text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Linuxbeak

Linuxbeak
final (45/4/1) ending 22:50 6 June 2005 (UTC)

This excellent contributor has shown extreme maturity and confidence when writing his articles. He has revolutionized the aviation department and keeps an eye on all aviation related articles, thus making it hard for vandals to ruin them. I support him for administrator. Antonio Anakyn Skywalker Martin

 * Fixed nomination-style. gkhan 22:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow! This certainly comes as a surprise to me...I feel honored! Yes, I accept my nomination. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support 100 percent, of course Antonio Napoleon and Joan of Arc Martin''
 * 2) Support Go linux gkhan 22:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. This user is always there trying to solve disputes and trying to deal with vandals. A good user who i'm sure would be a great admin. Hedley 22:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Very helpful with advice and with help with vandalsism Jtkiefer 23:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Does well on janitorial stuff the hard way; I see no reason not to make the job a bit easier - David Gerard 00:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, how can you not love this guy? User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 00:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. From memory, I think we have crossed swords once or twice the past, but that doesn't stand in the way of me recognising Linuxbeak's abilities. Grutness...  wha?  00:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Project2501a 00:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The candidate has already produced a FA that's a labor of love in every sense, and has matured impressively as a wikipedian. I asked him about the newbie mistakes he'd made in the conflict with jmabel, and his response convinced me he'll be a better admin for making them. Conflict experience is good, not bad; I always feel a little unhappy about voting where the candidate simply hasn't had any taste of wikistress. Linuxbeak deals well with it. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) 100% Support, He is well mannered and a very nice level headed person. His dedicatioon and contributions demonstrate that he has the makings of a great administrator.  The guy already has a featured article under his belt.  He is an asset to Wikipedia.  Tony the Marine
 * 11) Support. Has shown himself to be a diligent and enthusiastic contributor, well able to work collaboratively with others and learn from mistakes. (Also, anyone that excited about grunt work like stub sorting needs a mop and bucket before he gets his sanity back.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) El_C 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Cool. JuntungWu 05:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Great user, very strong candidate. Sjakkalle 06:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Ambi 07:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, a deserving canditate. Thryduulf 08:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support.-gadfium 08:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) SUPPORT Kingturtle 18:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Radiant_* 19:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Meets my admin criterion, jguk 19:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Thought I'd voted already. Support, of course. — Dan | Talk 20:36, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. "Be bold in editing". That's what I've seen Linuxbeak do while doing RC patrol and new articles patrol. QBorg 21:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, of course! Nadavspi | talk 23:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. I too remember the Jmabel incident and I'm particulary impressed by his willingness to admit he was wrong ; this shows character.  He's likely to be an excellent admin, and I also admire his extraordinary dedication to the project. Antandrus  (talk)  02:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. SWAdair | Talk  02:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support For actions above and beyond the call of duty. Kim Bruning 16:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. --Kbdank71 20:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. I couldn't find my vote on here...I thought I had already voted! Mike H 15:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support--Duk 16:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Of course. Neutralitytalk 01:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Hard work is its own reward. ;-) -- BD2412 talk 04:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. Shiri — Talk 18:21, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Strong support. Andre ( talk ) 20:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. Many of the opposition notes below are ridiculous, like accusing him of padding his edit count just because he did some minor (but useful) cleanup edits. Other than that, he did get into a few "messes", but they weren't always really his fault, and I think he got through them OK. *Dan* 00:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. --cesarb 13:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Support, seems like a quality user, and the opposition due to the CAP blanking is IMO ridiculous unfair. --Spangineer ( háblame ) 20:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. This user seems conscientious and mature.  Ann Heneghan 22:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Support.-JCarriker 06:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Support. Sietse 09:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. Yay! Finally, a likeable moderator... *ahem* a moderator for the PEOPLE! Yay! --WikiFan04ß 16:54, 6 Jun 2005 (CDT)

