text:
Pachypodium baronii

Pachypodium baronii, the Madagascar palm or bontaka, is a flowering plant in the family Apocynaceae. It has the habit of a robust shrub with a spherical or bottle-shaped trunk. It has several cylindrical branches at the top.

This plant is endemic to Madagascar, where it grows in open deciduous forest on Mesozoic calcareous rock and granite or gneiss on the western side of the island at low elevations. It is known in Madagascar as "Bontaka". It is also endemic from Befandriana Nord to Mandritsara.

Constantin and Bois first described Pachypodium baronii as a species of the genus Pachypodium in 1907.

Habit
Pachypodium baronii is a robust, globose (spherical)- to bottle-shaped shrub in habit. Its trunk is subglobose, not quite globose or spherical, mostly narrowed at the base with dimensions of 20 to 40 cm in length by 20 cm by 50 cm. At the top of the trunk, it abruptly narrows into one or several cylindrical branches that are 30 cm to 50 cm by 4 cm by 8 cm in diameter, tapering to 3 cm to 4 cm in diameter.

Pachypodium baronii typically grows to 1 to 3.50 m high. Its bark is colored pale grey or grey-green and is smooth, but sometimes retains remnants of leaf scars. Branchlets are 1.5 cm to 7 cm in length by 0.8 to 1.5 cm in width. They are covered with paired often curved spines that measure 2 by long to 1 to 4 mm in diameter at the base of the branchlet. Its basal (lower) part of the branchlet is conical and laterally compressed at 0.33 to 0.66 times the spine's length. The spines are often red and pubescent, hairy when young, turning medium to dark brown and glabrous and smooth.

Leaves
The leaves of Pachypodium baronii are confined to the apices of the branchlets. The leaves are petiolate, meaning that they bear a stalk that attaches to the stem and to the leaf blade. The petiole is a pale reddish-green about 3 to 25 mm long. It is pubescent, or hairy-like. The blade is coriaceous, leathery, and medium green. It has a midrib that is above pale green and shiny and beneath pale and glaucous, smooth without hairs. The pale green midrib and dark green reticulate venation is visible when the blade is fresh. When dried, the blade is papery, ovate to obovate or narrowly so, and 1.4 to 3 times as long as it is wide. Therefore, the leaf measures 3 cm to 18 cm in length by 1.4 cm to 9 cmh). It is acuminate, tapering gradually to a sharp point, to apiculate, ending abruptly with a sharp, flexible tip at the apex and wedged-shape or cuneate to rounded at the base. The leaf's margin is revolute, rolled backward from the tip or margins to the undersurface, glabrous to sparsely pubescent above. Beneath it is pubescent especially on midrib and secondary veins as well as the impressed of venation. As well, underneath the leaf, the midrib and secondary veins are very prominent. The secondary veins are in 15 to 30 pairs, straight, upcurved at the apex, and forming an angle of 45–90° with the costa--the rib, ridge, or especially the mid-rib, for instance, of a leaf. The tertiary, or third level of venation is reticulate, netted or showing a net like structure or pattern.

Inflorescence
The inflorescence of Pachypodium baronii is pedunculate, having a main axis to flower stalk. The inflorescence is congested, measures 16 cm (inch) by 40 (inch) in length by 40 cm (1.58-inch) to 4.5 cm (1.77-inch) to 12 cm (0.47-inch), and have 3 to 17 flowers. The inflorescence's peduncle, the stalk of an inflorescence or a stalk bearing a solitary flower in a one-flowered inflorescence, is pale green and terete, cylindrical but usually slightly tapering at both ends. It measures 7 mm (0.276-inch) to 20 mm (0.787-inch) in length by 4 mm (0.157-inch) to 6 mm (0.236-inch). The peduncle, as well, is glabrescent. The pedicels are pale reddish-green, 8 mm (0.315-inch) to 23 mm long, and sparsely pubescent and hairy. The bracts of P. baronii are oblong and 2 to 3.5 times as long as wide, thus 5 mm (0.197-inch) to 11 mm (0.433-inch) in length by 2 mm (.078-inch) to 2.5 mm (0.098-inch). The bracts are longer than the sepals and are pubescent, hairy outside, glabrous, smooth, without hairs inside.

Flowers
The sepals of Pachypodium baronii are no different than most sepals in other flowering plants (angiosperms) in forming an outer floral envelope. In P. baronii's case, the sepals are dark green, connate at the base for about 0.2 mm (.008 (0.098-inch), persistent until maturity of the flower, and ovate or narrowly so. They measure 1.5–2.5 times as long as they are wide at 2.5 mm (inch) to 6 mm (inch) in length by 1.5 mm (0.059-inch) to 2.5 mm (0.098-inch). They are acuminate at the apex and glabrous, smooth, to sparsely pubescent, slightly hairy, outside and glabrous inside.

Corolla
The collective term for all the petals of a flower or the inner whorl of the perianth; the corolla of Pachypodium baronii is limb and crimson with a corolla tube. The basal part of the corolla tube, the part of the corolla where the petals are united to form a funnel shaped cylinder, is pale green, whereas the upper part is part greenish-red outside and inside pale yellow or pale green. Inside these colors are shaped like a star or ring in pattern. They are surrounded by a dark red throat, measuring 2.5 cm (inch) to 4 cm (inch) long in the mature bud. The corolla tube forms a comparatively wide and broadly ovoid, broad and rounded at the base and tapering toward the end, head that measures 0.4 to 0.5 times the tube's length, thus, at 1 cm (0.39-inch) to 1.9 cm (0.75-inch) long by 0.7 cm (0.28-inch) to 1.1 cm (0.43-inch) wide. At the apex, the bud is acuminate, tapering gradually to a sharp point, to obtuse, having a blunt or rounded tip. Whereas it is (I) glabrous or sparsely pubescent to often partly pubescent outside, inside it is (II) glabrous on the part of the lobes covering the bud and glabrous for 6 mm (0.236-inch) to 7 mm (0.276-inch) from the base. A pubescent belt located inside the corolla tube is 4 mm (0.158-inch) to 7 mm (0.276-inch) below the insertion of the stamens, the male reproductive organ of a flower, to the mouth. The mouth is more densely pubescent and hairy. The corolla tube is 4.4 to 6 times as long as the calyx, which is 1.13 to 1.22 times as long as the corolla lobes. Therefore, the corolla tube is 15 mm (inch) to 23 mm (inch) long. Its basal part is almost cylindrical, but often conically widened at the base. It is 0.39 to 0.44 times the length of the entire tube at 7 mm (0.276-inch) to 9 mm (0.354-inch) long by 2 mm (0.079-inch) to 4.8 mm (0.189-inch) wide. The upper part is almost cylindrical at 8 mm (0.315-inch) to 14 mm (0.551-inch) long. It slightly narrows at the mouth to be 3 mm (0.118-inch) to 4 mm (0.158-inch) wide. The corolla lobes are obliquely and broadly obovate, egg-shaped and flat with the narrow end attached to the stalk, at 0.8 to 0.9 times as long as the tube, hence measuring at 1.35 to 1.6 times as long as it is wide at 15 mm (0.591-inch) to 19 mm (0.75-inch) long by 11 mm (0.43-inch) to 17 mm (0.67-inch) wide. The lobes are rounded at their apex and ciliate at the edge, or margin.

Stamens
With an apex 4 mm (0.158-inch) to 4.5 mm (0.177-inch) below the mouth of the corolla tube, Pachypodium baronii's stamens are inserted at 0.47 to 0.6 the length of the corolla tube. It measures at 1.0 cm (0.394-inch) to 1.4 cm (0.551-inch) from the base. The stamen is the male reproductive organ of a flower where it usually has a filament and, at least, an anther. A filament is usually thin short or elongated stalk of the stamen that carries the anther at the upper end; whereas the anther is the part of the stamen that bear the pollen. In baronii, the anthers are very narrowly triangular at 5 to 6 times as long as wide, measuring 6 mm (0.236-inch) to 6.5 mm (0.256-inch) in length by 1.0 mm (0.039-inch) to 1.3 mm (0.051-inch) wide. They are pubescent inside at the base of the connective, the sterile part of the anther as opposed to the theca, which is the part of the anther that carries pollen, and are just below where the anther occurs with the pistil head, part of the female reproductive organ in a flower.

