text:
Karl Kesel

Karl Kesel (born January 7, 1959 ) is an American comics writer and inker whose works have primarily been under contract for DC Comics. He is a member of Periscope Studio and is best known for his collaborations with fellow artist Tom Grummett on The Adventures of Superman, Superboy, and Section Zero, as well as the first Harley Quinn comic title.

DC Comics
After a friend at college complimented his inking, Karl Kesel began submitting his portfolio to Marvel Comics and DC Comics. Kesel's first work for DC Comics appeared in New Talent Showcase #4 (April 1984). He soon became the inker on Tales of the Legion of Super-Heroes — so soon, in fact, that he suspected that he was assigned New Talent Showcase #8 as a test run to see how well he jelled with Tales of the Legion penciller Terry Shoemaker. Kesel was discouraged that inks which looked smooth and clear on his original pages appeared clunky in the printed comics, and with some guidance from Dick Giordano he studied how to draw in a way that would appear better on the printed page. Kesel worked on the lighthearted 'Mazing Man series, as well as providing inks over the pencils of George Pérez on History of the DC Universe and John Byrne on Legends and Superman vol. 2. With his then-wife Barbara Kesel, he co-wrote a Hawk and Dove miniseries in 1988 which was drawn by Rob Liefeld. Kesel and artist Tom Grummett are the creators of the modern Superboy character, Kon-El, who debuted in the "Reign of the Supermen" story arc, starting from The Adventures of Superman #500 (June 1993). An ongoing Superboy series was launched by Kesel and Grummett in February 1994. In 1996, Kesel and artist Stuart Immonen produced The Final Night limited series. That same year, Kesel was one of the many creators who contributed to the Superman: The Wedding Album one-shot wherein the title character married Lois Lane. Kesel wrote the Batman and Superman: World's Finest ten-issue limited series (April 1999–Jan. 2000) which explored the Post-Crisis history of the two with each of the ten issues taking place one year after the other. He and artist Terry Dodson launched a Harley Quinn ongoing series in December 2000.

Marvel Comics
Kesel's first work for Marvel Comics was inking a Vision story in Avengers Spotlight #23 (Oct. 1989). He inked Mark Bagley's cover art for the Japan-exclusive Super Famicom video game The Amazing Spider-Man: Lethal Foes in 1995. Kesel wrote Daredevil issues #353–364 (June 1996 – May 1997) and in 2002 wrote the story "Remembrance of Things Past" in which it was revealed that Ben Grimm, the Thing of the Fantastic Four, is Jewish. Kesel wrote and drew a "lost" Captain America comic strip from the 1940s which was published on Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited. In 2011, he scripted a Hulk and the Human Torch story which had been plotted by Jack C. Harris and drawn by Steve Ditko in the 1980s. It was published by Marvel as Incredible Hulk and the Human Torch: From the Marvel Vault #1 (August 2011).

Dark Horse Comics
Kesel worked with comic book illustrator Brandon McKinney on issues #6 and #13 of the comic series Aliens: Space Marines published by Dark Horse Comics, which accompanied alien figures in the first line of Alien figures released by Kenner in 1992.

Gorilla Comics
In 2000, Kesel and his former Superboy collaborator Tom Grummett created Section Zero as part of the Gorilla Comics imprint at Image Comics. Gorilla Comics was intended to be a creator-owned company financed by a comics-related website, eHero.com. The website proved to be a financial failure, leaving the creators to personally finance their own books. Along with the other Gorilla Comics creators, Kesel and Grummett attempted to continue the series they started, but these efforts proved to be unsuccessful. In January 2012, Kesel announced that he and Grummett would be relaunching Section Zero as a webcomic on the Mad Genius Comics website. The previously published stories were posted on the site and new material was added as it was completed. A Kickstarter campaign in 2017 will allow Kesel and Grummett to finish the story.

Personal life
For several years, he was married to fellow comics writer Barbara Kesel (née Randall), with whom he wrote Hawk and Dove; they have since divorced.

Awards
Kesel was nominated for the Eisner Award for "Best Inker" in 1991 and 1992.

In 2016, he was nominated for Inkwell Awards Favorite Inker.

Dark Horse Comics

 * Dark Horse Presents #33 (1989)
 * Indiana Jones and the Sargasso Pirates #1–4 (1995–1996)

DC Comics

 * Action Comics #692–695, 701 (1993–1994)
 * The Adventures of Superman #500–533, 535, 537–550, 552–562, 564–567, #0, Annual #5–7 (1993–1999)
 * Aquaman: Sword of Atlantis #46–47 (2006–2007)
 * Atari Force #20 (1985)
 * Batman and Superman: World's Finest #1–10 (1999–2000)
 * Batman '66 Meets The Man from U.N.C.L.E. #1–6 (inker) (2016)
 * Batman '66 Meets Wonder Woman '77 #1–10, 12 (inker) (2016–2017)
 * DCU Holiday Bash III (1999)
 * The Final Night #1–4 (1996)
 * Future Quest #3 (inker) (2016)
 * Guardians of Metropolis #1–4 (1994–1995)
 * Harley Quinn #1–25 (2000–2002)
 * Harley Quinn: Our Worlds At War #1 (2001)
 * Hawk and Dove vol. 2 #1–5 (also inker) (1988–1989)
 * Hawk and Dove vol. 3 #1–25, 28, Annual #1 (1989–1991)
 * Hellblazer #9 (inker) (2017)
 * History of the DC Universe #1–2 (as inker) (1987)
 * Legends #1–6 (as inker) (1986–1987)
 * Legends of the DC Universe 80-Page Giant #2 (2000)
 * 'Mazing Man #1–12, Special #1–3 (as inker) (1986–1990)
 * New Gods Secret Files #1 (1998)
 * The New Titans #68–69 (1990)
 * Secret Files President Luthor #1 (2001)
 * Secret Origins vol. 2 #43; #49 (also artist) (1989–1990)
 * Secret Origins 80-Page Giant #1 (1998)
 * Showcase '94 #6 (1994)
 * Showcase '95 #3 (1995)
 * Showcase '96 #8 (1996)
 * Silver Age: Challengers of the Unknown #1 (2000)
 * Silver Age: Green Lantern #1 (2000)
 * Sins of Youth: Superman, Jr. / Superboy, Sr. #1 (2000)
 * Superboy vol. 3 #1–10, 12–19, 21–30, 50–79, 100, #0, #1,000,000, Annual #1–2 (1994–2002)
 * Superboy / Risk Double-Shot #1 (1998)
 * Superboy / Robin: World's Finest Three #1–2 (1996)
 * Superboy and the Ravers #1–10, 13–19 (1996–1998)
 * Supergirl Annual #1 (1996)
 * Supergirl vol. 7 #24 (inker) (2017)
 * Superman vol. 2 #4–16, 18, 20 (as inker); #54–56 (as writer and inker) (1987–1991)
 * Superman & Savage Dragon: Metropolis #1 (1999)
 * Superman / Toyman #1 (1996)
 * Superman Forever #1 (1998)
 * Superman Red/Superman Blue #1 (1998)
 * Superman Secret Files #1 (1998)
 * Superman: King of the World #1 (1999)
 * Superman: The Legacy of Superman #1 (1993)
 * Superman: The Man of Steel #69, #1,000,000 (1997–1998)
 * Superman: The Wedding Album #1 (1996)
 * Tangent Comics / The Joker #1 (1997)
 * Tangent Comics / The Joker's Wild #1 (1998)
 * Team Superman Secret Files #1 (1998)
 * Who's Who in the DC Universe #2–4, 6 (1990–1991)