Oppose
 * 1) Looks like between 1000 and 1500 of his 2500 edits are stub sorting, but what really sinks this for me is that he puts speedy tags on things that aren't speedies. Just a cursory look turns up these speedy tagged articles that weren't deleted:, , , , , .    I won't comment on this, which was related to some sort of legal trouble.  Breadth of contributions outside of stub sorting seems good.  CryptoDerk 23:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * At first glance I can see why he tagged them. I'm sure he's learnt his lesson. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Crypto: That "trouble" turned out to be some bad judgement on the part of my commander, who thought that I was violating Civil Air Patrol regulations but was actually very, very wrong. As far as the speedys go, I will admit that in the course of my stub-sorting activities, I marked some as speedy a bit hastily. Within the month of that last mistake I made, I have learned patience. Plus, I'm human too and I make mistakes... but hopefully I've learned how to make far fewer mistakes. In addition, I think 6 mistakes out of over 1000 stub sorts isn't too bad of a ratio ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I inherently don't trust accounts which seem to have 1) made a few edits, then quickly starts voting on deletions and 2) seems to be "stuffing" their edit counts with menial tasks like stub marking.  This user started editing on March 13, and showed from the start a strange familiarity with Wikipedia processes.  Can't vote support unless we have a acceptable method for removing adminship in case this is a mistake. I encourage others to reconsider this nomination in a couple months. -- Netoholic @ 18:02, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * ...wait, what? I really don't mean to comment on every oppose vote, but are you saying I'm a fraud or something? I've been around Wikipedia for about 6 months, but made an account 3 months ago. I've known about the Wikipedia process for a while; I just haven't contributed anything until recently. Secondly, I happen to *like* stub sorting, thank you. I don't give a hoot about edit counts; all they're good for is for people to determine "admin quality" with. Plus, do I or do I not have a featured article? I respect your vote, but you have the wrong idea over who I am. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * And to back up my claim that you have the wrong idea over who I am... look at that link you posted. I made 42 edits before voting on VfD at all. First edit: March 12, 2005. First VfD vote: April 10, 2005. Virtually one entire month. Why do you not trust me, seeing I've made significant edits, made a featured article, have done janitorial stuff, participated in the community... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can personally vouch for Linuxbeak, he is DEFINITELY NOT a fraud. Your claim that he stub-sorted to "stuff his edit-count" is ridiculous, almost to the point of being absurd. He has been enormously helpful with stub-sorting, without his help it would probably not be finished as fast as it was. It is tedious, janitorial work, something that is very helpful for wikipedia, but after a while quite boring to do. He was not aiming for an adminship at all, yesterday on IRC he was completly stunned when he was nominated. He is nice, he acknowledges when he is wrong (a quality lacking in a few current administrators), and is generally a great user. He would make an excellent administrator. gkhan 19:27, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * That just means he read policy and became involved in the inner workings very quickly - a measure of intelligence, not of being a "fraud." – ugen64 21:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Linuxbeak has worked behind the scenes doing janitorial work and has contributated to Wikipedia with articles including a featured article. There is a misconception that only those that work behind the scenes can become great administrators.  Article contributions are just as important.  How many of us can honestly say that we're all around Wikipedian doing shores and contributing writen work?  I believe that Linuxbeak is more than qualified to become a great administrator.  Please do your homework before insinuating that a person is a fraud.  A good administrator should make a through background research and investigation before making such a claim.  If you cannot present any evidence to such an alligation, please refrain from doing so.  Marine 69-71 01:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for him, too. Stub sorting is not something you do for editcount-stuffing. A chore or a vocation, nothing more. LinuxBeak's explanation that he did not create a user account for considerable time after using Wikipedia is a perfectly reasonable one, too. And one month after creating an account is plenty of time before getting involved with pages like vfd. If he were a sockpuppet or similar, he would have been seen on vfd within hours of the account being created. Grutness...  wha?  02:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I too find Netoholic's reasoning rather strange, especially when he asks others to not reconsider their support. I made my Special:Contributions/Knowledgeseeker on November 20, 2004, and made my first VfD nomination four days later. I just carefully read through tutorial and policy pages in my first few days at Wikipedia as I needed to figure out how to properly do new things. I also find the "edit stuffing" comment highly inappropriate; not only had Linuxbeak not mentioned his edit count, he did not seek out adminship (didn't self-nominate or ask another to nominate him). He also mentioned the stub sorting in his answers; it wasn't as if he tried to hide it. Thank you, Linuxbeak, for all your stub-sorting work. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The edits that CryptoDerk has highlighted are way too recent. Only two weeks ago he page deleted an article based on some rubbish about it not being approved by the subject and his own personal commandant? SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought I wasn't going to comment on every oppose vote, but it's starting to look that way. This is what my commander did to the article that I wrote. I blanked my own article -- my own featured article -- because my commander told me to and to avoid having her sue Wikipedia. However, she, not I, was wrong. I didn't want to blank my own article; in fact, I was in tears when I did. However, when she (my commander) stated that she was wrong, the entire mess was cleaned up. I am under the impression that you didn't read Bishonen's comments relating to the incident, and I'm also under the impression that you do not frequent IRC. A large portion of IRC regulars would vouch for me that I was the victim of a decision that was a bit hasty. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Notice this and what I did. Notice this and tell me that removing the article that I poured my heart and soul into was voluntary. Notice this, this, every ribbon and entry in this (which I personally created, thank you), and this and tell me that I would ever blank that article without a damn good reason. Frankly, I'm offended that you would insinuate that I was removing that article just because "it was against regulations". Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * And, just to drive the point home... seeing that both Anthere and Jimbo Wales himself were personally trying to help me concerning this very mess, and I'm sure that they would both be happy to testify on my behalf that I was not at fault. I'm done now. If anyone else wants to comment about it, feel free. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Votes aren't supposed to be queried, but since the circumstance are rather extraordinary, I ask Schmucky to reconsider opposing based on "some rubbish about it not being approved by the subject and his own personal commandant". As Linuxbeak says, many editors know what his role was in that incident and will vouch for him. Please see my comment below. It seems a little excessive to drag in busy people like Anthere or Jimbo, so could you please indicate if you'll believe me without comments from one of them? Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I was contacted by Linuxbeak about 2-3 weeks ago. I had heard about him on #wikipedia the day before, he was looking for Jimbo and Jimbo was not here. Jimbo and I also received a mail from Gregory Maxwell, telling us that the Civil Air Patrol thought they could demand that the CAP article be taken down until reviewed by their public relations office.
 * The next day, Jimbo was not available, so I spent possibly an hour talking with Linuxbeak about the CAP issue. I understood that his commandant was present during the discussion. As mentionned above, the CAP was requesting that the article be deleted, or at least blanked until reviewed by their office. During the discussion, it turned out that Linuxbeak was extremely proud of this article... but put himself in an impossible situation, as he is not allowed yet to talk about CAP due to the contract linking him to CAP. Her commander found out about the article, reminded him he was not allowed to write about CAP, and requested he removed the article, as not doing so could lead him to get fired from CAP. Hence his blanking the CAP article.
 * I indicated to Linuxbeak it was out of question to delete the article, threats or no threats. We could however explain wikipedia editing process to his commandant, but this did not solve Linuxbeak issue of not being authorized to write about CAP.
 * After lengthy discussion, I proposed that all his edits on this article be anonymised (put under another editor account Linuxbeak would create), so that even though his commandant knew about his authorship, he (as Linuxbeak) could be dissociated from the authors of CAP. After we reached agreement about this, Linuxbeak created another account for this purpose (the idea was not to hide from the community he owned both accounts, but to save his face toward his employers), and I sent a request to developers to reassigned edits. However, Linuxbeak later told me he could not agree to this solution, as he felt very proud of this article and appeared to greatly suffer from the idea of deleting it, or losing authorship of it. This is a feeling I can understand. When someone is the main contributor of a featured article, it is understandable he wants the community to know he is the author of it. I doubly understand his feelings, as I read some of the above comments of editors saying most of his participation was related to stub-work. I guess that if he had lost the authorship of this article which probably took many hours to do, such comments would have been even more numerous ;-)
 * In any cases, Linuxbeak agreed to keep the article and apparently succeeded to convinced his commandant to let it on Wikipedia. So nothing was done at all. Which is just the *best* ;-)
 * As I just recommanded to Linuxbeak, it would be best that he avoids writing on topics he is not allowed to talk about by his working contract in the future (even if he is indeed very knowledgeable and passionate), and I also suggested him to avoid doing speedy deletions (as a future administrator) for a while except for real crap. But in any cases, his blanking the CAP article was essentially an excessive reaction due to the stress he was put under, and a request by his superior. I do not think it should imply he would not be a good admin. Anthere 20:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) * I believe that Schmucky sould reconsider his opposition after reading the explaination stated above. It is obvious that there was no wrong doing and that it was a question of strighten out the situation with his CAP superiors.  This guy poured many hours of dedication into his Civil Air Patrol article, he did what was right to protect his article and to have all parties involved approve it.  Tony the Marine
 * Schmucky, let it alone! I nominated him for administrator because I have been one for three years, I have seen his edits and there is nothing abnormal there. Why would he do such a thing as you are accusing him of? I dont know how many articles you have created but it seems to me youre the kind of person who tries to find wrongdoings when there arent. Antonio Not Wikipedia's prosecutor Martin
 * Thank you everyone for the explanations. I've read them.  I've looked at the diffs presented and I appreciate that you all think Linuxbeak did the best thing in that situation.  However, I feel differently.  Linuxbeak, apparently, does not have the independence to contribute if he is under a situation where his "superior officer" can force him to edit a certain way.  That is unacceptable to me.  Personally, I've signed dozens of NDAs over the years in my career.  I simply don't write about those companies/institutions/products. It was bad judgement for him to get himself into this position in the first place. This all happened too recently.  I also agree with Cryptoderk (and W below who voted after me) about understanding delete criteria.  Sure, he understands now but it was just last weekend that it was explained to him, multiple times even.  Too recent.  He may be all good and worthwhile, but he has yet to show that he really understands well enough (and recent enough) to have good, independent, judgement as an admin. SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, alas. I agree with all those voting support that Linuxbeak has been doing some wonderful work, however the very incorrect speedy marking doesn't inspire trust that the deletion feature will only be used in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion. The CAP thing is a smaller issue to me, though it wasn't handled perfectly either. --W(t) 23:15, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * I looked at those attempted speedy deletes and, while he turned out to be mistaken about them deserving such a fate, it was an understandable mistake; those articles were very short and cryptic, sometimes not even giving any indication about what they were about. It would be easy to conclude that they were random nonsense if you hadn't heard of their subject.*Dan* 00:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, there's no way this is this. But Linuxbeak has indicated he agrees he tagged some things as speedy that shouldn't have been tagged, so all is well as far as I'm concerned and I'd vote for him in a couple of months should this RfA not pass. --W(t) 01:05, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I did think that was patent nonsense :-X I thought that was just some dumb prank... I figured that there wouldn't be a word for such a specific set of variables ("They whore themselves to old men. Not because they have to do this in order to live, but because they want to get money to buy expensive unnecessitys."). But... yeah, I guess that word exists >_< Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's entirely my point. The criteria for speedy deletion are so narrow because you can't be expected to know the cultural context around everything. Patent nonsense is very strictly defined here, and you don't need to know any context to be able to distinguish it from non-patent-nonsense. --W(t) 01:13, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I like deadlines. JRM · Talk 22:49, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Comments
 * I moved Project2501a's statement and following responses to talk since the statement's POINT is unrelated to this particular RFA. El_C 06:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * CryptoDerk's vague comment on "some sort of legal trouble" shouldn't leave any lingering sense that Linuxbeak made or caused legal trouble for Wikipedia. He was the victim of legal trouble, not the perpetrator. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See Linuxbeak's response above. El_C 06:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For those interested, Linuxbeak has the following edits as of this comment: Total count: 2583, 1728 Article, 46 Article Talk, 84 User, 105 User Talk, 459 Wikipedia, 30 Wikipedia Talk, 120 Image, 0 Image Talk, 0 MediaWiki, 0 MediaWiki Talk, 4 Template, 0 Template Talk, 1 Help, 0 Help Talk, 6 Category, 0 Category Talk. This will show the current count. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:33, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Well, I'm really active with several things all over Wikipedia. First off, I'm an active stub sorter, and I think that being able to actually delete articles that say "So-and-so is awesome" instead of just listing it for speedy would be a time saver for not only myself but for other admins. Secondly, I love RC patrol and vandal hunting, and I'm a real fan of CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter program (my hat's off to you, Crypto! Awesome program!). The rollback function that I constantly hear and read about would certainly help me revert edits by vandals quickly and efficiently. I also am a somewhat regular visitor of Votes for deletion, and I plan on helping out with it. I was already planning on visiting Requests for comment more often, but I would be more than happy to help out there as well. I'm sure this isn't the last thing (I'll think of even more later, I'm positive), but I also actively hunt out copyright violations, and although being an admin wouldn't directly change anything about it, I would remain quite active in this field.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Well, for those who know me, this won't come as any surprise to you. When I was still a very new user to the Wiki, I visited Civil Air Patrol and discovered that there was a copyright violation. I tagged it as such, and after the article remained untouched for a while, I rewrote the entire thing. After about one week, with the help of Bishonen (bless her for her undying support) in the copyediting department, I self-nominated the article to Featured article candidates. It passed with 7 support votes, 0 object votes and 0 neutral votes, and now Civil Air Patrol is now a featured article! In addition to the main article, I am currently making it a spoken article! I have also created two other pages in relation to CAP, and I have also uploaded (in addition to creating) all of the ribbon graphics for the Civil Air Patrol (located here). In addition to all of my CAP articles, I am also proud of my stub-sorting activities (I have sorted at least 1,000 stubs) as well as my vandalism hunting.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A.There was one that I would call a conflict, and that was with User:Jmabel over List of Wikipedians by military branch. This was when I was still relatively new to the 'pedia, and he did something that I took offense to. I realize now though that I really overreacted. I have since apologized to Jmabel and he has accepted my apology. I hold no grudges nor do I actively seek out to tickle situations that will cause tension. The only other thing I can think of was my recent creation of an RFC, but I don't think trolls and userbaiters constitute as a "conflict with another user". One thing that I have learned from dealing with other users is to be patient. Normally, if you're willing to consider their point of view, they're willing to listen to yours. Everyone seems to get along then :-).