Pistil
The pistil is the female reproductive organ of a flower that is composed of an ovary and several free carpels the style and the stigma. A carpel is the modified leaf that contains the ovules and has a style and a stigma on top. The style is the stalk-like portion that connects the stigma and the carpel or ovary; whereas the stigma, itself, is the top most receptive region of the style, commonly divided. In Pachypodium baronii the pistil is 12.5 mm (0.49-inch) to 14.5 mm (0.57-inch) long. The ovary measures 2 mm (0.078-inch) to 2.5 mm (0.098-inch) long by 1.8 mm (0.071-inch) to 2.2 mm (0.87-inch) wide by 1.5 mm (0.059-inch) high. It is pubescent on the part not covered by the disk, a disk-like structure that secretes nectar. In P. baronii, the disk is composed of five unequal glands, where 2 or 2 pairs are fused partly or entirely. These glands are ovate and measure 1.7 mm (0.067-inch) to 2 mm (0.079-inch) high. They are rounded at the apex and are more than half as long as the ovary. The style is 9.3 mm (0.37-inch) to 11 mm (0.43-inch) long and sparsely pubescent. The pistil head is cylindrical and is at 1.0 mm (.039-inch) to 1.3 mm (0.51-inch) high. It is composed of an obconical, inverted conical shape, basal part, which is 0.5 mm (0.020-inch) to 0.65 mm (0.26-inch) long by 0.4 mm (0.016-inch) to 0.5 mm (0.020-inch) wide. The pistil has a ring-shaped central part measuring 0.5 mm (0.020-inch) to 0.7 mm (0.028-inch) long by 0.6mm (0.024-inch) to 0.7 mm (0.028-inch). It has a stigmoid apex 0.1 mm (0.004-inch) to 0.2 mm (0.008-inch) by 0.3 mmto 0.4 mm (0.016-inch). The ovules are approximately 50 in each carpel.

Fruit
The fruit of Pachypodium baronii is made up of 2 separate mericarps, the part of the ovary or carpel that has one or more enclosed seeds. Sometimes only one fruit develops with an angle of 45–180° at the base. Sometimes flowers and fruit are on the same inflorescence. The mericarps are pale reddish-green with longitudinal lines when fresh and when dried pale brown to pale greenish-brown to dark brown outside and whitish to very pale brown inside. The fruit measures 40 mm (1.58-inch) to 115 mm (4.53-inch) long by 10 mm (0.39-inch) to 20 mm wide by 7 mm (0.28-inch) to 10 mm (0.39-inch) high. When the fruit is fresh it is either straight or recurved, obtuse to acute at the apex. It is pubescent and has a wall 1 mm (inch) thick.

Seeds
The seed of Pachypodium baronii is pale brown with margin medium brown when fresh. It is ovate to elliptic at 6 mm (0.236-inch) to 7 mm (0.256-inch) by 3 mm (0.118-inch) to 3.8 mm (0.150-inch). It is rounded at the apex, obtuse at the base, and has a margin that is revolute towards the hilar side. The testa is smooth. The coma is straw-colored and at 1 cm (0.39-inch) to 1.5 cm (0.59-inch) long. The embryo is whitish at 5 mm (0.197-inch) by 6 mm (0.236-inch) long. The cotyledons are ovate and 1.14 to 1.2 times as long as it is wide at 3 mm (0.118-inch) to 4 mm (0.158-inch) long by 2.5 mm (0.98-inch) to 3.5 mm (0.138-inch) wide. They are rounded at the apex and cordate at the base with a rootlet 0.6 to 0.8 times as long as the cotyledons at 2 mm (0.079-inch) to 2.5 mm long by 1.0 mm (0.039-inch) to 1.8 mm (0.071-inch) wide.

Ecology
Pachypodium baronii is found on three different substrate, where two are similar and one is not. It can be located on mainly steep gneiss but sometimes granite rocks (metamorphic basement) and Mesozoic calcareous rock. "metamorphic basement" means a geological complex of undifferentiated igneous and metamorphic rocks where the rocks themselves have altered their composition, texture, or internal structure through extreme heat, pressure, and the introduction of a chemical. Granite and gneiss, in this condition of being undifferentiated, tend to have an acidi pH level; whereas calcareous rock tends to be more basic. This flexibility in substrate demonstrates a less specialized geological environment. These steep rocks are often located in low open dry, xeric deciduous western forests where they take advantage of micro-environments suitable for succulents. Micro-environments means a delimited convergence of very localize landscape and climate conditions that are in stark contrast to the larger vegetative climatic environmental zone. Pachypodium baronii prefers open sunlight but will tolerate some indirect light conditions because they inhabit open deciduous forests. They grow at an altitude between 300 m (feet) to 1200 m (feet). Other vegetative types, often site indicators of micro-environments, are associated with P. baronii in habitats, such as Pachypodium sofiense Apocynaceae, Uncarina sp., (Pedialaceae) Aloe bulbillifera (Asphodelaceae), Euphorbia milii (Euphorbaceae), Kalanchoe gastonis-bonieri (Crassulaceae), and Urera sp. (Urticaceae).

Cultivation
The substrate for Pachypodium baronii in cultivation is an acidic loose peat mixed with gneiss sand at a pH level of 4. Temperatures from spring to autumn, day and night are respectively 12 to 40 °C. In the winter, night and day temperatures should range from 12 to 20 °C or more. It will after four years of growth flower profusely in the spring. As well, it needs a larger pot size than other Pachypodium species. It water regime is to water a lot during growing season and very little during the resting time only to prohibit drying out of roots. Propagation is by seeds.

Literature
The botanist team qua team of Costantin and Bois is not listed in the publication section of the Online Database of Harvard University Herbaria. so other records will need to be examined. The Harvard University Herbaria does; however, list each botanist separately so that it is easy to discern their identities.

Note: Name of Botanist and some full names of journals is taken from the Online Database Harvard University Herbaria.

Again Harvard University Herbaria does not list "Constantin & Bois" as a team who worked together. Yet each member; however, is listed separately. The Species Type is : Madagascar, sin. loc., Baron 5874 (holotype P; isotype K). fig. 1, p. 11; Map 1, p. 12; Plates 2–4, opposite p. 16.
 * "Constantin" is the author name for Julien Noel Costantin. "Bois," likewise, is the name for Desire Georges Jean Marie Bois. As a team, they published in 1907 Pachypodium baronii as a species of Pachypodium within the journal abbreviated "Ann. Sc. Nat."
 * The author known as "Perrier de la Bâthie", known by his full name Joseph Marie Henry Alfred Perrier de la Bâthie, published an account of the taxon in "Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France" 81: 301 (1934) in 1934.
 * The botanist Marcel Pichon, author name "Pichon," gave an account of the species in the abbreviated journal name Mem. Inst. Sc. Madag, sér. B, 2: 123 (1949) (all three as baronii).
 * Most recently Friedrich Markgraf in 1976 gave definition to P. baronii in "Fl. Madag." fam. 169: 289(1976).

Along this history of Pachypodium baronii a variety of the species was published in 1924 by the name Pachypodium baronii var. erythreum. by the botanist Henri Louis Poisson, author name "Poiss.", within the abbreviated name for the journal "Bull. Acad. Malgache." sér. 2, 6: 166, pl. 10 (1924). Its Species Type: Madagascar, Antsiranana, Upper Sofia R., Antsakabary, Perrier de la Bâthie 15082 (holotype P). Rapanarivo et al. and apparently others have considered it a synonym for Pachypodium baronii.

External sources

 * Eggli, Urs. Glossary of botanical terms with special reference to Succulent Plants . with German Equivalents (British Cactus & Succulent Society: United Kingdom: 1993) and
 * TheFreeDictionary: terms
 * Rapanarivo, S.H.J.V., Lavranos, J.J., Leeuwenberg, A.J.M., and Röösli, W. Pachypodium (Apocynaceae): Taxonomy, habitats and cultivation "Taxonomic revision of the genus Pachypodium," S.H.J.V. Rapanarivo and J.J. Lavranos; "The habitats of Pachypodium species" S.H.J.V. Rapanarivo; "Cultivation" W. Röösli. (A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, Brookfield, 1999) [Rapanarivo et al.]
 * Cactus Blog

title: Pachypodium baronii


text:
Talk:66th United States Congress

Untitled
Browsing for projects, just stumbled across this page... more stubb than completed. Marked for TLC and as Stub Fabartus 01:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

March 4, 1921
Is correct: see Talk:Woodrow Wilson for a contemporary account. Congress did not adjourn until "just before noon" March 4. (This was the legislative day of March 3.) Septentrionalis 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 66th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060601025644/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060601013451/http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:66th United States Congress


text:
User talk:Lukeplc

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Create a User page.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Read the Policies and guidelines.
 * Add yourself to the New user log.
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Be bold!
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary.

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax τεχ 01:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lukeplc


text:
Robert Muczynski

Robert Muczynski (March 19, 1929 – May 25, 2010) was a Polish-American composer.

Muczynski studied piano with Walter Knupfer and composition with Alexander Tcherepnin at DePaul University in Chicago, where he received both his Bachelor of Music degree (1950) and his Master of Music degree (1952) in Piano Performance. Muczynski later taught at DePaul University, Loras College, and Roosevelt University, before settling in Tucson in the 1960s where he joined the faculty of the University of Arizona as a composer-in-residence and chairman of the composition department. He held both positions until his retirement in 1988.