DC Comics and Marvel Comics

 * Challengers of the Fantastic #1 (1997)
 * Spider-Boy Team-Up #1 (1997)

Image Comics

 * George Pérez's Crimson Plague #1 (Section Zero preview) (2000)
 * Section Zero #1–3 (2000)

Marvel Comics

 * All Winners Comics 70th Anniversary Special #1 (2009)
 * Amazing Fantasy vol. 2 #13–14 (2005)
 * The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #37 (2010)
 * The Amazing Spider-Man Family #1 (2008)
 * The Avengers vol. 8 #11–12 (inker) (2019)
 * Captain America / Citizen V '98 (1998)
 * Captain America: Patriot #1–4 (2010–2011)
 * Captain America The 1940s Newspaper Strip #1–3 (also artist) (2010)
 * Daredevil #353–364 (1996–1997)
 * Fantastic Four vol. 3 #51–56 (2002)
 * Fantastic Four #514–516, 525–526 (writer); #642–644 (inker); #645 (writer/inker) (2004–2005, 2015)
 * Fantastic Four / Fantastic 4 '98 (1998)
 * Fantastic Four 2099 #1–5 (1996)
 * Human Torch #1–12 (2003–2004)
 * Marvel Apes #1–4 (2008–2009)
 * Marvel Holiday Special '96 (1996)
 * Marvels Comics: Fantastic Four #1 (2000)
 * Spider-Man Family #7 (2008)
 * Ultimate X-Men #72 (2006)
 * Web of Spider-Man Super Special #1 (1995)
 * What If Doctor Doom Had Become the Thing? #1 (2005)
 * X-Men #187 (2006)
 * X-Men Unlimited #34 (2002)

Marvel Comics and DC Comics

 * Spider-Boy #1 (1996)
 * Unlimited Access #1–4 (1997–1998)

title: Karl Kesel


text:
Talk:All Souls Church, Langham Place

Clean up
I added the clean up notice because the article seems to be taken from The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction. The copyright has long expired, so no copyright violation. Nevertheless, the style is archaic, opinionated and not very encyclopedic. It probably needs to be rewritten from scratch. --Polynova 03:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Move?
Would this be better titled All Souls Church, Langham Place -- BenStevenson 7 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

I agree. And this comment has been here long enough that I am moving it RJFJR 00:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Outdated
The staff section in this page is a year out of date, but as I work for all souls, I can't actually alter it. Someone else please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.13.145.77 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All Souls Church, Langham Place. 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/20121029052425/http://www.thedukeofyork.org/Home/RecentEngagements/engagements.aspx to http://www.thedukeofyork.org/Home/RecentEngagements/engagements.aspx

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) 13:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Update Churchwardens

 * What I think should be changed: Update list of Churchwardens. Louise Gibson should be changed to Jo Richards.
 * Why it should be changed: New churchwarden elected
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://allsouls.org/Groups/132681/About_Us/Staff_and_Leadership/Staff_and_Leadership.aspx

Allsoulslanghamplace (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, that looks OK. I've made the change. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:All Souls Church, Langham Place


text:
Crystal Hunt

Crystal Hunt (born February 5, 1985) is an American actress and producer. She is known for playing Lizzie Spaulding on the CBS soap opera Guiding Light (2003–06) and Stacy Morasco on the ABC soap opera One Life to Live (2009–10, 2012).

Life and career
Hunt was born in Clearwater, Florida. She started her career as a child performer, notable appearing the film Problem Child 2 (1991). Hunt has starred in many commercials, including one for The Walt Disney Company's 25th anniversary celebration and an anti-drug advertisement with *NSYNC. In 2003, she was cast as Lizzie Spaulding, the troubled daughter of the long-suffering couple Philip and Beth Raines, on the CBS soap opera Guiding Light, which she played from 2003 to 2006. She received a Daytime Emmy Award nomination in 2005 for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series for the role.

Hunt appeared in the 2005 film The Derby Stallion, and appeared in the 2007 Universal Pictures film Sydney White as Demetria "Dinky" Rosemead Hodgekiss. She joined ABC soap opera One Life to Live in February 2009, playing Stacy Morasco. She left the show on February 16, 2010. She returned to the show as the ghostly Stacy in March 2010, and in Clint Buchanan's vision of Hell in January 2012.

Hunt starred in the 2015 reality series Queens of Drama, and later in the Pureflix soap opera, Hilton Head Island. In 2019, she starred, created and produced web-series Mood Swings.

title: Crystal Hunt


text:
User:Demonsthenes

My name is Topchris. I am looking for demonsthenes. If you ever do a lookup of your own name, I need to get in touch with you. Send me an email at bhydryr@gmail.com. Thank you. It's important.

title: User:Demonsthenes


text:
Diary (American TV series)

Diary is an American documentary television series that premiered February 16, 2000, on MTV.

The show's opening titles begin with the slogan "You think you know ... but you have no idea."

Overview
The series follows celebrities through their everyday lives. Some of the celebrities featured include Jay-Z, Aaliyah, Jennifer Lopez, Alicia Keys, Beyoncé Knowles, Kelly Rowland, Marilyn Manson, Bow Wow, Avril Lavigne, Brandy, Britney Spears, Eminem, Christina Aguilera, Pink, Shakira, Chyna, Kelly Clarkson, Brittany Murphy, N.E.R.D, OutKast, Destiny's Child, Lindsay Lohan, Timbaland, Blink-182, Green Day, Sum 41, Papa Roach, Hilary Duff, Korn, Jack Black, Chris Rock, Justin Timberlake, Backstreet Boys, Celine Dion and Enrique Iglesias.