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strawmato

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strawmato
The link says it's about to hit the store shelves. Not yet notable. Four google hits, and one of those is to worth1000, which is always a suspicious hit. Delete until it becomes a popular food item. RickK 22:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. New product that has no notable references to verify that this is currently noteworthy now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - with rotten tomatoes --Doc (?) 00:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - If you were to delete this it would be like deleteing an article on time travel as there is no proof that that works wither, also the link is on the bbc which are a reliable source for information.
 * 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.

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Citizens Alliance

 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 14:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF VOTES BELOW
Because some very long pieces of text have been put into the discussion below, here is a summary of votes for ease of reference. Please update if adding further votes, and correct any errors.

NEW denotes a user with no edit history prior to 31 May (the date of this VfD listing).

Delete

 * Xcali (contribs)
 * Etacar11 (contribs)
 * Vircum (contribs)
 * CunningLinguist (contribs)
 * DenisMoskowitz (contribs)
 * postdlf (contribs)
 * fazdeconta (contribs)
 * Scimitar (contribs)
 * No Account (contribs)
 * Gamaliel (contribs)
 * FCYTravis (contribs)
 * SirGeneral (contribs)
 * RickK (contribs)
 * Carmeld1 (contribs)
 * -Ril- (contribs)
 * 80.229.160.150 (contribs)
 * 130.246.132.26 (contribs)
 * Columbia (contribs)
 * FrancisTyers (contribs)
 * Simoncursitor (contribs) (vote not explicit but comment implies delete)

Keep

 * nataliatoombs (NEW) (contribs)
 * Trishkincade (NEW) (contribs)
 * 24.197.245.133 (NEW) (contribs)
 * Mevelynkondrot (NEW) (contribs)
 * Chuck SMITH (contribs)
 * GregorU (NEW) (contribs)
 * 84.231.141.149 (NEW) (contribs)
 * cprompt (contribs)

DISCUSSION
Seems like this "alliance" consists of one guy in Wisconsin. 12 Google hits. Not notable. Xcali 22:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC) comment - I signed mine now, I didn't realize we were supposed to. I just got home from work and was told by my best friend that people were voting to say my job doesn't exist... Trishkincade comment signed mine now too Nataliatoombs 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment And I'm still not convinced this group (ok, more than one person, I'll give) is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But that's just my opinion. --Etacar11 02:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)- update: I removed the links that Etacar11 posted from my email to her as they take up space and by themselves don't prove anything one way or another. If anyone wants then they can email me. Trishkincade comment Now I wanted to leave it alone, but I couldn't resist this one. Colubmia, you are saying that an interational organization working to improve worldwide civil rights, fight slavery, and many other things that affect peoples lives all over the world isn't "notable" but where Josh Turner went to College is? The priorities being displayed here are quite interesting. Trishkincade
 * Delete vanity (since it's just the one guy). --Etacar11 23:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete personal manifesto (though rather elaborate at that) michael 00:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep The UCA has been mentioned in the international Esperanto magazine Kontakto and is not just "one guy," it currently consists of over 200 citizens worldwide and represents the interests of many more through diplomatic agreements and relations. Nataliatoombs 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User created the page. This vote is User's 4th edit.  66.60.159.190 20:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable -CunningLinguist 00:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Not Notable? The UCA is small, but certainly deserves at least this much recognition. (I work at the UCA capitol so I do know what I'm talking about.) Trishkincade
 * User's first edit.
 * Keep The UCA is ensuring that they work steadily to build a system that will work well in the long term. (I work in the Allied Service division)
 * Above vote by . 66.60.159.190 20:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently no one who works there is willing to sign their votes. Looks like vanity to me. DenisMoskowitz 01:44, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 01:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment tkinc6971@oha.gov.uca.cc is now emailing us to try and convince us to change our votes. --Etacar11 02:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment you comment suggests you didn't actually read the email, a pity... Trishkincade
 * Note that this edit was made from . Also, as indicated, the editor deleted a large portion of Etacar11's comments.  very bad form.  66.60.159.190 20:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The UCA is in its infancy, but is growing and is worth being recognized. (Lt. J. Losinski - Office of Hegemon Security)
 * Above vote by . 66.60.159.190 20:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity Columbia 02:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Josh Turner is a well-known country music artist with 45,100 Google hits. United Citizens Alliance is a virtally unheard-of organization with 11 Google hits. I'll let our fellow Wikipedians be the judge. :-) Columbia 18:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Should the first issue be dealt with, I will consider changing my vote. --Scimitar 15:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No dis, but I'd only vote to keep if this were independently verified --Simon Cursitor 07:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and impossible to verify independently. --Fazdeconta 08:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, delete, for the following reasons:
 * UCA seems to have no independent verification (news reports, formal agreements with any national govt, etc.)
 * The terms 'polemarch' and 'hegemon' make this article slightly reminiscient of the Ender series by Orson Scott Card.
 * The UN was founded by national leaders, and there is no evidence that Dirk Wolf has the influence/experience/stature to ever make the UCA a recognized international entity that people are widely familiar with.
 * comment As was mentioned above, the UCA was featured in the international Esperanto magazine Kontakto, and I'm going to see about putting up links to any other mentions of it in the media once I get off work. Trishkincade
 * Well, I sort of meant something like CNN, BBC, CBC, or the like. I would advise you to move the content to your user page, as it is unlikely to survive VfD without those links. --Scimitar 21:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * delete because it is vanity Yuckfoo 16:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The UCA is a new but fairly established group. Considering that there is plenty of content here that is about relatively trivial matters, I would think that something as important as the UCA, which has offices in a number of countries, should be included. Mevelynkondrot 17:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that as of now, this is Mevelynkondrot's only edit. Columbia 18:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Not notable, vanity. No Account
 * Keep From what I understand the UCA should soon have a corporate headquarters building and this in itself qualifies it to have an article in Wikipedia. --Chuck SMITH 18:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Chuck Smith has declared a strong pro-Esperanto POV. UCA (such as it is) endorses Esperanto, and one of their very few Google hits is from Chuck's blog profile.  This is not a criticism but it's fair to point out the possible link with the above vote.
 * Keep Actually Chuck, they have one in Wisconsin, and another in Finland, they're just in the process of setting up in a much larger building now. I've seen these guys in action, they're worth an entry if anything is.GregorU 21:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's second edit.

 * Delete due to non-notability and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 21:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - sock puppets and non-notable non-micronation. --FCYTravis 21:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note - If you mean what I think you do by "sock puppet activity" it should be noted that Natalia lives with me and shares my computer, and mevelynkondrot made her post from my computer as well. (Also Gregor is a friend of mine and after he made his post I logged in here at his place to update mine)  Hope that clears up that issue. Trishkincade
 * I think the correct term is "meat-puppet", check the bottom of WP:SOCK --Etacar11 22:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Note - blush Having read the definition of "meat-puppet" yes I have to say, embarrasedly, that that term does fit. I was under the impression that voting was open to all, and would logically include the opinions of people educated regarding the issue at hand.  (Especially since most of you seem to honestly think the UCA is some kind of hoax...)Trishkincade
 * Delete - I think without good independent verification the article doesn't stand. I also think it's lacking past information... there's a lot about how things will work and things that will be done, but very little, if any, about how things have worked and things that have been done.  If the article can provide that information, independently verified, then it's a viable article.  SirGeneral 22:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * comment - the Organization is only about three years old, but if you look at the section written about "sucesses" there is mention of what has been accomplished so far.Trishkincade
 * Delete. Non-notable agency with a single-page website with no links from it, and few independent Google hits.  RickK 22:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete With all due respect, the elaborate nature of the article convinces me only that this is a probable elaborate hoax or at best an organization that exists largely in the mind of one or several people. carmeld1 23:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if UCA is not a particularly large organization at the moment, it is clear it will expand. There is much work to do, but if anyone has really taken a careful look at our current and/or previous websites he must have noticed that we are developing and moving further all the time, little by little. It would be but waste of time to remove UCA from Wikipedia, since it will anyway sooner or later get more than those few Google hits and anything else ridiculous that seems to make some people suspicious. We are growing and developing all the time. If you take a serious look at what UCA is all about and what it has accomplished so far, you will see this is far from hoax of any kind.