Among the more than fifty published compositions in his catalog, Sonata for flute and piano, Op. 14 (1961), Sonata for alto saxophone and piano (1970), and Time Pieces for clarinet and piano (1984) have entered the repertoire and remain frequently performed in recitals, as has much of his solo piano music. Works by Muczynski have also appeared with increasing frequency on programs in the U.S., Europe, the Far East, Australia and Mexico. Orchestral works have been performed by the Chicago Symphony, the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, the National Symphony Orchestra, D.C., the Tucson Symphony Orchestra, the Minnesota Orchestra and others abroad.

Personal life
Muczynski was born in Chicago, Illinois, where he attended Steinmetz High School, and graduated in 1949. He then matriculated to DePaul University in the late 1940s, where he studied composition with Alexander Tcherepnin. At age 29 he made his Carnegie Hall debut, performing a program of his own compositions for piano. Muczynski wrote his final composition, Desperate Measures (Paganini Variations) (for piano), in 1996. He died from leukemia in Tucson, Arizona, on May 25, 2010.

Chamber music

 * Op. 4 Allegro Deciso for brass sextet and timpani (1952) SP
 * Fragments for flute, clarinet, and bassoon (1958) GS
 * Op. 11/1 Trumpet Trio (1959) GS
 * Fanfare for Brass and Percussion (1961)
 * Op. 16 Movements for wind quintet (1962) SP
 * Op. 26 Fantasy Trio for Clarinet, Violoncello and Piano (1969) TP
 * Op. 27 Voyage for trumpet, horn, and trombone (1969) GS
 * Op. 31 String Trio for violin, viola, and cello (1971–72) TP
 * Op. 34a Duos for two flutes (1973) GS
 * Op. 34b Duos for clarinet and flute (1973) GS
 * Op. 45 Quintet for Winds (1985) TP

Works for unaccompanied instruments

 * Dedication Recessional for organ (1957)
 * Op. 11/2 Three Designs for Three Timpani (1960) GS
 * Statements for percussion (1961) GS
 * Op. 18 Three Preludes for unaccompanied flute (1963) GS
 * Gallery, Suite for Unaccompanied Cello (1966) GS
 * Op. 32 Impromptus for Solo Tuba (1972) GS
 * Op. 42 Profiles for harpsichord (1982) HM

Publishers

 * 1 GS G. Schirmer, Inc.
 * TP Theodore Presser Co.
 * SP Shawnee Press, Inc.
 * HM Hinshaw Music, Inc.
 * AMP Associated Music Publishers

Concertos

 * Op. 2 Divertimento (1951)
 * Op. 7 Piano Concerto No. 1 (1954) SP
 * Op. 41 Concerto for Alto Saxophone and Chamber Orchestra (1981) TP

Solo piano

 * Op. 1 Sonatina (1949) AMP
 * Op. 3 Five Sketches (1952)
 * Op. 6 Six Preludes (1954) GS
 * Op. 8 Variations on a Theme of Tcherepnin (1955)
 * Op. 9 First Piano Sonata (1957) SP
 * Op. 13 Suite (1960) GS
 * Op. 15 Toccata (1961) GS
 * Op. 19 A Summer Journal (1964) GS
 * Op. 21 Fables: Nine Pieces for the Young (1965) GS
 * Op. 22 Second Piano Sonata (1966) TP
 * Op. 23 Diversions: Nine Pieces for Students (1967) GS
 * Op. 30 Seven (1971) GS
 * Op. 35 Third Piano Sonata (1973–74) TP
 * Op. 37 Maverick Pieces (1976) GS
 * Op. 40 Masks (1980) TP
 * Op. 44 Dream Cycle (1983) TP
 * Op. 48 Desperate Measures (Paganini Variations) (1996) TP

Orchestral music

 * Op. 5 Symphony No. 1 (1953)
 * Op. 10 Galena: A Town (Suite for orchestra) (1958)
 * Op. 12 Dovetail Overture for orchestra (1960) GS
 * Op. 17 Dance Movements for orchestra (1962) GS
 * Op. 20 Symphonic Dialogues (1965) GS
 * Op. 28 Charade for orchestra (1971) GS
 * Second Symphony (1974)
 * Op. 38 Serenade for Summer for orchestra (1976) TP
 * Op. 39 Symphonic Memoir for orchestra (1979) TP

Film scores

 * The Great Unfenced (1963)
 * Yankee Painter: The Work of Winslow Homer (1963)
 * American Realists (1964)
 * Cajititlan (1965)
 * Charles Burchfield: This Art (1966)
 * The Clowns Never Laugh (1967)
 * Terra Sancta (1967)
 * Bellota: Story of Roundup (1969)
 * Journey Thru Eden (1975)

Choral music

 * Alleluia for chorus (1961), withdrawn
 * I Never Saw A Moor for chorus (1967), withdrawn
 * Op. 33 Synonyms for Life for chorus and piano (1973), GS

Works list by date of composition
Opus title, date of composition, and publisher:
 * Op. 1 Sonatina for piano (1949) AMP
 * Op. 2 Divertimento for piano and orchestra (1951)
 * Op. 3 Five Sketches for piano (1952)
 * Op. 4 Allegro Deciso for brass sextet and timpani (1952) SP
 * American Songs for piano, 4 hands (1952) withdrawn
 * Op. 5 Symphony No. 1 (1953)
 * Op. 6 Six Preludes for piano (1954) GS
 * Op. 7 Piano Concerto No. 1 (1954) SP
 * Op. 8 Variations on a Theme of Tcherepnin for piano (1955)
 * Op. 9 First Piano Sonata (1957) SP
 * Dedication Recessional for organ (1957)
 * Op. 10 Galena: A Town (Suite for orchestra) (1958)
 * Fragments for flute, clarinet, and bassoon (1958) GS
 * Op. 11/1 Trumpet Trio (1959) GS
 * Op. 11/2 Three Designs for Three Timpani (1960) GS
 * Op. 12 Dovetail Overture for orchestra (1960) GS
 * Op. 13 Suite for piano (1960) GS
 * Op. 14 Sonata for Flute and Piano (1960) GS
 * Alleluia for chorus (1961) withdrawn
 * Statements for percussion (1961) GS
 * Fanfare for Brass and Percussion (1961)
 * Op. 15 Toccata for piano (1961) GS
 * Op. 16 Movements for wind quintet (1962) SP
 * Op. 17 Dance Movements for orchestra (1962) GS
 * Fuzzette, the Tarantula, for narrator, flute, alto saxophone, and piano (1962) TP
 * Op. 18 Three Preludes for unaccompanied flute (1963) GS
 * Score for the film The Great Unfenced (1963)
 * Score for the film Yankee Painter: The Work of Winslow Homer (1963)
 * Op. 19 A Summer Journal for piano (1964) GS
 * Score for the film American Realists (1964)
 * Op. 20 Symphonic Dialogues (1965) GS
 * Score for the film Cajititlan (1965)
 * Op. 21 Fables: Nine Pieces for the Young for piano (1966) GS
 * Gallery, Suite for Unaccompanied Cello (1966) GS
 * Score for the film Charles Burchfield: This Art (1966)
 * Op. 22 Second Piano Sonata (1967) TP
 * Op. 23 Diversions: Nine Pieces for Students for piano (1967) GS
 * Op. 24 First Piano Trio (1967) TP
 * I Never Saw A Moor for chorus (1967) withdrawn
 * Score for the film The Clowns Never Laugh (1967)
 * Score for the film Terra Sancta (1967)
 * Op. 25 Sonata for Cello and Piano (1968) GS
 * Op. 26 Fantasy Trio for clarinet, cello, and piano (1969) TP
 * Op. 27 Voyage for trumpet, horn, and trombone (1969) GS
 * Score for the film Bellota: Story of Roundup (1969)
 * Op. 28 Charade for orchestra (1971) GS
 * Op. 29 Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano (1971) GS
 * Op. 30 Seven for piano (1971) GS
 * Op. 31 String Trio for violin, viola, and cello (1971–72) TP
 * Op. 32 Impromptus for Solo Tuba (1972) GS
 * Op. 33 Synonyms for Life for chorus and piano (1973) GS
 * Op. 34a Duos for two flutes (1973) GS
 * Op. 34b Duos for clarinet and flute (1973) GS
 * Op. 35 Third Piano Sonata (1973–74) TP
 * Second Symphony (1974)
 * Op. 36 Second Piano Trio (1975) TP
 * Score for the film Journey Thru Eden (1975)
 * Op. 37 Maverick Pieces for piano (1976) GS
 * Op. 38 Serenade for Summer for orchestra (1976) TP
 * Op. 39 Symphonic Memoir for orchestra (1979) TP
 * Op. 40 Masks for piano (1980) TP
 * Op. 41 Concerto for Alto Saxophone and Chamber Orchestra (1981) TP
 * Op. 42 Profiles for harpsichord (1982) HM
 * Op. 43 Time Pieces for clarinet and piano (1983) TP
 * Op. 44 Dream Cycle for piano (1983) TP
 * Op. 45 Quintet for Winds (1985) TP
 * Op. 46 Third Piano Trio (1986–87) TP
 * Op. 47 Moments for flute and piano (1993) TP
 * Op. 48 Desperate Measures (Paganini Variations) for piano (1994) TP

title: Robert Muczynski


text: Template:Fooian fooers

title: Template:Fooian fooers


text:
Template talk:Fooian fooers

Simplified, hopefully clearer
I changed things so that this template is easier to use, and in line with Classification, which I'm hoping will become a standard way of doing this. With the changes I made there is one less parameter needed, so the new example would be:

Example for Category:American writers:

 * --Samuel Wantman 09:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This should be renamed...
This is a bad template name. "Foo" does not convey meaning. When should this template be used? -- Pinktulip 10:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The name is in "wikispeak". Fooian means the people from any country that is specified, Fooers is any profession that is specified.  These words get used quite a bit at WP:CFD discussions. -- Samuel Wantman 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The name is not special to "wikispeak". It is common generic and non-specific slang.  It does not convey the sense of "unspecified nationality", which is the intent.  It should be renamed to reflect that. -- 70.231.154.39 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think Foo as slang is pretty specific to certain some-what technical circles, notably computer programmers. I'm not sure how widely known/understood it is in the general populace. That said, I'd rather see Fooian Barers, or Barian Fooers. Fooian Fooers makes me think of things like "American Americers" and "British Britiers".  B. Mearns * , KSC 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Supercategories now available
You can now add a supercategory to the box, which will appear in the categories in place of the "(nationality) people by occupation" category.

For example Category:American murderers has the template:

  GCarty 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem
Currently this template is used for murder victims by nationality, which are shown as an occupation. It is not. I can but do not want to change the template, as I do not know what other categories use the template. Can anyone look into this? gidonb 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

just checking...
Cosmonauts are listed as Astronauts by nationality, and Military personnel is listed by nation. What about this template checking if categories actually exist? --Latebird 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * A similar problem is that politicians are classified as Category:Politicians by country, not "by nationality". Is anyone maintaining this template?  --Russ (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * You can try asking for specific help at Requested templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Supercategory tweak
I tweaked the supercategory behavior because e.g.

would not work correctly: the template would use the lcfirst on "Christian clergy" and construct the supercategory Category:Croatian christian clergy (lowercase "christian"), which doesn't work. The idea is to check first if the lowercase category exists, and if it doesn't, use the original (uppercase, presumably). GregorB (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Irish dancers
Currently this template puts into, which is a disambiguation category (the preferred category is , as opposed to ). Is there an easy way to tweak the parameters so that goes in the preferred category? —Paul A (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternate nomenclature
Does this template have an option to allow for national variations in nomenclature?

Two examples of what I mean:

 * Subcategories of are "watercolorists" or "watercolourists" according to national variation.
 * Subcategories of are "physicians" or "medical doctors".

It appears that if I try to use this template in a category that uses the alternate term, the link to its parent won't work. —Paul A (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

French Frenchers
"Fooian fooers" is tautological, it's like Finnish Finnishers. It should be Fooian barers. Paradoctor (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Supercategory2
I have just added the  parameter, for use when an occupation is an intersection of two other occupations. I have also updated the documentation

Example from Category:British film score composers:

Example from Category:Irish magazine editors:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sort keys in supercategories
This template seems to require additional optional parameters for the sort keys in supercategories. For example, the documentation has:
 * Profession: The occupation, e.g. "film score composers"
 * Supercategory: An occupation of which this is a sub-category, e.g. "film people"

In this example, the sort key within "film people" should be "composers".

To force this, it currently seems necessary to add the category and sort key manually, e.g.. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 * (from Requested templates, permalink) I do not see a problem with adding optional parameters currently. ~ Aseleste  (t, e | c, l) 01:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * do you mean that this template already takes optional parameters to provide sort keys in supercategories, which are not explained in the documentation? – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Aseleste hasn't edited anything on this site since July 19, 2021, and doesn't seem especially likely to respond to this query, I will ask it again generally in the hopes that someone sees it. I'm finding the same problem with this template's apparent lack of sorting options, specifically in regards to Category:French male journalists and Category:French male singer-songwriters which have both been sorted into Category:French male writers under M for male. Those sorting options would be very helpful for the functionality of this template, so if they already exist please add them to the documentation, or if not then please add them to the template (and then add them to the documentation, naturally). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Fooian fooers


text:
User talk:Cat12zu

Re: Craigy144
I apologized if I did respond to you too cold but I not that really open. Further more, I shy in real world.

Kong Hee
I removed the paragraph, not because the English was peculiar, but because it didn't really seem to be doing anything. In what sense is the claim a criticism? What significance does it have? I've moved it to the Talk page for discussion. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:ViewOfCityHarvestChurch.jpg
Hi, thanks for adding a fair-use image of the City Harvest Church Building from City Harvest Church's website. However, please note that by WP:FU, "any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: 1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. ... However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."

In this case, the building still exists and it is possible to create a free equivalent. Thus, I have gone down to Jurong to take a photograph of the building and replaced my photograph with the one you uploaded. —Goh wz 14:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Christian City Churches logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Christian City Churches logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Cat12zu! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Carlos Westendorp -

Speedy deletion nomination of City Harvest Community Services Association

A tag has been placed on City Harvest Community Services Association, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Christian City Churches logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Christian City Churches logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cat12zu


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/214.13.4.151

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), its subject may request for the page to be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (214.13.4.151 | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Description
214.13.4.151 has been a major annoyance to various users ever since making an appearance on Wikipedia. This user edits articles pertaining to contraception, and his/her general stance seems to be that none of them are any good (diff, diff). Instead of backing up these claims with reliable sources, webpages (e.g. from the American Cancer Society on cervical cancer) are quoted out of context and in a biased form (diff), and removes NPOV tags (diff).

Various warnings have been issued by various users (e.g. diff), but without any change of note in the user's editing behaviour. I had to warn this user twice before he/she relented on the format of the intro of cervical cancer. JFW | T@lk  01:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this IP is that he or she makes all his edits to insert a pov-point into the article, that is namely a pro-life-perspective and in addition to that he or she is trying to discredit all kinds of birth control, in particular condom and pill (he/she is not against natural family planning). Therefore he or she is on many medical articles where the IP distorts wording and statistics to match his or her promotional purpose. On a smaller scale he or she also tries to discredit womens rights and gay rights. Some edits involve vandalism-like behaviour, like inserting nonsense or deleting paragraphs, esp. on intact dilation and extraction This reversions had to be made by several editors after petaholmes, every day.

They are usually reverted or some kind of a compromise is found quickly. But in this case the IP insists again and again on his/her change by reverting again and again, often with no effort at discussion at all or just a pretended effort.

(the number of miscarriages is by far higher, even at the most conservative estimates) It is hard to believe that IP really inserted this in good faith. And in the discussion of abortion he or she just claimed that 'partial-birth-abortions' are performed legally in the US (they are forbidden). He or she knows that they are forbidden because he or she is also 'working' on the article on partial-birth-abortion. While I am trying to be patient on individual edits, clumsy edits, not-knowing-edits, it is more the whole picture that gives me the impression the editor is just disruptive.--Fenice 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC) due to the bullying by IP 214.13.4.151 and Proto I withdraw my support--Fenice 18:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Various interspersed comments by 213.13.4.151 removed by JFW | T@lk  16:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

*Even the 'response' of the IP is remarkable and in a way shows my point: from all people - there are three so far who have signed this request - he chooses to exclusively attack the only woman.--Fenice 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my support, see talk--Fenice 18:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I am a woman (as I hinted at in earlier posts). And I had no idea what you were until now.  Your comment is just nonsense, anyway.214.13.4.151 12:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I presumed you initiated this inquisition - if you did not, then my remarks may be misdirected toward you. 214.13.4.151 12:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Your gender is irrelevant, as is the term "inquisition". You have repeatedly editted in bad faith and bullied. --Arnoldlover 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Your presumptions are irrelevant. The change log shows everything you want to know.--Arnoldlover 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * All quoted above in context of the complaint

 * You have made sweeping generalizations - and where you have been specific you have been factually refuted. 214.13.4.151 11:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * blanking this page [] this morning--Fenice 11:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, folks, but this was a legitimate edit in progress. Its pretty petty to list that as a "blanking".  If you look at the history, the editing was in progress and it was never blanked as my final edit. 214.13.4.151 11:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I had to find this on my user page this morning:

"Fenice, at this point, the Pearl index data listed is from extremely "pro-contraceptive" sources. Is there a dispute with the data? What is it?  If you do not satisfactoriyl explain the dipsute you have with the actual data - besides it being surprising or disappointing to you - to gain concensus, then I will pursue other means to remove the POV tag you have placed.  RIght now its placement violates the rule and spirit of Wikipedia. 214.13.4.151 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Is there any other way anyone could stop this person from bullying me any further?--Fenice 05:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After I have told him explicitely again to leave me alone, (exact wording:I have expressed more than clearly that I want to stay out of this, so stop bullying me. Aren't you ever embarrassed?) in case reading it once was not enough, he goes on:--Fenice 06:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''Fenice, you have not expressed anything clearly about what is in dispute about the Pearl index information now posted. It is all properly sourced and, since YOU introduced the Pearl language (or at least pressed hard for it being included) it is so very odd that you now want objective Pearl data obfuscated by placing a POV warning. You are embarassed by the Pearl data, and now want it hidden. Birht Control pills fail quite regularly. You don't want women to know that. How sad. Talk about embarassment.214.13.4.151 06:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)''