In 2005/2006 MTV Canada produced a series of Canadian made Diary episodes. Canadians featured include Tom Green, Russell Peters, Bedouin Soundclash, Adam Beach, Lauren Collins, Hedley, Amanda Crew, Keshia Chanté, Daniel Negreanu, Nelly Furtado, K'Naan, Billy Talent, Simple Plan and Justin Bieber.

The most recent episode aired in 2014 and centered on Nicki Minaj.

In 2018, MTV Latin America aired an episode centered on Lali Espósito.

title: Diary (American TV series)


text:
User:Xcali/helpful

Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Sock puppets and meat puppets do not carry much clout around here.

title: User:Xcali/helpful


text:
User talk:RealMontrealer

Welcome (June 11, 2005)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Spinboy 03:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

CITGO vs. Citgo (August 14, 2005)
Hi Lifeisunfair. I noticed you reverted my Citgo->CITGO changeover, even though I can't find one shred of proof "Citgo" was ever used (did you look at their corporate website? They use CITGO)

I figured I would ask you why you reverted before we end up in a revert war by accident... ;) RealMontrealer 08:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello, Michael! Thanks for inquiring before reverting. :)

 * As I noted when performing the page move, the Wikipedia Manual of Style indicates that we should "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." (Note the "REALTOR" / "Realtor" example.)  —Lifeisunfair 09:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply! I didn't even think to check the history to see the reason you gave (which I should have), so I didn't see the excellent explanation.

 * That's what I get for looking up My Contributions so late in the night! -RealMontrealer 13:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Nah, the confusion is entirely understandable. The problem is that the MediaWiki software inserts the comment only in the source location's history (and not in that of the destination location).  I hope that this is changed in a future version.  —Lifeisunfair 14:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Honourable discussion (February 12,2006)
Hi Michael, welcome to Wikipedia! With regard to your addition of "The Honourable" to Josée Verner:

The convention Wikipedia has chosen thus far regarding honorific prefixes is to avoid their use in the first instance of the name. This is why there is no "Right Honourable" in the beginning of the pages for Joe Clark, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, etc. This is mentioned in Manual_of_Style_(biographies).

I'm not sure whether I agree with it (and I do like the fact that the French Wikipedia has chosen differently with le très honorable), but as it'd be a pain to change everything, it's probably best to go with that. --Saforrest 03:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, I started changing them over because I saw someone else do the same; then I caught on later that it was convention not to do so, as you mentioned, so I stopped... Thanks for the heads up anyway! RealMontrealer 06:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sagabegins.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sagabegins.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:RealMontrealer


text:
George W. Merrill

George W. Merrill (June 26, 1837 – January 10, 1914) was an American politician of the 19th century. He was born in Turner, Maine.

Merrill was District Attorney of Nye County, Nevada from 1864 to 1868.

On April 2, 1885, nominated by President Grover Cleveland, Merrill was appointed U.S. Minister Resident (similar to modern-day ambassador) to the Kingdom of Hawaii. He presented his credentials on June 12, 1885, and was recalled on September 23, 1889. He replaced Rollin M. Daggett, and was replaced by John L. Stevens. He later worked in San Francisco, California as a lawyer. He died there of an illness of seven weeks on January 10, 1914, aged 76.

title: George W. Merrill


text:
Singapore Stone

The Singapore Stone is a fragment of a large sandstone slab which originally stood at the mouth of the Singapore River. The large slab, which is believed to date back to at least the 13th century and possibly as early as the 10th or 11th century, bore an undeciphered inscription. Recent theories suggest that the inscription is either in Old Javanese or in Sanskrit, which suggested a possibility that the island was an extension of the Majapahit civilization in the past.

It is likely that the person who commissioned the inscription was Sumatran. The slab may be linked to the legendary story of the 14th-century strongman Badang, who is said to have thrown a massive stone to the mouth of the Singapore River. On Badang's death, the Rajah sent two stone pillars to be raised over his grave "at the point of the straits of Singapura".

The slab was blown up in 1843 during British colonial rule to clear and widen the passageway at the river mouth to make space for a fort and the quarters of its commander D.H. Stevenson. The Stone, now displayed at the National Museum of Singapore, was designated by the museum as one of 11 National Treasures of Singapore in January 2006, and by the National Heritage Board as one of the top 12 artefacts held in the collections of its museums.

Discovery

In June 1819, a few months after the arrival of Sir Stamford Raffles (1781–1826) in Singapore, a sandstone slab about 10 ft high and 9 to 10 ft long was found by labourers clearing jungle trees at the southeast side of the mouth of the Singapore River. It stood at a promontory known as the Rocky Point, and later as Artillery Point, Fort Fullerton and the Master Attendant's Office. (In 1972, a short projection from the slab's site was constructed and a statue of an imaginary beast called the Merlion placed on it. The statue has since been relocated.) According to papers from the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal which were collected by Sir William Edward Maxwell and republished in 1886, one Dr. D.W. Montgomerie said that the rock was brought to light by some Bengal sailors employed by Captain Flint, R.N., the first Master Attendant:

"You remember the situation of it [the sandstone slab] on the rocky point on the south [sic: southeast] side of the entrance of the Singapore Creek. That point was covered with forest trees and jungle in 1819, and the stone was brought to notice by some Bengal clashees who were employed by Capt. Flint, R.N. (the first Master Attendant); the men on discovering the inscription were very much frightened, and could not be induced to go on with the clearing, which, if I recollect right, was completed by Chinese under the stimulus of high wages."

The slab was inscribed with 50 or 52 lines of script, but by the time of its discovery the meaning of the inscription was already a mystery to the island's inhabitants.