- Checkpoint Sigma Commander Lieutenant Lauri Koivisto -
 * Yet another voice of support from someone personally connected to UCA. In my opinion, all the keep votes here are biased and self-serving. --Etacar11 18:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And that "keep" vote is the user's only edit (contributions) -- another meat-puppet. 80.229.160.150

 * Delete     16:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's certainly a lot of verbiage out there that still fails to establish that the UCA is anything other than a group of self-promoters. Can you point us to any articles in any mainstream press that was not written by members of the organization? RickK 22:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately no, at least none that I've been able to find. The Kontakto article was the result of one of our first press releases.  The organization isn't that old.  But the fact that there isn't more about it in general is actually proof that we aren't a bunch of self promoters, we've spent the past few years actually doing things, rather than talking about it.  Trishkincade 01:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * What is it that you've actually done? RickK 04:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * The following for starters - See Successes of the UCA at the bottom

Why this entry should stay
It has been suggested to me that I should write a short essay outlining why I feel that despite the number of negative votes here, the UCA entry should remain on Wikipedia.

Let me first explain that I am new here, as is my roommate Natalia, so if we’ve breeched Wikipedia etiquette I apologize.

I think I should begin by addressing some the primary concerns being expressed here:

 * 1.The UCA has very little web presence on Google and other search engines
 * 2.The UCA has not been featured in very many media sources
 * 3.The UCA has only a couple hundred Citizens, only about half of which are employed directly by the various UCA agencies, and is therefore not big enough to be notable.

So, lets begin.

1. The UCA has very little web presence on Google and other Search Engines - This is very true, when you type in United Citizens Alliance almost nothing comes up about us. The reason for this is two-fold: a. The UCA has not been featured by a great deal in the media (which I’ll address in a moment), and b. Almost every website controlled by the UCA is under construction or offline at the moment.

I suppose that Natalia couldn’t have picked a worse time, with respect to our web presence, to post an article about us here. Until January the UCA had an extensive set of websites for several of our agencies; however, we recently were able to finally arrange permission to use .gov and .mil subdomains I our websites. (I’m not going to get into the long and miserable headache that was, but after several months of negotiations, deal making, and proving that we were who we say we are, we were finally granted the ability to use -.gov.uca.cc and .mil.uca.cc.) We’re in the process of applying for the domain uca.int so that we can use .gov.uca.int and .mil.uca.int subdomains, but that is probably year or two off, because of ICANNA’s strict regulations.

The point here is that the decision was made by Allied Web Services that since we are changing over to new servers and new URLs anyway, we might as well take a few months to completely reconstruct our entire web presence and switch over to systems that are easier to update and more cost effective. The result of this decision is that all of our websites spent about a month in complete non-existence, and only a few are back up in any capacity at all. The websites we have back up have not been up long enough to be found by Googles “webcrawlers” and although we have submitted the sites to about 18 search engines, they have yet to show up. Anyone who has dealt with web site building I’m sure knows how tricky it is dealing with search engines.

I expect that as more of out websites come back online, and Googles webcrawlers find the sites, or accept our submission of them, we’ll begin to have a great deal more “hits” on the search engine.

The real point here is that, of course, not having a large presence on google does not by itself mean much of anything, except that our websites are down and not many people are talking about us right now.

2.The UCA has not been featured in very many media sources – I would remind people that the UCA is officially about 3 years old; and during that time we’ve put our focus on doing rather than talking about it. I don’t know how many people here have worked in the world of public relations, but stories don’t just end up on the news. (At least not the stories that organizations would want about them. LOL)

Every major organization, and most minor ones have a Communications Director and a public relations staff. The PR people are there to issue press releases to media sources and oversee the organizations “image.”

The for the first 2 years of the UCA’s existence Hegemon Wolf had no interest in hiring a communications staff or issuing press releases of any kind. The organization, like many others, began with a charter and a group of dedicated people. At the time he didn’t feel we were organized enough look good in the eyes of the media, and elected to wait until we had more actual accomplishments “on our belt” before making a big issue of it to the press.

Last year, after a review of our progress since the initial charter was created, Hegemon Wolf authorized the OHA to begin interviewing people for positions on the Communications staff, and although we have not made any permanent appointments to the Communications department, we have people serving in interim capacity working to assemble a press corps and have begun issuing releases to select media outlets.

Several months later Kontakto magazine, an international magazine published in Esperanto, became the first media source to publish an article about us to a wide audience.

My real point here is that being well established does not necessarily mean that you will be well know to the media, and our communications department is far behind the rest of the UCA organizationally speaking. And of course the reason that the communications department is behind is because we’ve been a bit busy out in the world actually making a difference and helping people, not just issuing press releases about every insignificant thing that we say or do, as many organizations a lot more well known than us spend time doing.

I’ve added to the UCA entry’s “successes” section to better reflect the kinds of things we’ve accomplished so far. However I am pasting it here as well –

The UCA does not have a long list of accomplishments comparable to that of the United Nations as of yet, however in the short period of time since its creation it has gone from being a small handful of people in the west, to a successful international organization with Citizens in countries all over the world. Also, through diplomatic agreements and relations with unrepresented peoples, the UCA government now represents and works directly to the interests of almost 800,000 people worldwide.

The UCA Allied Service has also actively participated in humanitarian aid programs, disaster relief, and assisting law enforcement agencies in combating slavery.

Currently the Allied Services, in direct coordination with the Freedom Alliance Foundation, are raising money and training personnel to send to South East Asia to implement some of the UCA's long term disaster relief and aid programs, which include the building of a large "creche" to serve as a home for many of the displaced and orphaned children currently living under deplorable conditions in underfunded orphanages and refugee camps.

3. The UCA has only a couple hundred Citizens, only about half of which are employed directly by the various UCA agencies, and is therefore not big enough to be notable. – Now there is the real question, isn’t it.

Is the UCA big enough to be “notable?” No, if you have to be a large and well-known organization to be notable, then the UCA doesn’t fit the bill.

But I think that there is a more important concept to consider here. Should an encyclopedia be a just collection of material about things that everyone already knows a lot about; or should an encyclopedia also include material about subjects that are important on their own merits, and by that virtue are things that people SHOULD know about?

I think that a good case can be made that showcasing information about little-known subjects that are of informative and of value in their own respect.

Now that leads to the question does the UCA entry qualify as being of informative value in its own respect? I can’t objectively answer that. (I believe I can, but I know that as a UCA employee and proud citizen, I can’t be considered truly objective.)

So I have to let you all weigh the issue and decide for yourselves. If you still question the existence of the UCA, despite my explanations of your concerns above, there is not much I can do for you, except ask you which is really a more logical conclusion –

1. A small group of people, for unknown reasons, are perpetrating a hoax to get people to believe in an international organization that doesn’t exist. When they aren’t making any money off the scam, and in fact are spending large quantities of money on office spaces, buildings, equipment, training personnel, buying web domains, and publishing websites, printing IDs and other citizen documentation, etc… (What on earth would be the payoff of such a hoax?  It’s not even for publicity because until a year ago we weren’t actively seeking publicity, and even now we aren’t seeking a great deal of it.)

2. The UCA is a legitimate organization that is doing exactly what it says its doing, and you’ve just not heard of it before now.

For that matter, what makes an organization “real?” Is an organization that has numerous offices, employees, etc real? Does an organization that actively implements humanitarian aid programs, some of which in joint ventures with national government agencies, really exist “only in the minds of one or several people.”

I suppose you will have to decide that, since it is now my understanding that only people considered “established Wikipedians” will have their votes considered here, which precludes me from urging people who know more about the UCA, that while they may not be active contributers to Wikipedia use it on a regular basis, to come and vote here to keep the entry from being deleted. Trishkincade

 * The best way you can convince people is evidence. The only evidence we have that this organization even exists is your webpages and this article written by people from that organization.  Show us something from an independent source.  No news articles?  Fine, show us reports or press releases from all those organizations you are working with.  Show us anything that wasn't produced by the UCA itself.  Simply asserting that this organization exists is not enough.  Gamaliel 16:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * How about this - The Freedom Alliance Foundation EIN is 20-2899971, in the eyes of the United States IRS the Freedom Alliance Foundation, through which most employees of the UCA are paid in the United States, is a legitimate employer organization with its 501c3 non-profit status application pending. As is explained in the article, The Freedom Alliance Foundation is the non-profit organization that the UCA works through.Trishkincade

 * The last "news" entry on that site was posted six months ago. --FCYTravis 17:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The website is under construction and looking for a new webmaster, as is noted on the site.Trishkincade

