaign, and the Vicksburg Campaign, where he and his regiment, attached at the time to Brig. Gen. Seth Barton's brigade, were surrendered by General John C. Pemberton.

After his exchange, Major Hulsey resumed active field duty. He commanded the 42nd Georgia during the Battle of Missionary Ridge. Back in Georgia during the Atlanta Campaign, he fought from Dalton to Resaca in May 1864, where he was injured. After his recovery, he fought in the Battle of Atlanta in July and was promoted to lieutenant colonel, the rank he held for the rest of the Civil War.

He was a Democrat and served one term as Mayor of Atlanta, during which time he founded the Atlanta Public School System. He served two terms in the Georgia General Assembly from Fulton County. He was buried at Oakland Cemetery.

title: William Hulsey


text:
Cello Concerto (Lalo)

Édouard Lalo wrote his Cello Concerto in D minor in 1876, in collaboration with the Belgian cellist Adolphe Fischer (1847–1891). The work was premièred the following year at the Cirque d'Hiver with Fischer as soloist.

Form
The concerto is written in three movements:

 * 1) Prelude, lento – Allegro maestoso
 * 2) Intermezzo, andantino con moto – Allegro presto – Andantino – Tempo I
 * 3) Introduction, andante – Allegro vivace

The first movement opens lento, then moves into an allegro maestoso, which continues throughout the rest of the movement. The opening has several measures of orchestral music before the solo cello enters with an ad lib theme that is played three times. This leads into the fast section, which features many fast and aggressive arpeggios, and quick and relentless sixteenth notes.

The second movement starts with a slow andantino section, then progresses into a lively allegro presto. The music returns to the andantino tempo. Before the end of the second movement, the allegro presto returns. The solo cello ends on pizzicato chords with the orchestra.

The solo cello opens with a slow andante in the third movement; the orchestra joins in and then takes over. The music becomes a lively rondo marked allegro vivace, the cello solo returning with a forceful entry into the rondo theme. The main theme is based on the D major scale and a quick fall down. The rest of the movement continues at allegro vivace tempo. The solo cello ends with a very fast scale that lands on a C sharp trill that resolves to the tonic.

Instrumentation
Scored for solo cello, 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 4 horns, 2 trumpets, 3 trombones, timpani and strings.

title: Cello Concerto (Lalo)


text:
1996 French Open

The 1996 French Open was a tennis tournament that took place on the outdoor clay courts at the Stade Roland Garros in Paris, France. The tournament was held from 27 May until 9 June. It was the 100th staging of the French Open, and the second Grand Slam tennis event of 1996.

Men's singles
🇷🇺 Yevgeny Kafelnikov defeated 🇩🇪 Michael Stich, 7–6(7–4), 7–5, 7–6(7–4)
 * It was Kafelnikov's 3rd title of the year, and his 10th overall. It was his 1st career Grand Slam title.

Women's singles
🇩🇪 Steffi Graf defeated 🇪🇸 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario, 6–3, 6–7(4–7), 10–8
 * It was Graf's 4th title of the year, and her 99th overall. It was her 19th career Grand Slam title, and her 5th French Open title.

Men's doubles
🇷🇺 Yevgeny Kafelnikov / 🇨🇿 Daniel Vacek defeated 🇫🇷 Guy Forget / Jakob Hlasek, 6–2, 6–3

Women's doubles
🇺🇸 Lindsay Davenport / 🇺🇸 Mary Joe Fernández defeated 🇺🇸 Gigi Fernández / 🇧🇾 Natasha Zvereva, 6–2, 6–1

Mixed doubles
🇦🇷 Patricia Tarabini / 🇦🇷 Javier Frana defeated 🇺🇸 Nicole Arendt / 🇺🇸 Luke Jensen, 6–2, 6–2

Boys' singles
🇪🇸 Alberto Martín (ESP) defeated 🇸🇪 Björn Rehnquist (SWE), 6–3, 7–6

Girls' singles
🇫🇷 Amélie Mauresmo (FRA) defeated 🇺🇸 Meghann Shaughnessy (USA), 6–0, 6–4

Boys' doubles
🇫🇷 Sébastien Grosjean / 🇫🇷 Olivier Mutis (FRA) defeated 🇩🇪 Jan-Ralph Brandt / 🇩🇪 Daniel Elsner (GER), 6–2, 6–3

Girls' doubles
🇮🇹 Alice Canepa / 🇮🇹 Giulia Casoni (ITA) defeated 🇷🇺 Anna Kournikova (RUS) / 🇨🇿 Ludmila Varmužová (CZE), 6–2, 5–7, 7–5

title: 1996 French Open


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I advised Kain on all 3 talk pages suspected to belong to him and his sockpuppets. I have discussed the issue with User:SlimVirgin, User:Zscout370, and User:Jayjg, and all agreed to assist with the case if the behavior continues, which it has.
 *
 *
 *

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Numerous users have discussed the issue with this user on his Talk pages. See User talk:KaintheScion and User talk:ElKabong. He has been warned multiple times to refrain from personal attacks and 3RR violations but has not done so. Also, a RFC was attempted. See Requests for comment/KaintheScion. No change in behavior was observed as a result. Multiple 24-hour blocks have also been imposed for 3RR violation.

Checking out the anon. IP address cited as being sockpuppets, I found something disturbing...
The results are currently on my talkpage... I started with the Whois results, and then went to Geobytes. What I find disturbing is that Geobytes was able to pinpoint 4 of the IP addresses. Now 2 of them traced back to Houston with a 99 percent certainty, but a third traces back to a city in Nevada called Gerlach with a 90 percent certainty. Finally, the fourth IP address it was able to locate traced back to Toronto... as in Toronto, Ontario Province, Canada. Certainty for that one? 99 percent. Whois designated that IP address as being registered to a Canadian ISP as well. So here's the problem... if this is true... how can these be sockpuppets of the same person? It doesn't make any sense... --Chanting Fox 01:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It could be a proxy server, unless we are dealing with various copycats. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's probably a script kiddie hijacking systems Back Orifice-style. The tone of voice is pretty constant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ban reset

David Gerard, our official Trollsmeller Poursuivaunt, has confirmed Existentializer and Ni-ju-Ichi as socks of this banned user. According to 2.1 of the final decision, his ban will be reset and will run until 31 July, 2006. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)