Appearance
John Crawfurd (1783–1868), who was Resident of Singapore, described the slab in his journal on 3 February 1822 in these terms:

"On the stony point which forms the western side of the entrance of the salt creek, on which the modern town of Singapore is building, there was discovered, two years ago, a tolerably hard block of sand-stone, with an inscription upon it. This I examined early this morning. The stone, in shape, is a rude mass, and formed of the one-half of a great nodule broken into two nearly equal parts by artificial means; for the two portions now face each other, separated at the base by a distance of not more than two feet and a half, and reclining opposite to each other at an angle of about forty degrees. It is upon the inner surface of the stone that the inscription is engraved. The workmanship is far ruder than any thing of the kind that I have seen in Java or India; and the writing, perhaps from time, in some degree, but more from the natural decomposition of the rock, so much obliterated as to be quite illegible as a composition. Here and there, however, a few letters seem distinct enough. The character is rather round than square."

James Prinsep (1799–1840), an Anglo-Indian scholar and antiquary who started the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, published a paper in the Journal in 1837 by a Dr. William Bland of H.M.S. Wolf, which stated that he had made a facsimile of all that remained in any way perceptible on the slab. Dr. Bland described the slab thus:

"On a tongue of land forming the termination of the right bank of the river at Singapore, now called Artillery Point, stands a stone or rock of coarse red sandstone about ten feet high, from two to five feet thick, and about nine or ten feet in length, somewhat wedge-shaped, with weather-worn cells. The face sloping to the south-east at an angle of 76° has been smoothed down in the form of an irregular square, presenting a space of about thirty-two square feet, having a raised edge all round.

On this surface an inscription has originally been cut, of about fifty lines, but the characters are so obliterated by the weather that the greater part of them are illegible. Still, there are many left which are plain enough, more particularly those at the lower right-hand corner, where the raised edge of the stone has in some measure protected them."

The inscription was engraved in rounded letters about three-quarters of an inch (1.9 cm) wide.

Destruction
About January 1843, on the orders of the acting Settlement Engineer, Captain D.H. Stevenson, the slab was blown to pieces to clear and widen the passageway at the Singapore River mouth to make space for Fort Fullerton and the quarters of its commander. Some sources claim that the Superintendent of Public Works, George Drumgoole Coleman, was responsible for the Stone's destruction, but he was on leave and not in Singapore at the time of its blasting. Lieutenant-Colonel James Low had petitioned to have the sandstone slab spared, but had been told that it was in the way of a projected bungalow. On the explosion taking place, he crossed the river from his office and selected fragments that had letters on them. As the fragments were very bulky, he had them chiselled into small slabs by a Chinese man. He selected some of the smaller fragments bearing the most legible parts of the inscription and sent them to the Royal Asiatic Society's museum in Calcutta (now known as the Indian Museum) for analysis, where they arrived in about June 1848.

According to Maxwell's papers, when news of the destruction of the sandstone slab reached Bengal, James Prinsep asked the Governor of the Straits Settlements, Colonel William John Butterworth, to secure any legible fragments that might still exist and to send them to the Royal Asiatic Society's museum. Butterworth replied: "The only remaining portion of the stone you mention, except what Colonel Low may have, I have found lying in the verandah of the Treasury at Singapore, where it was used as a seat by the Sepoys of the guard and persons in waiting to transact business. I lost no time in sending it to my house, but, alas! not before the inscription was nearly erased. Such as the fragment was then however – i.e., in 1843 – it is now; for I have preserved the stone with much care, and shall have much pleasure in sending it for your museum, having failed to establish one, as I hoped to have done, in Singapore."

A large block from the monument lay abandoned at Government Hill until finally being broken up and used as gravel for a road. According to one W.H. Read, who arrived in Singapore in 1841:

"I remember a large block of the rock at the corner of Government House, where Fort Canning is now; but during the absence of the Governor at Penang on one occasion the convicts requiring stone to replace the road, chipped up the valuable relic of antiquity, and thus all trace of our past history was lost.

It was destroyed when the sea-wall was built around Fort Fullerton, where the Club, Post Office, and Master Attendant's Office now are. It used to be decorated with flags and offerings when at the entrance of the Singapore river. The immediate consequence of the removal of the stone, an act of vandalism, was the silting up of the river. I have been told that an inscription in similar characters, which I always understood were 'cuneiform,' still exists (1884) in the Carimon Islands."

D. W. Montgomerie, recalling that the Bengal sailors who had discovered the slab while clearing the jungle could not be persuaded to continue the work, commented: "What a pity it is that those who authorized the destruction of the ancient relic were not prevented by some such wholesome superstition!"

In 1918, the Raffles Museum and Library's Committee of Management asked the Royal Asiatic Society's museum in Calcutta to return the fragments of the sandstone slab, and the Calcutta museum agreed to send one fragment back to the museum. Archaeologist John N. Miksic has said that "presumably the other pieces are still in Calcutta".

Inscription and attempts at decipherment
Several scholars tried, over time, to better understand the extant text of the Singapore Stone and, ultimately, to decipher it. The sub-sections below provide a summary of those decipherment proposals.

Sir Stamford Raffles
Raffles himself tried to decipher the inscriptions on the original sandstone slab. In his 1834 work, The Malay Peninsula, Captain Peter James Begbie of the Madras Artillery, part of the Honourable East India Company, wrote:

"The principal curiosity of Singapore is a large stone at the point of the river, the one face of which has been sloped and smoothed, and upon which several lines of engraven characters are still visible. The rock being, however, of a schistose and porous nature, the inscription is illegible. It is said that Sir Stamford Raffles endeavoured, by the application of powerful acids, to bring out the characters with the view of decyphering them, but the result was unsuccessful."