 * I certainly think you have some compelling arguments, but I have to agree with Gamaliel above... we need evidence. And I believe at the moment this is severly lacking.  Consider from Wikipedia's guidelines on article verification under Obscure Topics (which I believe this, if legitimate, would fall under): If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information. To do so would require original research, and it has been agreed that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.  You'll notice it states that articles can, and are, excluded because they can not be verified.  Providing an EIN from the FAF is nice, but there's precious little information about the FAF itself and that being the case I would hardly consider it a reasonable resource to use for the verification of this article's content.  Not to mention the difficulties in using it to verify the existance of the UCA.  I hardly believe if I go to the FAF and demand payroll information related to the UCA I'm going to receive it.  I notice your reference to Kontakto (which seems legitimate as far as I can tell, anyone else know anything about it?)... but once again I see it is lacking some vital information.  If this magazine published an article about you, then surely you can provide us with the article's title, page numbers, the month or volume, the author of the article, etc.  Provided with this information, your argument becomes significantly better.  Now those of us screaming unverifiable will have something solid we can search for and conceivably find.  Please let us know when that information is available.  Until some verifiable, solid information is available I don't think the article meets the requirements necessary to keep it.  SirGeneral 23:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The title of the article was "The UCA, Chainging the face of tomorrow..." I'll post the issue and page number info as soon as I can get it. [mailto:kontakto@tejo.org Zhenya Zvyeryeva], the magazine's editor, could probably be contacted to confirm the existence of the article as well.   (My copy hasn't arrived yet, but I emailed someone who has one.)  As for the Freedom Alliance Foundation's payroll information, no they won't give out personal information about specific employees, however they are authorized to confirm that they are run by the OHA and that they work in tandem with the UCA Allied Service.  (You can email them at info@freedom-alliance-foundation.org) Trishkincade

 * Note - It appears they changed the name of the article. Trishkincade 15:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I contacted the editor of the magazine and hope to receive a reply soon. --Chuck SMITH 13:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I just talked with a friend at HQ at the World Esperanto Youth Organization and he told me that the ISSN for Kontakto is 0023-3692 and the article (Title: Alternativa UN? Jes! [Alternative UN? Yes!]) can be found on page 12. General details about Kontakto can be found on page 19.  Also, Kontakto is financially supported by the Council of Europe.  Especially for Wikipedia, these pages have been scanned and can be accessed from http://co.uea.org/~tejo/chuck/  --Chuck SMITH 15:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't read Esperanto, so I don't know what the article says. But to me, it still doesn't pass the bar of notability.  And since Trish and Chuck's names are both on that page, the whole thing seems like self-promotion and vanity.  I stick to my delete vote. --Etacar11 15:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I found out about UCA since I'm a representative of the Universal Esperanto Association at the UN. My name at the bottom shows that I translated the article into Esperanto.  --Chuck SMITH 17:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It actually seems to say that Chuck Smith acted as agent, and that the translation from the English was by somebody called Joel Amis. Anyway, regardless of Chuck Smith's exact personal involvement, this article is a manifesto written by Trish Kincade.   And it is published by the Esperanto movement (who also provided the translation); they are clearly an interested party because of Trish Kincade's promise that the main language will be Esperanto (stated in the last sentence of the red introductory bit).  To pass the test of noteworthiness, there should be some mention of them which is written and published by disinterested third parties.  Delete.  80.229.160.150

 * I'd say vote for delete, I like the idea, but it obviously isn't ready for such a long article. If the article was a stub mentioning the intensions, then maybe I'd vote to keep. PS. The first external link points to a rather nasty flash based website, makes me :'( - FrancisTyers 10:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I've taken the liberty of significatly shortening the article. Perhaps that is an adequate compromise to keep at least some vestige of the article here, rather than deleting it completely?  Trishkincade

 * But at this stage it's still a vanity article, regardless of its length. Delete now.  If later UCA ever gets to the stage where enough other third parties are reporting on it in other media that it warrants an article here (and by third parties, I mean people without an obvious vested interest), then it can be listed on WP:VFU.  If meanwhile you want to preserve the content, then you can do so under your user-page.  130.246.132.26

 * Keep. If it was just one guy in Wisconsin, maybe that would make it a vanity article. But it would only be a vanity article until it expands. This organization seems to have several members, and it got mentioned in print (albeit in a publication that perhaps isn't very popular among English-speaking Wikipedians.) What's the harm? --cprompt 22:55, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * But its mention in print was a manifesto by Trish Kincade herself. All that happened was that because they said they'd use Esperanto, Kontakto translated and published this manifesto for her.  It isn't exactly as if an independent journalist wrote an article on them.  I used to be in the Esperanto movement myself, so I know from experience how the Esperanto media will make a big deal of any expression of support for the language, no matter from how inconsequential a source, and this one seems to be no exception.  The only people voting Keep here seem to be either the few people directly associated with the organisation (Trishkincade et al) or Esperantists (Chuck Smith, Cprompt). 80.229.160.150

 * You give two reasons why you don't think the article is vanity: (a) they seem to have several members, and (b) they were mentioned in print. Your point (b) has been dealt with by the above reply.  Regarding (a), I think you are applying an unreasonably low threshold.  If I were to create an article about a certain playground game I invented and played with a bunch of friends back at school, it would rightfully get deleted as vanity, but probably that game was known to more people than this organisation is.  No, they would need to expand further before it were to stop being a vanity article, and who knows whether that will happen?.  I still think delete. 130.246.132.26

 * Manifesto is usually defined as a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature. In context it is usually used to denote something that referrs to what an organization or group plans to do, rather than what they have done or are currently in the process of doing.  There is an important difference there.  The article in Kontakto was submitted to them at thier request and consisted of a press release outlining the history of the organization, what it has accomplished so far, and what projects it is currently involved in.

 * If I wrongly used the word manifesto, my intended point was nonetheless that it was something that you wrote yourself. That point still stands.  Whatever you say about the achievements, you haven't shown evidence of anyone showing any interest in the UCA other than those with a clear vested interest (i.e. the members, and those looking for promotion of Esperanto). 80.229.160.150

I'd like to refer you again to the following:

Successes of the UCA
...in the short period of time since its creation it has gone from being a small handful of people in the west, to a successful international organization with Citizens in countries all over the world. '(We also have offices and/or Diplomatic representatives in 7 countries so far {USA, Belize, Australia, Japan, UK, Finland, Canada) Also, through diplomatic agreements and relations with unrepresented peoples (ie peoples and nations not directly represented by the United Nations), the UCA government now represents and works directly to the interests of almost 800,000 people worldwide.

 * Are you affiliated with the UNPO? - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not at this time, however we do have diplomatic relations with Hawai'i (as well as mutual DeJure recognition, working towards mutural DeFacto recognition) and are in the in the middle of establishing diplimatic relations with 9 other nations who are members of the UNPO. Trishkincade

 * Do you have any press releases of conferences/meetings/events/communications you've had with these countries. Or a press release for when you established relations with Hawaii? - FrancisTyers 14:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, as I have mentioned before we had not made a habit of issuing press releases until we were asked to do so for Kontakto magazine. The Hegemony is not planning on issuing a press release regarding our diplomatic relations until the formal treaty for the UNOP Commission is signed, and the OHA Communications department is fully staffed, including a new press secretary.  (Speaking of which, the OHA is accepting Press Secretary applications, if anyone is interested LOL)Trishkincade

The UCA Allied Service has also actively participated in humanitarian aid programs, disaster relief, and assisting law enforcement agencies in combating slavery. (exp: In 2003 the Allied Service participated in a joint endeavour with a county sheriffs department in Wisconsin to conduct a raid on a building where people were being held in captivity for labor (ie slavery). The refugees where handled by the OHA and FAF, who found them housing and employment.)

 * Was this covered in local news? Where was this building etc. - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No this was not covered in the local news. The women who were rescued did not want any publicity to further disrupt thier lives, and so a press release was never issued. (At the time we weren't really that prepared to deal with the kind of publicity that would have been generated by a press release on the incident anyway.) Trishkincade

Currently the Allied Services, in direct coordination with the Freedom Alliance Foundation, are raising money and training personnel to send to South East Asia to implement some of the UCA's long term disaster relief and aid programs, which include the building of a large "creche" to serve as a home for many of the displaced and orphaned children currently living under deplorable conditions in underfunded orphanages and refugee camps.

'Considering the above, I can only assume that you either missed that section of the Wikipedia article, or believe that it was made up. If you believe it is a lie, then nothing I say to the contrary is really going to fix that. Except what on earth would be our motivation for making that up?' Trishkincade

 * If it isn't a lie, surely there would be sources on the internet? The thing that might convince people is sources. How about pictures of your offices maybe? Write some press releases, get some media coverage. Hell, even something on slashdot or kuro5hin (lol) would be something. - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take my digital camera and take pictures of the buildings we have in Stevens Point; and post a link to them later tonight.