 * Fenice, you are at it again. You don't quit. I tried to dialogue - which is what I thought you hoped I would do before editing.  But you flat out refuse to engage  in any discourse.  I am just amazed at such behavior.  I thought Wikipeidans were oopen-minded and thoughtful.  Your behavior doesnot comport.  I may be new, and leanring how things work here, but I am trying to adapt.  You, however, seem to have no use for discourse with those who have a view divergent from your own. 214.13.4.151 07:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well I guess I will make an exception and respond to this one in lieu of responding to the heap of accusations here: you are at it again is of course a lie. Everybody can check my contributions to see that I did stay away from the articles discussed here.--Fenice 08:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Fenice, at this point (since you did not offer any argument against removing the POV tag for the Pearl index info on the birth control pill page) I plan to remove the POV tag. 214.13.4.151 10:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * and then concluding the thread above: defamation in an edit summary a few hours ago: Fenice argued to include Pearl data & now objects to it - the statement given right here above proves that he is doing this in bad faith, because he must have read my above statement of withdrawal which is also all over the place and a little hard for IP to argue to have missed that. --Fenice 14:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, her more recent edits have been improving. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 23:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * She's been making unacceptable changes to Morning-after pill too, some examples:
 * replacing instances of "woman" with "gravida" (which means a woman who is already pregnant):
 * deleting the whole abortion controversy section:
 * replacing instances of "contraceptive" with "abortifacient", describing the pill as "almost exclusively" an abortifacient, and giving its primary effect as interfering with embryo implantation, which is contradicted by among others the FDA:

list of other tirades in chronological order

 * and a few hours ago this one: At present I see that I have so riled Fenice that she is unable at this time to engage constuctively. I will try to be as gentle and polite as possible, but find it hard to tolerate her penchant for presuming facts or rational views that break her paradigm are automatically dubious. Gentle and polite...I wonder what happens if he really starts bullying someone in his view.--Fenice 14:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:POINT
 * Wikiquette: not respecting other users right to stay away from the conflict as recommended on Wikiquette, and defamation in an edit summary

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Talk:Abortion will say enough. Many hot issues are the result of 214.13.4.151's partisan editing. JFW

 * JFW, its humorous that my repeated citations (in talk areas or in posting captions) of factual science and medicine are ignored and considered as a failure to dialogue - when what is really happening here is a certain POV wants to hide these facts. The science I have posted has not been refuted at all.  It has been ignored as if it will go away if it is not addressed.  Not one person has provided an answer to my claim that medically, a human embryo or fetus must die for an induced abortion to occur.  This is medical fact and is so basic that webster's medical dictionary includes that fact in the base definition.  But I am accused of inserting POV by icnluding that info in a defintion for abortion.  With no attempt at dialogue on point by Fenice, etc. The one person opposed who did dialogue on it eventually agreed that "death" is accurate and ought not be excluded.  All others ignored the science. 214.13.4.151 15:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

On Talk:Abortion an actual 'discussion' that has lasted for some time and where IP really is 'participating' is on whether or not the term living human (fetus) or death of the (fetus) can be in the first line of the main text. IP adds this every few hours, and it is reverted, because almost all other editors, as the 'discussion' shows, don't think it is NPOV. It has been reverted by aproximately 30 or so editors in the past few weeks and I'm sure IP has broken the thirteen-revert-rule on that one. The discussion leads nowhere, it is tiring to revert all the time, and the pro-life point is mentioned in extenso elsewhere in the text.--Fenice 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC) withdrawal of support due to bullying, see talk--Fenice 16:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry Fenice, but you are misleading/decieving. The fact that many editors share your bias toward a POV in the entry is not what is important.  (In fact, just today one of the other editors was convinced to change his mind and agreed  that "death" was appropriate to use because the term is used in the medical dictionary.) What is important is that you have not refuted the science nor the fact that what most people would consider to be an objective source (Webster's Medical Dictionary) considers death of the fetus to be part of the basic definition for abortion (spontaneous or induced) - instead you have said "its POV" just becuase you say so.  I did not think thats how it worked here.  Likewise, with the Pearl index.  You wanted to get rid of the Pearl evidence that exposed the very high rate of pregnancy for typical use of the pill becuase you did not like it, not because it was not good science.  In fact it was the science of the pro-abortion and pro-contraception AGI that provideds that sicentific data. Come on, folks - lets be adults. Engage when your paradigms are challenged with objective information - even if the info is being dleivered to you by a source you find unfriendly.  Its about knowledge - not hiding from knowledge becuase we might learn something from it.  I backed off the horse urine thing when you challenged me on it - and I learned something.  Why are you afraid to acknowledge that you might have some basic facts wrong - or hidden?214.13.4.151 11:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * JFW | T@lk  18:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Fenice 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC) due to IP 214.13.4.151 and user Proto's bullying I withdraw my support
 * Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * --nixie 22:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * --Eyeon 13:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mr. 214 simply does not understand NPOV, and in his frustration, is turning troll.
 * RoyBoy 800 15:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) – While I initially warned Eyeon this wouldn't be a good idea; the anon's inclusion of knitting needles for traumatic abortion does suggest sanction may be necessary.
 * --Tznkai 05:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) 214 has not showed any improvement and has acted against growing consensus, notably without adding edit summaries. compare these . I suggest these be moved onto mediation.
 * Calicocat What's troubling and perhaps unlawful is that this Anon user is from the military. See discussion section at another article Karl Rove, here
 * -- RyanFreisling @ 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC). User's behavior at Karl Rove echoes the reports here. This user's behavior - including mass deletions, revert violations, anticollaborative behavior and a lack of desire to reach consensus on ideologically-charged articles - is a concern. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * -asx- 00:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC) It would seem 214's goal has been to shut town topics and collaboration on pages she has an interest in. 214's edits resulted in the Karl Rove page being locked – at a time when frequent updates are needed to keep the page current and accurate.
 * --Quasipalm 15:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

 * --Kyd 17:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

216.186.53.4 19:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Defenestrate 22:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

 * Fenice is upset because his/her POV is being countered with scientific information from solid sources, despite her repeated attempts to bully that information off of Wikipedia's pages.214.13.4.151 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Fenice, please quote all entries that are allegedly POV - you have made sweeping generalizations, and I have posted hundreds of lines in the discussion section, many of which are simply scientific or medical resources, clarifying that what is posted is not POV, but science and medicine - or law.214.13.4.151 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151 has been a major annoyance to various users ever since making an appearance on Wikipedia. This user edits articles pertaining to contraception, and his/her general stance seems to be that none of them are any good (diff, diff). Instead of backing up these claims with reliable sources, webpages (e.g. from the American Cancer Society on cervical cancer) are quoted out of context and in a biased form (diff), and removes NPOV tags (diff).

 * The American Cancer Society's only agenda is to prevent all forms of cancer. They do not recieve billions of dollars in revenue by promoting condom use like most other organizations that comment on Cervical Cancer.  The American Cancer Society has concluded as I have posted, and it is clearly an unbiased and respected source - unlike any others fenice might want to quote (or misquote). 214.13.4.151 10:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought it was Fenice who started this, but I see now it is JFW. Well JFW, you point to links about contraceptives, and waht's funny is that you did not dispute the facts I posted, you just don't like them.  That no contraception is proven to prevent HPV transmission is apparently something that is not noteworthy.  And apparently the proven risks of many serious health conditions caused by ingesting hormones from age 14 through age 35 (as is typical with women on the pill) are to be hushed up?  What are your thoughts of hormone treated beef or milk - or frankenfood?  Its odd that giving women synthetic hormones to prevent a natural healthy condition (fertility) would be done while hiding or falsely minimizing any any associated risks.   That prevents women from making an informed choice.214.13.4.151 12:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Various warnings have been issued by various users (e.g. diff), but without any change of note in the user's editing behaviour. I had to warn this user twice before he/she relented on the format of the intro of cervical cancer. JFW | T@lk  01:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Fenice has likewise been warned about her editing behavior by other posters. Apparently she should request comments from herself? 214.13.4.151 10:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I support this claim. The problem with this IP is that he or she makes all his edits to insert a pov-point into the article, that is namely a pro-life-perspective and in addition to that he or she is trying to discredit all kinds of birth control, in particular condom and pill (he/she is not against natural family planning). Therefore he or she is on many medical articles where the IP distorts wording and statistics to match his or her promotional purpose. On a smaller scale he or she also tries to discredit womens rights and gay rights. Some edits involve vandalism-like behaviour, like inserting nonsense or deleting paragraphs, esp. on intact dilation and extraction This reversions had to be made by several editors after petaholmes, every day. I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Changing the word "doctor" and substituting "abortion provider" (your listed example) is not POV. Sorry - that is not extremist. Abortions are often performed by people who are not doctors.  In fact, the abortion industry in the USA is lobbying to make that the standard practice.  214.13.4.151 10:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * As to intact dilation and extraction, I delted the description of a totally different procedure that was not the subject of that entry. It is misleading, if not dishonest, to include it - and certainly has no place in the IDX entry.214.13.4.151