In the Hikayat Abdullah, Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir (1796–1854), also known as Munshi Abdullah, recorded Raffles taking missionary Rev. Claudius Henry Thomsen and himself to see what Raffles described as a "remarkable stone" in October 1822. Raffles apparently took the view that the writing had to be Hindu "because the Hindus were the oldest of all immigrant races in the East, reaching Java and Bali and Siam, the inhabitants of which are all descended from them". Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir, Hikayat Abdullah, above, at 165–166. The full passage reads:"[T]hey found at the point of the headland a rock lying in the bushes. The rock was smooth, about six feet wide, square in shape, and its face was covered with a chiselled inscription. But although it had writing this was illegible because of extensive scouring by water. Allah alone knows how many thousands of years old it may have been. After its discovery crowds of all races came to see it. The Indians declared that the writing was Hindu but they were unable to read it. The Chinese claimed it was in Chinese characters. I went with a party of people, and also Mr. Raffles and Mr. Thomsen, and we all looked at the rock. I noticed that in shape the lettering was rather like Arabic, but I could not read it because owing to its great age the relief was partly effaced. Many learned men came and tried to read it. Some brought flour-paste which they pressed on the inscription and took a cast, others rubbed lamp-black on it to make the lettering visible. But for all that they exhausted their ingenuity in trying to find out what language the letters represented until they reached no decision. There the stone rested until recently with its inscription in relief. It was Mr. Raffles's opinion that the writing must be Hindu because the Hindus were the oldest of all immigrant races in the East, reaching Java and Bali and Siam, the inhabitants of which are all descended from them. However, not a single person in all Singapore was able to interpret the words chiselled on the rock. Allah alone knows. It remained where it was until the time when Mr. Bonham was Governor of the three Settlements of Singapore, Penang and Malacca. Mr. Coleman was then engineer in Singapore and it was he who broke up the stone; a great pity, and in my opinion a most improper thing to do, prompted perhaps by his own thoughtlessness and folly. He destroyed the rock because he did not realize its importance. Perhaps he did not stop to consider that a man cleverer than he might extract its secrets from it, for I have heard it said that in England there are scholars with special knowledge who can easily understand such writing, whatever the language or race. As the Malays say 'If you cannot improve a thing at least do not destroy it.'"In an earlier translation by John Turnbull Thomson, the passage reads thus:"At the end of the point there was another rock found among the brushwood; it was smooth, of square form, covered with a chiseled inscription which no one could read, as it had been worn away by water for how many thousands of years who can tell. As soon as it was discovered people of all races crowded round it. The Hindoos said it was Hindoo writing, the Chinese that it was Chinese. I went among others with Mr. Raffles and the Rev. Mr. Thompson. I thought from the appearance of the raised parts of the letters that it was Arabic, but I could not read it, as the stone had been subject to the rising and falling tides for such a long time. Many clever people came, bringing flour and lard, which they put in the hollows and then lifted out in the hope of getting the shape of the letters. Some again brought a black fluid which they poured over the stone but without success. Ingenuity was exhausted in trying to decipher the inscription. The stone remained there till lately. Mr. Raffles said the inscription was Hindoo, because the Hindoo race was the earliest that came to the Archipelago, first to Java and then to Bali and Siam, the inhabitants of which places are all descended from the Hindoos. But not a soul in Singapore could say what the inscription was. During the time Mr. Bonham was Governor of the three settlements this stone was broken up by the Engineer. This is very much to be regretted, and was in my opinion highly improper; perhaps the gentleman did it from ignorance or stupidity, and now, from his conduct, we can never know the nature of this ancient writing. Did he not think that persons sufficiently clever might come and disclose the secret so long concealed? I have heard that in England there are persons very clever in deciphering such inscriptions with the aid of all manner of curious devices. Well may the Malays say 'What you can't make, don't break.'"See

William Bland and James Prinsep: Pali?

In his note published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal of 1837, Dr. William Bland reported that he had "frequently made pilgrimages" to the Stone, "determined, if it were possible, to save a few letters, could they be satisfactorily made out, to tell us something, however, small, of the language or the people who inscribed it, and hence eke out our limited and obscure knowledge of the Malayan Peninsula."

With the assistance of a "clever native writer", Bland used "well-made and soft dough" to take impressions of the characters on the slab to copy them. After an impression of each character had been made, the character itself in the stone was painted over with white lead, "as far as the eye could make it out, ... and if the two agreed, it was considered as nearly correct as possible, and although this was done to all the characters, it was more particularly attended to in the more obscure ones, for the letters marked in the facsimile with more strength could readily be copied by the eye." Bland also discovered that when the Stone was viewed "when the sun was descending in the west, a palpable shadow was thrown into the letter, from which great assistance was derived."

In Bland's view, "speaking from a very limited knowledge of the subject", the inscription was in "the ancient Ceylonese, or Pálí". James Prinsep concurred, saying that although he could not venture to put together any connected sentences or even words, "some of the letters – the g, l, h, p, s, y, &c. – can readily be recognised, as well as many of the vowel marks". He expressed the opinion that the purpose of the inscription "is most probably to record the extension of the Buddhist faith to that remarkable point of the Malay Peninsula".

Peter James Begbie's speculative theory: Tamil?
In The Malay Peninsula (1834), Captain Peter James Begbie made "an attempt to throw some light upon a subject so confessedly obscure". He referred to the legend of the 14th-century strongman Badang in the Malay Annals (1821), a posthumously-published English translation of the Sejarah Melayu (1612) by the British orientalist John Leyden (1775–1811). According to the Malay Annals, news of Badang's remarkable feats of strength reached the land of Kling (the Coromandel Coast). The Rajah of that country sent a champion named Nadi Vijaya Vicrama to try his strength with him, staking seven ships filled with treasures on the issue of the contest. After a few trials of their relative powers, Badang pointed to a huge stone lying before the Rajah's hall and asked his opponent to lift it, and to allow their claims to be decided by the greatest strength displayed in this feat. The Kling champion assented, and, after several failures, succeeded in raising it as high as his knee, after which he immediately let it fall. Badang took up the stone, poised it easily several times, and then threw it out into the mouth of the river, and this is the rock which is at this day visible at the point of Singhapura, or Tanjong Singhapura. The Annals go on to state that after a long time, Badang died and was buried at the point of the straits of Singhapura, and when the tidings of his death reached the land of Kling, the Rajah sent two stone pillars to be raised over his grave as a monument, and these were the pillars which were still at the point of the bay.

Begbie went on to speculate that the monument installed over Badang's grave was the sandstone slab at the mouth of the Singapore River, and that the inscription contained a recital of Badang's feats. He identified the "Rajah of Kling" as Sri Rajah Vicrama who reigned from 1223 to 1236. The relevant paragraphs read:"At the mouth of the river there is a large rock, which is concealed at high water, and on which a post was erected four or five years ago by, I believe, Captain Jackson of the Bengal Artillery, to warn boats of the danger; this is the rock fabled to have been hurled by Badang: He is said to have been buried at the point of the straits of Singhapura, the scene of this wonderful exploit; and there, the very spot where this record is to be still seen, the Rajah of Kling, who had been so serious a loser by it, ordered this monument to be erected. Fabulous and childish as the legend is, it brings us directly to the point. Sri Rajah Vicrama, called by Crawfurd Sri Rama Wikaram, reigned in the year of the Hegira 620, or A.D. 1223, and was succeeded in Heg. 634, or A.D. 1236 by Sri Maharaja. The Annals state, after recording the death of Badang, that this king reigned a long time; consequently the occurrence must be placed early in his reign. The Annals were written in the year of the Hegira 1021, or A.D. 1612, nearly four centuries afterwards, and the original circumstance thus became obscured by legendary traditions; but I think that we are fairly warranted in concluding that there was a remarkable wrestler of the name of Badang existing at that period, and that this inscription contained a recital of his feats, etc."See Begbie, above, at 358–359. In Begbie's view, the inscription was in an obsolete dialect of Tamil:

"At the period of the transaction [which Begbie put at about A.D. 1228], the Malays were destitute of a written language, as it was not until between forty and fifty years afterwards, when the Mahommedan religion became the popular one, that the Arabic character was introduced. It appears to be probable that the Kling Rajah, aware of this destitution of a written character, employed a sculptor of his own nation to cut the inscription on the rock, and that, from the epitaph being in an unknown language, the original story as therein related, being necessarily handed down by oral tradition, became corrupted in every thing but its leading features. This supposition is borne out by the form of the characters, which more resembles that of the Malabar language than any other oriental tongue that I am acquainted with. I do not mean to say that the words are essentially Tamil, but merely to express an opinion that the inscription is couched in an obsolete dialect of that language."

J.W. Laidlay, Iain Sinclair, Francesco Perono Cacciafoco, and I-Shiang Lee: Kawi?

J.W. Laidlay examined fragments of the sandstone slab that had been donated to the Asiatic Society of Bengal by Colonel Butterworth and Lieutenant-Colonel James Low, strewing finely-powdered animal charcoal over the surface of the stones and sweeping it gently with a feather so as to fill up all the depressions; in this way "the very slightest of which was thus rendered remarkably distinct by the powerful contrast of colour. By this means, and by studying the characters in different lights", Laidlay was able to make drawings of the inscriptions on three fragments. According to Laidlay, the fragment shown in the top drawing seemed to have been from the upper part of the inscription, but was omitted in Prinsep's lithograph as effaced. He could not identify the other two fragments with any portion of the lithograph.

Laidlay felt that the square shape of the characters had misled Prinsep into concluding that the inscription was in Pali. In fact, the characters bore no resemblance whatsoever to Pali. Laidlay was unable to identify the characters with those of any published Sinhala inscriptions, but found it identical with Kawi, a literary language from the islands of Java, Bali and Lombok based on Old Javanese with many Sanskrit loanwords. He noted, "With the alphabet of this language, ... I can identify all, or nearly all, of the characters; but of course no clue to the purport of the inscription can be obtained without some knowledge of the language itself." Relying on Begbie, he, too, "conjectured with probability that the inscription is a record of some Javanese triumph at a period anterior to the conversion of the Malays to Muhammadanism".

In December 2019, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute and the Indian Heritage Centre jointly published From Sojourners To Settlers - Tamils in Southeast Asia and Singapore, including research by Australian researcher Dr Iain Sinclair. Dr Sinclair, agreeing that the inscription was most likely Kawi, proceeded to identify the fragment "kesariva" in the inscriptions. Comparing this to a corpus of ancient Sanskrit writings, he suggested that the fragment was part of the word "parakesarivarman" – a title used by several kings of the Tamil Chola dynasty in India. This suggests Tamil connections with the Strait of Singapore as far back as 1,000 years ago, thus redefining the island's historical timeline. He suggests that the stone could have been created at the beginning of the 11th century, redefining Singapore's foundation over 300 years earlier than the currently-accepted founding date of 1299.

In August 2023, Francesco Perono Cacciafoco and I-Shiang Lee produced a comparison between the Singapore Stone and the Calcutta Stone and further analyzed the possible link to the Kawi script. They found that while there are similarities, there is a noticeable difference in the usage of diacritics.

Studies by Kern and other scholars: Old Javanese or Sanskrit?
The first effectual study of the sandstone fragments was by the Dutch epigrapher Johan Hendrik Caspar Kern. He succeeded in deciphering a few words, including salāgalalasayanara, ya-āmānavana, kesarabharala and yadalama, but was unable to identify the language in which they were written. He gave the probable date of the inscription as around 1230. Another Dutch Indologist, N.J. Krom, judged from a rubbing of the Stone published in 1848 that the script resembled that of the Majapahit Empire but dated from a period somewhat earlier than 1360.

Other scholars have taken different views. Dr. J.G. de Casparis, a scholar of ancient Indonesian writing, gave the preliminary judgment that the style of the script might date from an earlier period such as the 10th or 11th century. He was able to decipher one or two words, which seemed to be in the Old Javanese language. On the other hand, Drs. Boechari, epigraphical expert of the Indonesian National Research Centre for Archaeology and lecturer at the University of Indonesia, was of the opinion that the engraving dates from no later than the 12th century, has a closer affinity to the Sumatran than the Javanese writing style, and that the language may not be Old Javanese but Sanskrit, which was in common use in Sumatra at that era. John Miksic has commented that while it is impossible to determine whether de Casparis's or Boechari's theory is more correct on the basis of epigraphy alone, it is easier to accept the conclusion that the person who commissioned the inscription was culturally Sumatran rather than Javanese, because by the 10th century the linguistic influence of Java had reached the Lampung region in the south of Sumatra, but no such influence has been discovered as far north as Singapore and there is no evidence of Javanese colonisation in Sumatra or the offshore islands at that time. Miksic notes that most conclusions regarding the slab have been on the basis of rubbings or photographs, and thus there is a "slight possibility" that detailed analysis of fragments of the sandstone slab may provide more information about the age of the inscription or the nature of its contents. However, he also says that the script probably never will be fully deciphered.

The Singapore Stone today

One of the fragments of the original sandstone slab that was saved by Lieutenant-Colonel Low, which was later returned to what was then the Raffles Museum in Singapore, is today known as the Singapore Stone. It is currently displayed in the Singapore History Gallery of the National Museum of Singapore. The Stone was designated by the Museum as one of 11 "national treasures" in January 2006, and by the National Heritage Board as one of the top 12 artefacts held in the collections of its museums.

The Singapore Stone, along with its connection to the legend of Badang, was depicted during the 2016 Singapore National Day Parade.

Articles

 * , reprinted in vol. 1 of This two-volume work was reprinted by Routledge in 2000.
 * , reprinted in Miscellaneous Papers Relating to Indo-China, above, vol. 1 at 222–223.
 * , reprinted in Miscellaneous Papers Relating to Indo-China, above, vol. 1 at 223–226.
 * , reprinted in Miscellaneous Papers Relating to Indo-China, above, vol. 1 at 227–232.

title: Singapore Stone


text:
User talk:Pmurph5

a little late, but you'll enjoy the sig info below!