 * Cool :) - FrancisTyers 14:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, I took these during my lunch break, before the storm hit. :)  This is the FAF Office Exterior, its a cute little building with several offices in it.  One of which is the administration office for the Freedom Alliance Foundation.  The inside looks like this.   The following pics are of the UCA Interim Capitol building.  Here is the Main Door where we go in and check in with security, you can see the hallway and security desk here.  My office is actually downstairs, however this is as far as they let cameras in the building. We also have a few other buildings on the premisis, this] is one of them.  It has a few Allied Service offices in it.  We're still in the process of moving all of our area offices into the building, so the interim capitol isn't fully staffed.  Once it is, between ITRD Commission projects using most of the building for research and development, and the UCA political offices, the building will be staffed with over 300 people.  Trishkincade

 * 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:
Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference

The Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference (or CACC) is a college athletic conference affiliated with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) at the Division II level. Its twelve member institutions are located in the northeastern United States in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

The CACC was founded in 1961 as an athletic conference affiliated with the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), and later joined the NCAA in 2002 on provisional status. The CACC Conference Office has been located in New Haven, Connecticut since 2004, the same year that it upgraded to full active status. The CACC has three full-time staff members and one part-time.

Chronological timeline

 * 1961 – The Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference (CACC) was founded. Charter members included Bloomfield College (now Bloomfield College of Montclair State University), Adelphi Suffolk College (later Dowling College), The King's College, the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, Southampton College of Long Island University, Marist College, Monmouth College of New Jersey and Nyack College (later Alliance University), beginning the 1961–62 academic year.
 * 1965 – St. Thomas Aquinas College joined the CACC in the 1965–66 academic year.
 * 1981 – Marist left the CACC to join the Division I ranks of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the ECAC Metro Conference (now known as the Northeast Conference) after the 1980–81 academic year.
 * 1982 – Dominican College of New York (now Dominican University New York) joined the CACC in the 1982–83 academic year.
 * 1983 – Georgian Court College (now Georgian Court University) joined the CACC in the 1983–84 academic year.
 * 1985 – Monmouth (N.J.) left the CACC to fully align with the NCAA Division I ranks and join the ECAC Metro after the 1984–85 academic year.
 * 1987 – Caldwell College (now Caldwell University) and Post College (now Post University) joined the CACC in the 1987–88 academic year.
 * 1999:
 * St. Thomas Aquinas left the CACC to join the NCAA Division II ranks as an NCAA D-II Independent (which would later join the New York Collegiate Athletic Conference (NYCAC, now known as the East Coast Conference) beginning the 2000–01 academic year.) after the 1998–99 academic year.
 * Felician College (now Felician University), Goldey–Beacom College, Holy Family College (now Holy Family University), the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia (USP; later the University of the Sciences before being absorbed by Saint Joseph's University in 2022) and Wilmington College of Delaware (now Wilmington University) joined the CACC in the 1999–2000 academic year.
 * 2000 – The New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) joined the CACC in the 2000–01 academic year.
 * 2002 – The CACC was granted provisional membership status within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) at the Division II ranks, transitioning from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) in the 2002–03 academic year.
 * 2004 – The CACC had achieved full membership status within the NCAA Division II ranks in the 2004–05 academic year.
 * 2005 – Philadelphia University (now Thomas Jefferson University) joined the CACC in the 2005–06 academic year.
 * 2006 – NJIT left the CACC to join the NCAA Division I ranks as an NCAA D-I Independent after the 2005–06 academic year.
 * 2007 – Chestnut Hill College joined the CACC in the 2007–08 academic year.
 * 2009 – Concordia College of New York joined the CACC in the 2009–10 academic year.
 * 2017 – The CACC began sponsoring men's lacrosse, with play starting in the 2018 spring season (2017–18 academic year).
 * 2021 – Concordia (NY) left the CACC as the school announced that it would close at the end of the 2020–21 academic year.
 * 2022:
 * USciences left the CACC when it merged into Saint Joseph's University at the end of the 2021–22 academic year.
 * The University of Bridgeport joined the CACC in the 2022–23 academic year.
 * The CACC added bowling, a women-only sport in the NCAA, that began in the 2023 spring season (2022–23 academic year), with full members Bloomfield, Caldwell, Chestnut Hill, Felician, Holy Family, and Wilmington as the inaugural teams. All but Holy Family, which launched its varsity team in 2022–23, had previously been affiliates of the East Coast Conference in that sport.
 * 2023 – Alliance left the CACC as the school announced that it would close at the end of the 2022–23 academic year.
 * 2024 – Lincoln University of Pennsylvania joined the CACC as an associate member in baseball and women's soccer in the 2024–25 academic year.

Current members
The CACC currently has 12 full members, all but one (Bloomfield) are private schools:

 * Notes

Former members
The CACC had eleven former full members; all but one were private schools.

 * Notes:

title: Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference


text:
Guy Banister

William Guy Banister (March 7, 1901 – June 6, 1964) was an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an assistant superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department, and a private investigator. After his death, New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison alleged that he had been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He was an avid anti-communist, alleged member of the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, Louisiana Committee on Un-American Activities, and alleged publisher of the Louisiana Intelligence Digest which maintained that the civil rights movement was part of an international communist conspiracy and was treasonous.

He also supported anti-Castro groups in the New Orleans area: "Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front"; "Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean"; "Friends of Democratic Cuba". According to the New Orleans States-Item newspaper, Banister "participated in every anti-Communist South and Central American revolution that came along, acting as a key liaison man for the U.S. government-sponsored anti-Communist activities in Latin America."

Early life and law enforcement career
Banister was born in Monroe, Louisiana, the oldest of seven children. He later became a Freemason and a Shriner. After studying at the Louisiana State University, he joined the Monroe Police Department. In 1934, Banister joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was present at the killing of John Dillinger. Originally based in Indianapolis, he later moved to New York City where he was involved in the investigation of the American Communist Party. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was impressed by Banister's work and, in 1938, he was promoted to run the FBI unit in Butte, Montana. In December 1944, Banister was charged with investigating a fatal Fu-Go balloon bomb near Kalispell, Montana. During the 1947 flying disc craze, Banister investigated a hoaxed saucer in Twin Falls.

He also served in Oklahoma City, Minneapolis and Chicago. In Chicago, he was the Special Agent in Charge for the FBI. He retired from the FBI in 1954. Banister moved to Louisiana and, in January 1955, became Assistant Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department, where he was given the task of investigating organized crime and corruption within the police force. It later emerged that he was also involved in looking at the role that left-wing political activists were playing in the struggle for civil rights in New Orleans. On the campuses of Tulane University and Louisiana State University, he ran a network of informants collecting information on "communist" activities. He submitted reports on his findings to the FBI through contacts. In December 1955, Banister publicly revealed 91 members of the police who were involved in graft, after a list was found at the home of an illegal lottery operator.

In March 1957, NOPD Superintendent Provosty Dayries suspended Banister after witnesses reported he had drawn his revolver while threatening a bartender at the Old Absinthe House on Bourbon Street in the French Quarter. Banister denied the allegations, and the bartender described the incident as an "unprovoked attack". Later in March, Banister appeared before the state's Joint Legislative Segregation Committee where he told investigators that he had "documentary proof of clear and specific communist directions to promote friction between the races". He also told of investigating the first Japanese fire balloon to land in the US. Banister's suspension ended in June of that year; however, Dayries dismissed Banister from the force for "open defiance" after he refused to be reassigned as the department's chief of planning. In supporting Dayries' decision, New Orleans' mayor Chep Morrison said that there was "no other course that one could sensibly follow".

Private investigation, Cuba, Oswald, Marcello
After leaving the New Orleans Police Department, Banister established his own private detective agency, Guy Banister Associates, Inc. at 434 Balter Building. In June 1960, Banister moved his office to 531 Lafayette Street on the ground floor of the Newman Building. Around the corner but located in the same building, with a different entrance, was the address 544 Camp Street, which would later be found stamped on Fair Play for Cuba Committee leaflets distributed by Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy. The Newman Building housed militant anti-Castro groups, including the Cuban Revolutionary Council (October 1961 to February 1962), as well as Sergio Arcacha Smith's Crusade to Free Cuba Committee.

Banister was implicated in a 1961 raid on a munitions depot in Houma, Louisiana, in which "various weapons, grenades and ammunition were stolen ... which were reportedly seen stacked in Banister's back room by several witnesses." The New Orleans States-Item newspaper reported an allegation that Banister served as a munitions supplier for the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion and continued to deal weapons from his office until 1963.

In 1962, Banister allegedly dispatched an associate, Maurice Brooks Gatlin — legal counsel of Banister's "Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean" — to Paris to deliver a suitcase containing $200,000 for the French OAS. In 1963, Banister and anti-Castro activist David Ferrie began working for a lawyer named G. Wray Gill and his client, New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. This involved attempts to block Marcello's deportation to Guatemala. In early 1962, Banister assisted David Ferrie in a dispute with Eastern Airlines regarding charges brought against Ferrie by the airline and New Orleans police of "crimes against nature and extortion." During this period, Ferrie was frequently seen at Banister's office. Banister served as a character witness for Ferrie at his airline pilot's grievance board hearing in the summer of 1963.