 * Fenice has also made a sweeping generalization that ALL of my posts are somehow POV, yet I point to neutral sicence for most of what I post. I have also removed POV others have posted (such as the word baby when it appears). I consistently insert the word embryo whenever fetus is incorrectly used alone (ensuring the truth that many abortions are embryonic is not hidden), and in the medical sections I take great pains to use the term fetus and embryo despite the fact that such terms are just as POV as "baby" is (although the clinical term for the pregnant woman, gravida, is never used, while the clinical term for the baby is ALWAYS used as if it were a scarosanct word choice).214.13.4.151 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Pro-life-POV-insertions on wikipedia do happen, of course. They are usually reverted or some kind of a compromise is found quickly. But in this case the IP insists again and again on his/her change by reverting again and again, often with no effort at discussion at all or just a pretended effort. I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Fenice - you are guilty of this same behavior - reverting again and again! Shameful of you to point the finger at others. And you don't attempt at real dialogue, either. 214.13.4.151 11:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Fenice is a classic pot calling the kettle black: Fenice has tried to define feminism in his/her restricted POV way and has tried to bully others from including a diversity of views - making repeated reverts to exclude a diversity of views.214.13.4.151 12:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

(To show why I got the impression he or she makes no serious effort at discussion see : after having deleted "constitutional" to qualify "womens rights" he or she argued that not all states have a constitution (all states do have a constitution and if I am writing about constitutional rights it's completely irrelevant if all states have a constitution). While this as an individual occurrence may seem like the writer just didn't know, things like that happen again and again with this IP. His arguments almost never answer the point. I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * As an expert in law and international law (by the way I have not revealed my gender, so I am not sure why Fenice presumes what it is), I will forgive Fenice for the incomprhensible comment Fenice posted. Apparently Fenice does not understand that feminism is not exclusive to the US, and that not all states (how nations are formally spoken of in international and humanitarian law contexts) have a constitution. 214.13.4.151 10:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I frankly doubt that you are a law expert. What are your credentials? Eyeon 14:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His most recent edits on abortion at the time I am writing this can also illustrate the point: in the main text he claims that most abortions are elective. (the number of miscarriages is by far higher, even at the most conservative estimates) It is hard to believe that IP really inserted this in good faith. And in the discussion of abortion he or she just claimed that 'partial-birth-abortions' are performed legally in the US (they are forbidden). He or she knows that they are forbidden because he or she is also 'working' on the article on partial-birth-abortion. While I am trying to be patient on individual edits, clumsy edits, not-knowing-edits, it is more the whole picture that gives me the impression the editor is just disruptive.--Fenice 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC) I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Fenice, facts, please. The article deals primarily (according to what OTHERS have posted) with induced abortion.  Fenice's insertion of POV is fine, but is not fact.  The common understanding of abortion does not include natural miscarriage. Fenice's point strains credulity.214.13.4.151 11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Fenice is factually challenged on this: Evidence of Fenice's lack of facts: I am criticized by Fenice for incorrectly posting that Partial Birth Abortion is legal in the USA, but according to the Washington Post, the ban "was signed last year by President Bush but was not enforced because the three judges agreed to hear constitutional challenges in simultaneous non-jury trials." PBA is NOT forbidden in the USA - in fact even today PBA still kills extremely developed viable fetuses in the USA.214.13.4.151 11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

*Even the 'response' of the IP is remarkable and in a way shows my point: from all people - there are three so far who have signed this request - he chooses to exclusively attack the only woman.--Fenice 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC) I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I am a woman (as I hinted at in earlier posts). And I had no idea what you were until now.  Your comment is just nonsense, anyway.214.13.4.151 12:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I presumed you initiated this inquisition - if you did not, then my remarks may be misdirected toward you. 214.13.4.151 12:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Finally, Fenice posts POV all over the place, and is the last one to make an allegation about finding it in others (although he/she may be an expert when it comes to POV insertion).

214.13.4.151 15:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have removed your interspersed comments in the section above. If you feel these should be considered, please add them in the appropriate place.
 * Wikipedia disputes are frequently about interpretations of facts, but conflict only develops when there is a breakdown in civility. I have worked with you constructively on oral contraceptive, but on cervical cancer your repeated POV edits without proper backup ("condoms do not prevent cervical cancer" is untrue - they prevent many cases but not all) prompted me to issue this RFC. As Fenice indicates, you have annoyed people on other pages as well.
 * When you are made the subject of a Request for Comments, there is usually something amiss in the way you are interacting with the community. This is a statistical fact, and I don't think you are an exception. Simply calling the kettle black is a rather poor defence and will just exacerbate matters. JFW | T@lk  16:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have nothing further to respond to the zigzag commentary you have offered. My RFC concerns the fact that you used biased language, even if the science may be correct (but, as always, open to all sorts of interpretation). Others have noticed very similar behaviour elsewhere, which only strengthens my case.
 * You seem unrepentant. Instead of accusing five different established Wikipedia editors of being biased against you, some introspection may be called for. If you continue the same pattern, this RFC will be the basis of mediation, the next step in the dispute resolution process. JFW | T@lk  11:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JFW: Its clear how you and Fenice choose to operate. Facts, science, and rational argument from those with whom you are not familiar are unwelcome - because they challenge your paradigm. Clearly not the advertised spirit of Wikipedia. Regardless of your pride in being an estabished wikipedian, your biases are very clear and your lack of openness if evident. You can all clap for yourself if you want, but you are not living up to the claims of Wikipedia. You have opened up an inquisition and then refused to respond to my defenses. You make no pretense of even trying to offer a response. And Fenice is now being vindictive and resorting to name-calling (just look at the abortion entry and discussion) because she has insists on adding language that indicates constitutional law is very important in the "law of philosophy" but is not even mentioned in theWikipedia entry for "law of philosophy". And when challenged on that she replies with no explanation other than "go look it up, my facts stand on their own 'cuz they'r so obvious, and your facts must be proven with citations." You both know how to play the game to win. But I did not think it was about winning - you two have taught me otherwise.

 * Your responses were mainly aimed at Fenice, and perhaps the formatting was another thing that put me off responding. It seems matters are settled now, but I do urge you to avoid controversy. If you are skeptical about Wikipedia's openness, then challenge the "paradigm" with clear facts. As you may have noticed, I relented on oral contraceptive when you cited serious studies on Pearl indexes, even though they sounded outrageous.
 * I have encouraged you to get a login name. Editing from your IP is fine, but in my experience the community tends to treat anonymous users as less committed. JFW | T@lk  04:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that 214 has been asked several times to get a log on name, including myself. (down in the herbal abortion discussion).--Tznkai 16:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Comment Whilst not directly involved in this situation, I found out today that I have been mentioned by User:Fenice on here as someone who joined with 214.13.4.151 in 'bullying him', and 'attacking him' - it's all rather surreal, and centres around his furious rage at someone actually agreeing with one of the IP's edits, and deleting one whole sentence from a 33k article. Five days later, he's still repeatedyl pestering me on my talk page. Now, whilst I haven't agreed with many (in fact, only one or two) of the edits the IP made on the Abortion page (not qualified to talk on any other pages the IP is associated with), I have found that some users' counter-attitudes towards the IP have not been particularly constructive, have verged on combative at times, and I would suggest that not all the blame for this necessitating RfC lies with User:214.13.4.151. A calming down period on both sides wouldn't hurt. Proto 09:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: this user:Proto has left another note on my talk page today, despite my asking him not to do so. He is also involved and should not be posting under 'outside' view, since he was involved in my last attempt on the talk-page of abortion with the IP discussed here. He tried to heat up a conflict by deleting something without giving a reason (he was not doing this in good faith: see his talk page). He did not succeed in his attempt to stir up the conflict because I left.--Fenice 22:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice - you seem to have a real tough time with intelligent people who disagree with you and challenge your paradigms. Please try to address this personal deficiency - it will help you in life, and make you more believable generally. Bullying people into keeping quiet and insisting that you have superior intellect is not really embracing diversity, now is it? Please cese and desist with that behavior and try to engage in a real discussion of ideas, acknowledging that others' ideas may have validity, despite them being counter to your own ideas. Enough already - do you even try to be open-minded? 214.13.4.151 08:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I first learned of User 214.13.4.151 when looking at the Wikiquote web page on Abortion. 214's main contribution to that page has been to suggest that the categories of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" be abolished, and have all the quotes mixed together. While I though this was bad for organization (new readers would have trouble finding a pro-life or pro-abortion quote), some other contributions were OK: For example, the suggestion to classify according to author occupation (entertainer, politician, or something like that). Also, 214 suggested that if there were categories, then the anti-abortion (pro-life, under a new title) be first, or preferably that the categories be rotated. It appears the 214 found some useful quotes; also, 214 asked for consensus about changing the organization of the page, and got no answers for four (4) days. Although she was accused of being impatient (and this is true), she nonetheless waited four days and tried to get feedback on a page that had few regular editors. An edit war erupted, due in part to lack of other editors' desire to quickly address her concerns in talk, and partly due to her impatience. Just like in Wikiquote, I think a similar situation developed in Wikipedia: I think 214 is impatient and needs to participate in talk more, but I do not support any ban. While the Wikiquote editors were generally polite, I think some of these editors were a little bit harsh or at least impatient themselves. I think that 214 should create an account, unless her job prohibits her. I read Proto's summary, and it looks just about right.--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

The behavior alleged of 214. is entirely consistent with the vandalistic and anticollaborative behavior I have witnessed at Karl Rove. This behavior includes multiple 3RR violations, mass deletions of content without response on 'talk', over-politicizing content to an extreme degree, and a lack of ability/willingness to collaborate on the articles with others of differing views.