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! SaltyPig 03:29, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Proposed deletion of File:Runway01-no-laser.jpg

The file File:Runway01-no-laser.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Runway02-distraction.jpg

The file File:Runway02-distraction.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Runway03-glare.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Runway04 flashblindness.jpg

The file File:Runway04 flashblindness.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Laser pointer safety distances.gif

The file File:Laser pointer safety distances.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Unused, superseded by File:Laser pointer safety distances.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax «¦talk¦» 16:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pmurph5


text:
El retablo de maese Pedro

El retablo de maese Pedro (Master Peter's Puppet Show) is a puppet-opera in one act with a prologue and epilogue, composed by Manuel de Falla to a Spanish libretto based on an episode from Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. The libretto is an abbreviation of chapter 26 of the second part of Don Quixote, with some lines added from other parts of the work. Falla composed this opera "in devoted homage to the glory of Miguel de Cervantes" and dedicated it to the Princess de Polignac, who commissioned the work. Because of its brief length by operatic standards (about 27 minutes), its very challenging part for a boy opera performer (who has by far the most lines), and its use of puppets, it is not part of the standard operatic repertoire.

Otto Mayer-Serra has described this opera as a work where Falla reached beyond "Andalusianism" for his immediate musical influence and colour and began the transition into the "Hispanic neo-classicism" of his later works.

Performance history
In 1919 Winnaretta Singer, aka la Princesse Edmond de Polignac, commissioned from Falla a piece that could be performed in her salon, using her own elaborate puppet theater. (Her other commissions included Igor Stravinsky's Renard and Erik Satie's Socrate, although neither of those works had its premiere in her private theater.) The work was completed in 1923. Falla decided to set an episode from Cervantes' Don Quixote that actually depicts a puppet play. Don Quixote watches a puppet show and gets so drawn into the action that he seeks to rescue the damsel in distress, only to destroy poor Master Peter's puppet theater in the process.

Falla's original plan for the Princess's theater was a two-tiered, play-within-a-play approach: large puppets representing Quixote, Master Peter, and the others in attendance, and small figures for Master Peter's puppets. The three singers would be with the orchestra in the pit, rather than onstage. After a concert performance in Seville on 23 March 1923, that is how it was performed with the Princess's puppets in the music room of her Paris estate on 25 June of that year, with Vladimir Golschmann conducting. Hector Dufranne sang Don Quijote (Quixote), Wanda Landowska played the harpsichord (Falla composed his 1926 Harpsichord Concerto for her in appreciation), and Ricardo Viñes and Emilio Pujol were among the artists and musicians serving as stagehands. Also at the premiere was Francis Poulenc, who met Landowska for the first time; she asked him to write a harpsichord concerto for her, and his Concert champêtre was the result.

Premieres
The world premiere was given as a concert performance on 23 March 1923 at the Teatro San Fernando, Seville, Spain. It was conducted by the composer.

The staged premiere took place on 25 June 1923 at the Palace of the Princess of Polignac in Paris. It was conducted by Vladimir Golschmann, with sets and puppets by Hermenegildo Lanz, Manuel Ángeles Ortiz, José Viñes Roda and Hernando Viñes. The staging was under the direction of Manuel de Falla.

The premiere was attended by the poets, musicians, and painters who comprised the exclusive court of the Princess de Polignac. Five days later, Corpus Barga published a report in El Sol with verbal portraits of some of those present: Paul Valéry, "the poet of the day, making gestures like a shipwrecked man drowning in the waves of feminine shoulders"; Stravinsky, "a mouse among the cats" and Pablo Picasso "in evening dress, and mobbed by everybody, [who] seems as though he is resting in a corner with his hat pulled down over one eyebrow", and the artist José Maria Sert.

Later performances
Falla went on to tour the piece quite successfully throughout Spain with the Orquesta Bética, a chamber orchestra he had founded in 1922. El retablo de maese Pedro was a great success for Falla, with performances and new productions all over Europe within a few years of the premiere. In 1926 the Opéra-Comique in Paris celebrated Falla's 50th birthday with a program consisting of La vida breve, El amor brujo, and El retablo de maese Pedro. That performance used new designs by Falla's close friend, the artist Ignacio Zuloaga, and new marionettes carved by Zuloaga's brother-in-law, Maxime Dethomas. For this production singers and extras replaced the large puppets, and Falla and Zuloaga took part personally, with Zuloaga playing Sancho Panza and Falla playing the innkeeper. Also in 1926, in April, Luis Buñuel directed the opera in Amsterdam, using real actors for some of the roles. Later performances have frequently used singers and actors to replace the puppets. José Carreras made his operatic debut at age 11 as the boy narrator, Trujamán, in a 1958 production conducted by José Iturbi at the Gran Teatre del Liceu. In 2004 it was performed at Hofstra University for a gathering of Cervantes specialists.

Instrumentation
Ensemble: flute (doubling piccolo), 2 oboes, English horn, clarinet, bassoon, 2 horns, trumpet, percussion (bell, tenor drum, rattles, tambourine, tam-tam, xylophone), timpani, harpsichord, harp-lute (or harp), strings.

Synopsis

 * Time: between 1605 and 1615
 * Place: The stable of an inn at an unidentified location in, Spain
 * Note: The story of Gaiferos and Melisendra is fictitious, although it is presented as historical by Maese Pedro and the trujamán, and taken as such by the mad Don Quijote.

El pregón (The announcement). Master Peter, the puppeteer, appears ringing a bell, with a monkey on his shoulder. He calls for attention and announces the performance of "The Tale of Melisendra", a story about the alleged daughter of Charlemagne who was held captive by Moors in Zaragoza. "Vengan, vengan, a ver vuesas mercedes el Retablo de la libertad de Melisendra" ("Come, come and see, my lords, The Tale of Melisendra's Freedom"). The audience comes in, Don Quixote being ushered to an honored place in the front row.

Historia de la libertad de Melisendra (Tale of the rescue of Melisendra, introduction). The narration is sung by Master Peter's apprentice (the Boy or Trujamán): he begins introducing the subject. "Esta verdadera historia..." (This true story...).