JFK assassination and trial of Clay Shaw
On the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Banister and one of his investigators, Jack Martin, were drinking together at the Katzenjammer Bar, located next door to 544 Camp Street in New Orleans. On their return to Banister's office, the two men got into a dispute. Banister believed that Martin had stolen some files and drew his .357 Magnum revolver, striking Martin with it several times. Martin was badly injured and treated at Charity Hospital. When questioned about the incident in December 1977 by investigators for the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Martin said that in the heat of the argument just prior to the pistol-whipping he had said to Banister: "What are you going to do — kill me like you all did Kennedy?"

Over the next few days, Martin told authorities and reporters that anti-Castro activist David Ferrie had been involved in the assassination. He claimed that Ferrie knew Oswald from their days in the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol, and that Ferrie might have taught Oswald how to use a rifle with a telescopic sight. Martin also claimed that Ferrie drove to Texas on the day of Kennedy's assassination, to serve as a getaway pilot for the assassins. Witnesses interviewed by the HSCA indicate Banister was "aware of Oswald and his Fair Play for Cuba Committee before the assassination."

Banister's secretary, Delphine Roberts, told author Anthony Summers that Oswald "seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and with [Banister's] office." Roberts said, "As I understood it, he had the use of an office on the second floor, above the main office where we worked. Then, several times, Mr. Banister brought me upstairs, and in the office above I saw various writings stuck up on the wall pertaining to Cuba. There were various leaflets up there pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba.'" The House Select Committee on Assassinations investigated Roberts' claims and said that "the reliability of her statements could not be determined."

The alleged activities of Banister, Ferrie and Oswald reached New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison who, by late 1966, had become interested in the New Orleans aspects of the assassination. In December 1966, Garrison interviewed Martin about these activities. Martin claimed that Banister, Ferrie and a group of anti-Castro Cuban exiles were involved in operations against Castro's Cuba that included gun running and burglarized armories.

As Garrison continued his investigation, he became convinced that a group of right-wing activists, including Banister, Ferrie and Clay Shaw, were involved in a conspiracy with elements of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to kill Kennedy. Garrison would later claim that the motive for the assassination was anger over Kennedy's attempts to obtain a peace settlement in both Cuba and Vietnam. Garrison also believed that Banister, Shaw, and Ferrie had conspired to set up Oswald as a patsy in the JFK assassination.

Death
Banister died of coronary thrombosis on June 6, 1964. Banister's files went to various people after his death. Later, New Orleans Assistant District Attorney Andrew Sciambra interviewed Banister's widow. She told him that she saw some Fair Play for Cuba leaflets in Banister's office when she went there after his death.

Fictional portrayals
Banister is a character in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie JFK, in which he is portrayed by Edward Asner. He is also central to the plot of Don DeLillo's novel Libra. Banister appears as a character in James Ellroy's 1995 novel American Tabloid and its sequel The Cold Six Thousand. In American Tabloid, Banister organizes John Kennedy's assassination, which is based on Ward Littell's original plan. In The Cold Six Thousand, Banister is murdered by Chuck Rogers under orders from Carlos Marcello.

title: Guy Banister


text:
Ted W. Lawson

Major Ted William Lawson (March 7, 1917 – January 19, 1992) was an American officer in the United States Army Air Forces, who is known as the author of Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, a memoir of his participation in the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in 1942. The book was subsequently adapted into the 1944 film of the same name starring Spencer Tracy, Van Johnson and Robert Mitchum.

Early life
Lawson was born in Alameda, California, and attended Los Angeles City College in 1937–1938. He joined the U.S. Army Air Corps as an aviation cadet in March 1940 while a student studying aeronautical engineering by day and working nights in the drafting department of Douglas Aircraft Company. After basic flight instruction at Hancock Field, Santa Maria, California, Lawson attended primary flying training at Randolph Field and advanced training at Kelly Field, receiving his pilot's wings and commission as a second lieutenant on 15 November 1940.

Lawson was assigned to the 95th Bomb Squadron, 17th Bomb Group (Medium) at McChord Field, Washington. He was assigned as a co-pilot flying B-18 Bolo medium bombers and checked out in the Douglas B-23 Dragon. He became a first pilot in February 1941 and two months later the group received seven B-25 Mitchells, the first of the new medium bombers to be assigned to a unit in the Air Corps.

While his squadron was based at McChord, Lawson married Ellen Arlene Reynolds, a librarian at LACC he had met while a student, in Spokane on 5 September 1941. His best man at the ceremony was squadron-mate Lt. Robert M. Gray, who would be a fellow pilot on the Doolittle Raid.

World War II
In early 1941, Lawson, then a First Lieutenant, was flying antisubmarine patrols with the 17th Bombardment Group out of Pendleton, Oregon. As the first Army Air Corps group to receive the B-25 Mitchell, the 17th BG had the most experienced pilots and so was ordered from Oregon to Lexington County Army Air Base at Columbia, South Carolina, ostensibly to fly similar patrols off the East Coast of the United States but in actuality to prepare for the mission against Japan. The group officially transferred effective 9 February to Columbia, where its combat crews were offered the opportunity to volunteer for an "extremely hazardous" but unspecified mission. On 17 February the group was detached from the Eighth Air Force.

Lieutenant Lawson was accepted as a volunteer for the mission, led by then-Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle to bomb Tokyo and several other cities with 16 carrier-launched B-25 Mitchell bombers from aboard USS Hornet (CV-8). This became the first air raid on mainland Japan during World War II, following the Pearl Harbor attack.

The aircraft that he flew on the raid was nicknamed "The Ruptured Duck" (AAF serial 40-2261). According to Lawson in his book, the plane's unusual name evolved from a minor training accident where the aircraft tail scraped the ground on take-off. Soon after, Lawson found someone had written "ruptured duck" in chalk on the fuselage. Inspired, he had B-25 gunner Cpl. Rodger Lovelace create the now-famous caricature of Donald Duck with crutches and wearing pilot's headphones.

Launching the mission 170 miles (275 km) farther out than planned after bombing their targets in Japan, all of the bombers ran out of fuel short of their intended recovery airfields in non-Japanese occupied China. Lawson and his crew crashed their B-25 off the coast of the small island of Nantien when its engines failed while trying to land on the beach during a heavy storm. Lawson and his co-pilot were both thrown through the windscreen of the B-25, with Lawson suffering a compound fracture of the left leg, a lacerated left bicep, and severe facial injuries in the process.

All five crew members survived the crash; however all but flight engineer/gunner David J. Thatcher received serious injuries. Bombardier Robert Clever would be returned to the U.S., only to die in another plane crash in November, 1942. After he was transported by friendly Chinese throughout several provinces in China to evade Japanese troops searching for his crew, Lawson's infected leg was amputated by the mission's flight surgeon, Lt Thomas R. White, who had volunteered to fly the mission as a gunner on the crew of Lt. Donald Smith. The nose art of the crashed bomber, "The Ruptured Duck", was later salvaged by the Japanese and put on display in Tokyo.

Author
In January 1943, Lawson and newspaper columnist Bob Considine decided to write a book about the mission, entitled Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. In four nights and two days in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., the entire story was worked out, although approval to publish the book was not given until after information about the raid was released by the War Department in April 1943.

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo first appeared serialized in six issues of Collier's magazine, from May 22 to June 26, 1943. It was also published later that year by Random House in a 220-page hardback "wartime book" (5+1/4 x) format.

Through friends in the Los Angeles area, Ted made contact with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer producer Sam Zimbalist, and the film was launched in 1944, starring Van Johnson as Lawson, alongside Spencer Tracy and Robert Mitchum. It won an Academy Award for Best Special Effects. In 2003, Brassey's reprinted Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo with more photos and an introduction from Lawson's widow, Ellen.

Later life
Along with the majority of the surviving Doolittle Raiders, Lawson was eventually repatriated back to the United States, and in his case, for further medical care including a second amputation of his injured leg and reconstruction of his lower face. During his recuperation, Lawson was promoted to captain in accordance with Doolittle's recommendation that all the raiders be promoted one grade, and later to major. He served as Liaison Officer, U.S. Air Mission, Santiago, Chile from May 1943 until April 1944. He was retired from the U.S. Army Air Forces for physical disability on February 2, 1945. His decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, and the Chinese Army, Navy, and Air Corps Medal, Class A, 1st Grade.

After the war, Lawson owned and operated a machine shop in Southern California, and also worked for Reynolds Metals as a liaison between the company and the military. He died at his home in Chico, California, on January 19, 1992, and was interred at the Chico Cemetery Mausoleum.

Honors and tributes
Lawson Army Airfield at Fort Benning, Georgia is partially named for Ted W. Lawson. It was originally named only for Walter R. Lawson (no relation to Ted), an Army Air Corps flyer who earned the Distinguished Service Cross in World War I. Several years later, after the Doolittle Raid in World War II, Ted W. Lawson's name was added to the memorial at the field.

The Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor, located on Ford Island, has on display a B-25 done in the livery of Lawson's aircraft from the Doolittle Raid.

title: Ted W. Lawson


text:
Talk:Ascospore

are ascospores produced asexually or sexually?

A little of both. The ascus (sac-shaped cell in which the spores are produced) initially contains two nuclei from the two parent fungi, which fuse when the ascus is formed. This zygote nucleus then undergoes meiosis to produce four nuclei, each of which then undergoes mitosis once to produce a total of eight ascospres. The fusion and meiosis are a sexual process, but the following mitosis division technically is not. -- EncycloPetey 04:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Everything that has been written is nonsense, please get some with a little bit more insight in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.182.18.18 (talk) 10:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ascospore


text:
U Can't Touch This

"U Can't Touch This" is a song co-written, produced, and performed by American rapper MC Hammer. It was released as the third single from his third album, Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em (1990), and has been considered his signature song. Along with Hammer, Rick James shares songwriting credits with Alonzo Miller, as the song samples the prominent opening riff of James' 1981 single "Super Freak". The song has been used and referred to in many television shows, films, commercials, and other forms of media. It has also received multiple awards and recognition.

The song won a Grammy Award for Best R&B Song and a Grammy Award for Best Rap Solo Performance. It is the first rap song to be nominated for a Grammy Award for Record of the Year at the 33rd Annual Grammy Awards in 1991, and the MTV Video Music Award for Best Rap Video and MTV Video Music Award for Best Dance Video at the 1990 MTV Video Music Awards. It peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks chart, and charted in several countries.

Production
The song samples the prominent opening riff of the Rick James song "Super Freak", which is repeated throughout the recording. The lyrics describe Hammer as having "toured around the world, from London to The Bay" and as being "magic on the mic", which he says coincides with James's "beat that you can't touch". The lyrics "you can't touch this" and "Stop! Hammer time!" became pop culture catchphrases. Hammertime was later used as the title of a reality show starring Hammer on A&E during the summer of 2009.

The sample of "Super Freak", which forms the basis of the song, led James (and other performers on the original record) to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement. It was settled out of court, with Hammer agreeing to credit James as a songwriter, effectively granting him millions of dollars in royalties.

In late 1989, the song was first performed publicly on an episode of The Arsenio Hall Show.

Commercial
In April 1990, the song hit the Top 40. It also secured a Grammy Award for Best R&B Song and a Grammy Award for Best Rap Solo Performance in 1991, a new category at the time, and the first rap song to be nominated for Grammy Award for Record of the Year. The single was a major success, reaching number one on the US Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks chart and number eight on the Billboard Hot 100. The track also performed successfully in other parts of the world, peaking at number one in Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden, and number 3 on the UK Singles Chart.

In September 1990, the music video won a MTV Video Music Award for Best Rap Video and a MTV Video Music Award for Best Dance Video. It was also nominated for MTV Video Music Award for Best Male Video, Best Editing, and Best Choreography.

The song was not initially released as a single, so more than 18 million copies of the album Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em were sold, gaining multi-platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of America.

Critical
Bill Coleman from Billboard commented, "A Rick James classic paired with Hammer's distinctive rhyme styling has added up to a deserved smash." Whitney Pastorek from Entertainment Weekly wrote, "The good-natured boast, laid over the hook of Rick James's 'Superfreak', proved irresistible. Hammer's hydraulic dance moves and outlandish fashions — harem pants and gold lamé, together at last! — were cartoonish". Ben Thompson from NME said, "Currently more popular than sliced bread in the US of A, MC Hammer updates one of the more favoured moments of the dreadful Rick James in a barrage of twiddly synths. The debt that Swingbeat owes to Landscape's 'Einstein a Go-Go' has yet to be fully investigated."

Retrospective
In 1999, MTV's 100 Greatest Videos Ever Made included the song at number 71. In October 2000, VH1's 100 Greatest Dance Songs included it at number 88. In May 2001, VH1's 100 Greatest Videos included it at number 59.

In August 2005, the song was certified gold. In December 2007, VH1's 100 Greatest Songs of the '90s included it at number 16. During 2008, it ranked as number 26 on VH1's 100 Greatest Songs of Hip Hop.

In October 2005, Blender ranked the song at number 196 in their list of Greatest Songs Since You Were Born.

Music video
A music video, directed by Rupert Wainwright, was produced to promote the single, showing Hammer's signature dances, including the "running man", "the bump", and the "Hammer dance", while wearing his iconic Hammer pants.

Legacy
In 1991, a parody entitled "I Can't Watch This" was released by "Weird Al" Yankovic for his album Off the Deep End, with lyrics complaining about bad TV shows overlaid on the song's music track (and featuring samples of various commercials during the breakdowns).

Before the 1990 NFL season started, the Miami Dolphins parodied the song as "U Can't Touch Us".

Childersburg High School Principal Quentin Lee in Childersburg, Alabama created a parody video to "share some joy" and provide advice to students on handling the COVID-19 pandemic.

title: U Can't Touch This


text:
Talk:Donnie Wahlberg

Untitled
He's listed primarily as a producer, but his IMDB page - [1] - doesn't list him as a producer of anything. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about what people have done, as opposed to how they see themselves? (If not, could someone make a page about me and how i'm a world renowned philantropist and nice guy?) svennirusl 21:23, 11 April 2007 (GMT)

The body of this article appears to have been ripped wholesale from http://donnie-wahlberg.biography.ms/. Unfortunately, I can't verify this as the site will not load on my machine, but Google's summary is a word-for-word match of the opening paragraph.

 * By the way, that's because they copied it from a DB dump of Wikipedia. (similar to Answers.com, etc.) 69.208.64.181 23:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of copyright issues, major POV bias is apparent throughout the article and in this and other areas, it really needs attention. Unfortunately I don't think I'm the man for the job. Would anyone care to do the honours?

*Satis 22:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article looks like a fan review. I have tried to change the most obvious once, but it was changed back again.--Padda 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the POV bias, from New Kids on the Block being a "popular" group on down, but as I think they and him are all clowns, I don't think I'm the right one to edit this page either. Let's not correct POV one way by swinging it all the way to the other side. Highlander3751 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I loathe the Backstreet Boys I think the POV has swung too far the other way. Is there really a neccessity to talk about his 'horrid flatulence' and 'stagnant career'? David Cheater 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

 * Is there a better photo of Donnie we could use? The current one looks like a mugshot... Morhange 01:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my first thought, and after watching him on the excellent tv series "Boomtown", he certainly deserves a more flattering photo! Hillsboro 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that photo is horrible. -Mike Payne 08:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture that's up there now isn't exactly stellar. It's pushing on two decades old, plus it's not very professional or of great quality. Anyone have something better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.254.109 (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I updated the photo a recent one taken head on (the previous one was a shot take from an odd side angle and his eyes were half closed) I have taken several pics with and of him and its rare to catch him these days without sunglasses! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NKOTB1988 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Entourage
Johnny Drama is not primarily based on Donnie...on the DVD for Entourage Season 2 in the special feature called the Mark Wahlberg Sessions, they identify the person who Johnny is largely based on. I am not making the edit because I dont have the DVD's handy.

Fair use rationale for Image:Donni duddits.jpg
Image:Donni duddits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Donnie Wahlberg.JPG
Image:Donnie Wahlberg.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is he credited as a Detective on pretty much every role on his filmography? =S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.127.10 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life
Why has most of this information been deleted? It contained info on his wife and two children with good references =S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.254.27 (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I really wish people understood the difference in separated and divorced. Yes, Wahlberg & Fey filed for divorce in 2008, however it is yet to be finalized and they remain in a state of separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.41.166 (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sister's Death
Donnie's page lists her death as being in 2004 while Mark's lists it being in 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.204.233 (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I noticed this too, and posted a corresponding note there. Does anybody have a definitive correction to one of them? ChrisJBenson (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Answering my own question: This 2003 web posting shows that Debbie Wahlberg died in October 2003, so I have corrcted this article. ChrisJBenson (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Name
How can you say in a note on the edit page his middle name isn't Edmond when there are way more articles and sites that list his full name as Donald Edmond Wahlberg Jr? just curious as to that. I'll stop editing back to Edmond but most sources I have come across online list his name as Edmond and I was just trying to make the page accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.118.9 (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

His middle name is Edmond. Google came up with six sources. Why is Wikipedia wrong?Simon (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because nobody has cited any sources in the article. You've got six; pick one and cite it. Doniago (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Boston's Finest
should it also mention along with being one of Executive Producers that Wahlberg is narrator on show? If so, could someone add it? 68.231.25.212 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donnie Wahlberg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Smart

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alex Smart

 * Delete non-notable Revolución 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:05, 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.