To learn this RfQ exists and this user has behaved similarly on prior ideologically-charged articles is a concern. I am hopeful it can be resolved, but I am quite concerned by this pattern. RyanFreisling @ 14:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I have put this page on my watch list and tried to follow a little bit. While I am sure there is some merit to any criticisms, the end result (at the time of this writing) of 214's involvement at the http://En.WikiQuote.org/wiki/Abortion compilation of Abortion Quotations was positive. Although the page did get locked, those who locked and oversaw it came to accept 214's edits, and allowed her (214) to edit a whole lot more. The end result was positive, and I think that her contributions are being overlooked due to "personality conflicts." That is not to say that 214 was not a little bit too impatient. That may be, but the "big picture" and actual "merit" of her edits should be considered in the whole scheme of things. Wikipedia is cool, but it is not all there is to life, so do not worry over this as if it were life-or-death. I understand the need for both "teamwork" and "quality," but if I can get along with 214, then other users can.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Your characterization of what happened on that article is inconsistent with my experience 'battling' 214. 214's edits were not 'positive', in fact they were counter-factual in most instances, and resulted in erroneous conclusions, POV declarations and poorer readability. I articulated 9 or so of them on the 'Talk' page. His/her POV insertion changes have been largely repaired, with days of warning prior, conducted without incident. I would describe the situation as entirely the opposite of your conclusions, in that 214's contribution was negative. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Upon further consideration of Ryan's comments, I would withdraw a small portion of my positive feedback, and add that 214's was not only somewhat impatient, but also that she described editors as a little bit more rude than they in fact were. However, I still stand by my initial conclusion that most of her contributions were positive:

 * On the "personality" side, I recall that 214 asked for feedback on the organization, and got an answer in the talk page at this diff at 10:12, 16 June 2005. Then 214 waited four (4) more days for feedback before implementing any changes, as shown by this diff at 08:13, 20 June 2005 on the quotations page. Thus, 214 was not totally impatient or unwilling to be a team player, but she still overreacted to other editors' impatience, which indicates that she (214) was undoubtedly encountering stresses in her life, which we hope are resolved and addressed well.

 * Further, most, in fact, the vast majority of her edits were good. She did make one edit with a "[bracketted]" comment, calling D&E "Dismemberment and Extraction," instead of the more commonly used term "Dilation and Extraction." The term "dismemberment," while not incorrect, is not commonly used, and introduces POV bias. Thus, more positive edits were made, but, 214, like all mere mortals, makes mistakes.

 * So, in conclusion, I withdraw a little bit of my support as I elucidate above, but clarify.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.


text:
Talk:Varanasi

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024
It should be Hinduism and not Hindu Mythology. There are three instances in this article where "Hindu Mythology" has been used. These are real places and gods that lived in this world in the past and thus it's not right to call this a Myth. VM0717 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Google what mythology means before you comment this sort of gibberish. Chronikhiles (talk)  06:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "For scholars, this is very different from the vernacular usage of the term "myth" that refers to a belief that is not true. Instead, the veracity of a myth is not a defining criterion" the literal second sentence of the wikipedia page about myths/mythology. [do not change] 2406:3003:2006:2640:D3:7270:32D4:D923 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing people form the infobox
The infobox contains people rather than important places. I suggest removing people form the infobox and replacing it with important landmarks. SKAG123 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the "infobox contained [pictures of] people rather than [pictures of] important places". This was discussed previously, see Talk:Varanasi/Archive 2. Consensus appeared to be to use the pictures we have now. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention of the Benares state
The Benares State is mentioned in multiple sources in the body article. in this section where multiple sources are cited. Therefore I think it is appreciate to mention the kingdom in the lead, as i did in this edit.

The Section:

"There were as many as 100,000 men backing the power of the Benares rajas in what later became the districts of Benares, Gorakhpur and Azamgarh. This proved a decisive advantage when the dynasty faced a rival and the nominal suzerain, the Nawab of Oudh, in the 1750s and the 1760s.

Raja Chait Singh of Benares State (r.1771–1781) An exhausting guerrilla war, waged by the Benares ruler against the Oudh camp, using his troops, forced the Nawab to withdraw his main force. The region eventually ceded by the Nawab of Oudh to the Benares State, a subordinate of the East India Company, in 1775, who recognised Benares as a family dominion.

https://archive.org/details/rulerstownsmenba0000bayl http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/b/benares.html SKAG123 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The particular part you added in green in the following sentence − "Under the Treaty of Faizabad, the East India Company acquired the city through the Banaras kingdom in 1775" - isn't mentioned in the two accompanying sources. They only mention Benaras, nothing about the state/kingdom. The concern is about the particular sentence. Besides, what is it supposed to mean? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The last sentences of that section state that has multiple citations states that The EIC acquired the Benares kingdom form the Nawab.

 * The source do mention the Banaras Kingdom

 * Empire and Revolution: The Political Life of Edmund Burke

 * page 664
 * Chait Singh beginning in 1775 forms an important part of Burke's basic case against Hastings.245 According to Burke, this period covered an epoch in which the obligations of Benares as an independent tributary were respected in much the

 * Page 844
 * Chait Singh in Benares and agreed to relieve the Wazir of some of his burdens incurred by British pensioners, as well as some of the troops stationed in his territory. At the same time, a decision was made to continue the use of

 * Therefore I added “through the Banaras kingdom” since the kingdom was acquired as a subordinate based on the paragraph and sources linked above. SKAG123 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I'll see tomorrow. could you take a look? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A few other sources I could find also stated the same thing, although it should be noted that Raja Chait Singh of Banaras' uprisings were sparked by the Second Treaty of Banaras (1775).
 * https://doi.org/10.1177/23484489231198628 https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaties-of-Banaras Aditya Prakash-080 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Varanasi


text:
Talk:Rustie Lee

Untitled
I removed the following paragraphs from the article as I have been unable to verify the truth or otherwise of the information contained therein:

 * Before TVAM Rustie fronted a band called The Rustie Lee Revue who achieved little commercial success but toured the country and some European nations. Their records are scarce and almost impossible to find now. Her love of food inspired a lot of the band's colourfully titled songs, such as "Trifle Dance (Can't Work You Out)". Rustie keeps in contact with the group and they sometimes still perform together.

 * From the 2005 UKIP party political broadcast: "The EU? They're havin' a laugh! Ah hahahahaha! But let's make sure it's not at our expense."

 * Following her return to the spotlight, rumours are abound of a re-release of her first album "Songs To Chop Pineapples To", with an impending release of the JXL remix of "A Little Less Sage & Onion" due late Summer.

Loganberry 01:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The sentence at the end of this article, ("BBC presenter David Dimbleby appeared not to know exactly who she was.") seems very subjective. Can we be sure of the content's of Dimbleby's mind? And if we can, is Dimbleby's knowledge or lack thereof relevant to this article? Anyway, for these reasons I've deleted that sentence. Feel free to reinstate it if you can think of a good justification, though.

Isn't the section about her recent trip to the Carribean just an advert for her new book/TV series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think i'm right in saying that she was sacked from the morning tv cookery spot due to product placement.. to do with lard i think.

I am being serious here btw.. i came to the entry to see if i could confirm the recollection.--Nasher (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I also came to this article after hearing about teh story of product placement on the tv qquiz show Have I Got News For You Dave

Rustie Lee and TV-am
From what I remember years ago, didn't her time at that program ended with her being sacked because of some endorsement of table salt that breached broadcasting rules. That was headline news in The Sun. This is the only source I can get hold of. Donnie Park (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth year
She She appears to have been born in 1949, 1950 AND 1953!Bashereyre (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rustie Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207165703/http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/02/03/rustie-s-eastenders-role-98487-20307354/ to http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/02/03/rustie-s-eastenders-role-98487-20307354/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Real Name and Age.
Let's start with the facts and then I'll give my opinion.

Facts - Her current husband is called Andreas Hohmann and she has a son called James. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/1999/oct/28/artsfeatures https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/rustie-lee-cooks-up-a-plan-154006

James R Lees, Andreas Hohmann and Jean C Lees live(d) in the same house https://www.192.com/atoz/people/lee/rustie/dy10/1096850754/.

Andreas Hohmann and Jeane Carole Lees have been Directors at a number of the same companies https://companycheck.co.uk/director/910681177/MR-ANDREAS-HOHMANN/companies https://companycheck.co.uk/director/913200351/MRS-JEANE-CAROLE-LEES/companies.

My opinion - Rustie Lee's real name is Jeane Carole Lees and her son has taken her real surname, so is the James Lees mentioned above.

If I'm right about her being Jeane Carole Lees, then she was born in May 1949 https://companycheck.co.uk/director/913200351/MRS-JEANE-CAROLE-LEES/summary

Note - Her year of birth was given as 1949 on here a few years back before being changed without a reason being given.

I'm sure somebody will say my theory shouldn't be reflected on her main page as the sources aren't strong enough but, let's be honest, it's pretty far-fetched to believe that Rustie is her birth name and that it's just a massive coincidence that a completely different woman living with her husband and in business with her husband has the same surname as her barring one extra "s", as does the other occupant of the house, who happens to have the same first name as her son but isn't him!

Ron Stowmarket (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. We don't add personal information such as that based on editors' opinions. I've undone part of Wighead2020's removal of information, but not including the improperly sourced claims of her birth name, birth date, and home. Meters (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I know I said it was my opinion but I clearly presented enough factual evidence to show I was right about her real name and age.

 * The fact that Rustie has said on Twitter that her birthday is in May and that her complaint on here was that her real name and age was being made public, not that it was incorrect information says it all!
 * Having said that, I won't make that same edit on this page again, as it has clearly caused Rustie much distress! Ron Stowmarket (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere has user:Wighead2020 stated that "her real name and age was being made public". She stated that there were "incorrect entries", and "private" information. Again, read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 06:17, January 2, 2020 (UTC)

If you look at her edits carefully, you'll see she was only editing out info about her politics when she said she was removing "incorrect entry's(sic)". I presume she no longer supports UKIP and doesn't want people to know she used to back such a controversial political party.

When she wrote "On another page I have a different Birthday I have people wishing me Happy Birthday at different times", she was referring to the time when Wiki said she was born in November and people were wishing her a happy birthday at the wrong time. See https://twitter.com/Rustie_Lee/status/1067737503820644353

She said she was removing her real name and age because it was private; not because it was incorrect.

She couldn't possibly say she was removing that info because it was wrong because she and anyone who has clicked on the links I've provided above knows full well that it's correct!

I respect Wiki's rules and, as I've already said, I won't be editing in her real name and age again but there is clearly no doubt that Rustie's real name is Jeane Carole Lees and she was born in May 1949!

Note - This will be my last comment on the matter, so please don't write anything that may need a reply from me because I won't see it! Ron Stowmarket (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Celebrity Weakest Link Dec 28th 2022
Appeared in Celebrity Weakest Link Dec 28th 2022 BBC1. Percy2345 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rustie Lee


text:
The Red Badge of Courage (1951 film)

The Red Badge of Courage is a 1951 American war film made by MGM. Directed by John Huston, it was produced by Gottfried Reinhardt with Dore Schary as executive producer. The screenplay is by John Huston, adapted by Albert Band from Stephen Crane's 1895 novel of the same name. The cinematography is by Harold Rosson, and the music score by Bronislau Kaper. The making of this film is the subject of Lillian Ross's 1952 book Picture, originally in The New Yorker. The American Civil War film is a sparse but faithful retelling of the story, incorporating narration from the text to move the plot forward. Audie Murphy, a hero of World War II who later went into acting, played the lead role of Henry Fleming. Other actors include cartoonist Bill Mauldin, Andy Devine, Arthur Hunnicutt and Royal Dano.

Plot
In 1862, a regiment of the Union Army, the 304th New York Infantry, is encamped near the Rappahannock River in Virginia. Orders direct the 304th to move upriver and engage a large Confederate force. Private Henry Fleming tells his comrades he is not afraid of dying. While on sentry duty, Henry exchanges words with an unseen Confederate soldier stationed across the river who tells Henry to watch out for the "red badge," meaning a battle wound. The regiment confidently sets out, but Henry becomes increasingly pensive as the hour of battle approaches. His friend, Tom Wilson, tells Henry to give his watch to his parents if he is killed. During the battle, Henry is overcome with fear and deserts. He learns his outfit won the battle, but fears derision if he returns.

Henry sees his wounded comrades, and wishes he, too, had a "red badge of courage." Henry slips back into the regiment as they march. One of his comrades, Jim Conklin, is delusional from his injuries and dies from blood loss. Henry becomes separated from his unit when they run into a Union column attempting a hasty, disorganized retreat. A soldier becomes panic-stricken when Henry tries to calm him down and strikes him in the head with the stock of his rifle. Regaining consciousness, Henry meets a fellow soldier who escorts him back to the 304th. Henry falsely tells Tom his head injury was received in battle, and that their friend Jim is dead. Tom tells Henry his absence was not noticed due to the heavy casualties suffered. Confident in his lie, Henry is able to talk with the rest of his unit as if he too fought in the battle.

The 304th are sent back into battle to support a Union offensive. This time, Henry wildly charges toward the enemy with passion until he is ordered back into ranks. Henry and Tom fetch water at a creek and overhear an unnamed General plotting to sacrifice the 304th in a suicide attack. They report the news back to their regiment, but the soldiers chose to honor their duty and fight regardless. As men die around him, Henry sees the color sergeant get shot down, takes up the flag, and tries to rally his comrades. Henry meets the flag bearer for the Confederate troops, who falls dead. Henry briefly holds both flags as the 304th secures the defeated rebels. A soldier tells Henry and the regiment that he overheard their commanding officers lauding Henry's bravery. Henry admits to Tom that he deserted the day before, and that his shame made him return. Tom admits he deserted, too, but was caught and forced back into the battle. The 304th marches on as Henry contemplates the hope of a peaceful future.

Cast

 * Audie Murphy as Henry Fleming (aka The Youth)
 * Bill Mauldin as Tom Wilson (aka The Loud Soldier)
 * Douglas Dick as The Lieutenant
 * Royal Dano as The Tattered Man
 * John Dierkes as Jim Conklin (aka The Tall Soldier)
 * Arthur Hunnicutt as Bill Porter
 * Tim Durant as The General
 * Andy Devine as The Cheery Soldier
 * Robert Easton as Thompson
 * Whit Bissell as Wounded Officer (uncredited)
 * John Huston as Grizzled Union Veteran (uncredited)
 * William Phipps as Union Soldier (uncredited)
 * William Schallert as Union Soldier (uncredited)
 * James Whitmore as Narrator (voice, uncredited)

Production
Director John Huston used unusual compositions and camera angles drawn from film noir to create an alienating battlefield environment. He became frustrated when the studio cut the film's length to 70 minutes and added narration taken from the original novel following supposedly poor audience test screenings. Much of the history of the making of this film, considered by some a mutilated masterpiece, is found in Lillian Ross' critically acclaimed book Picture. Of the stars who appear in the film, three served in World War II: Bill Mauldin the editorial cartoonist who created "Up Front", Audie Murphy served with the U.S. Army in Europe, and narrator James Whitmore served with the U.S. Marine Corps.

John Huston had high hopes for this movie, and even considered the original two-hour cut of the film as the best he had ever made as a director. After a power struggle at the top of MGM management, the film was cut from a two-hour epic to the 69-minute version released to theaters in response to its alleged universally disastrous previews. It never was released as an "A" feature but was instead shown as a second-feature "B" picture. Both Huston and star Audie Murphy tried unsuccessfully to purchase the film so that it could be re-edited to its original length. Huston did not waste any time fighting over it because he was focused on the pre-production of his next picture, The African Queen. The studio claimed that the cut footage was destroyed, probably in the 1965 MGM vault fire. Huston later was asked by MGM in 1975 if he had an original cut because the studio wanted to re-release it. Huston told them he didn't have one, and that it didn't exist. However, after this he instructed his agent Paul Kohner to include in all his future contracts a stipulation that he receive a 16 mm print of the first cut of any film he made.

Reception
According to MGM records, the film earned $789,000 in the US and Canada and $291,000 in other countries, resulting in a loss of $1,018,000. This made it one of the studio's least successful films of the year although it did not lose as much money as Calling Bulldog Drummond, Mr Imperium or Inside Straight.

Comic book adaptation

 * Fawcett Motion Picture Comics #105 (July 1951)

title: The Red Badge of Courage (1951 film)