''Scene 1. La corte de Carlomagno (Charlemagne's court)''. The palace of Charlemagne. Melisendra, the emperor’s alleged daughter, is held captive in Zaragoza by the Moorish king Marsilio. Her husband Don Gayferos, who has forgotten Melisendra, is playing chess with Don Roland. Charlemagne is angry and urges Don Gayferos to action. The latter refuses the help of Roland, saying that he himself is sufficient to rescue Melisendra. The scene is acted after the narrative explanation, the two knights rising from their game as the Emperor enters to appropriately stately music and confronts Don Gayferos, striking him with his scepter, before turning away. Left alone, the two knights quarrel and Don Gayferos storms out in anger.

''Scene 2. Melisendra''. "Ahora verán la torre del Alcázar de Zaragoza..." (Now, you see the tower of the castle of Zaragoza"). On a balcony of the tower, probably her prison, we see Melisendra, thinking of Paris and her husband. A Moor approaches stealthily and steals a kiss from her; she speedily cleans her lips and calls for help. King Marsilio witnessed this stolen kiss, and orders the guards to seize the insolent Moor. He is taken through the streets to the town square, where Marsilio's sentence of two hundred blows is carried out.

The boy adds that among the Moors justice is very speedy, not like it is in Christian Spain. Don Quixote objects that the boy is getting off the subject: "Niño, niño, seguid vuestra historia línea recta..." ("Boy, boy: tell your tale straightforwardly"). Master Peter tells the boy to keep to the story, without embellishments. The puppeteer returns to his booth and Don Quixote sits down.

''Scene 3. El suplicio del moro (The Moor's punishment)''. The Moorish soldier is punished: the blows he receives are in time with the music. The Moor falls and is dragged away by the guards.

''Scene 4. Los Pirineos (The Pyrenees)''. Don Gayferos is riding to rescue Melisendra, going over a mountain (the Pyrenees). He is wrapped in a long cloak and carries a hunting-horn, which he blows at moments specified in the score. The curtain closes again and the boy describes how Melisendra, at the window of her tower, talks to Gayferos, thinking he is a passing stranger. She quotes an old poem (romance), asking him to ask in Paris for Don Gayferos. The knight reveals his identity, at which Melisendra is very happy, climbing down from the balcony. Don Gayferos picks her up and sets her behind him on his horse, setting off for Paris.

''Scene 5. La fuga (The escape)''. Part of the action of Scene 4 is repeated. Melisendra, in the tower. beckons to Gayferos to approach, climbs down from the tower, and rides behind him on his horse. They ride off trotting, and the curtain closes. The boy wishes them well, as true lovers, and a safe arrival home, with happy lives, which he hopes are as long as Nestor's. Master Peter shows his face to tell the boy to keep to the point. "Llaneza, muchacho, no te encumbres, que toda afectación es mala" (Simplicity, boy, don't elaborate too much; affectation is bad). The curtain now opens for the last time, showing King Marsilio running to get his guards, who depart immediately.

''Scene 6. La persecución (The pursuit)''. Marsilio sounds the alarm, and the city is in turmoil, with bells ringing from all the minarets. Don Quixote jumps up to object that this is ridiculous ("Eso no, que es un gran disparate": "That's not right, it's a big mistake"); the Moors did not have bells, only drums and shawms. Master Peter shows his head again to tell Don Quixote not to be such a stickler for accuracy, since plays are frequently full of errors and are successful all the same. Don Quixote agrees.

The Moorish soldiers pursue the "Catholic lovers". The boy expresses the fear that they will catch the pair, and will bring them back tied to the tail of their own horse (dragged). At this point Don Quixote cannot restrain himself, and addresses the puppets: "Alto, malnacida canalla, non les sigáis ni persigáis, si no, conmigo sois en batalla" ("Stop, low-born rabble, don't follow them, or you'll have to fight with me").

Finale. Continuing to insult the Moors, in archaic, chivalric language, the furious Don Quijote uses his sword to destroy the puppets. He declares that here is proof of the usefulness of knights-errant: "¡Quisiera yo tener aquí delante aquellos que no creen de cuanto provecho sean los caballeros andantes!": "I wish those who say knights-errant are of no use could see this!". He also declares his dedication to his imaginary lady, Dulcinea ("señora de mi alma, día de mi noche, gloria de mis penas, norte de mis caminos": figuratively "owner of my soul, light in my darkness, glory of my suffering, my destination"). Master Peter can only complain in despair at the havoc wrought on his puppets.

Musical analysis
The musical idiom abandons the Andalusian taste of Falla's earlier work in favor of medieval and Renaissance sources; for his narrator, Falla adapted the sung public proclamations, or "pregones", of the old Spanish villages. Falla borrowed themes from the Baroque guitarist Gaspar Sanz, the 16th-century organist and theorist Francisco Salinas, and Spanish folk traditions (but Castilian folk music, not Andalusian), in addition to his own evocative inventions. His scoring, for a small orchestra featuring the then-unfamiliar sound of the harpsichord, was lean, pungent, neo-classical in a highly personal and original way, and pointedly virtuosic. The output is a completely original piece of music, apparently simple, but of a great richness. The match of music and text is one of the greatest achievements of the work: as never before Spanish language finds here its genuine musical expression.

From Celebrating Don Quixote by Joseph Horowitz:
 * The work is surprisingly theatrical. It bristles with wit and limitless panache. It percolates with such subtle details as Don Quixote's long and ungainly legs – the only part of him which remains visible once Master Peter's production begins; "during the show," Falla specifies, "they will remain in view, sometimes at rest, sometimes crossed over one another." Beyond praise is Falla's juxtaposition of his two puppet casts and the pacing that propels their climactic convergence when Don Quixote rises to intervene for Melisandra (at which point the other puppet spectators crane their necks to better observe the action). This peak, cunningly scaled, recedes to an equally precise denouement: Don Quixote's closing salutation to knights errant (culled from a different chapter of the novel), with which he finally and fully pre-empts center stage.

Publication
The score was published in London in 1924. The edition by J. & W. Chester presented the text in English and French (in translations by John Brande Trend and Georges Jean-Aubry respectively) as well as Spanish. Trend's version was based on Thomas Skelton's 17th century translation of Cervantes.

Dedication: "Très respectueusement dédié a Madame la Princesse Edmond de Polignac"

Recordings
Audio
 * 1950: Ataúlfo Argenta, cond.; E. D. Bovi (baritone), E. de la Vara (tenor), Lola Rodríguez de Aragón (sop.). Orq. Nacional de España. Columbia RG 16109-12 (1 disc 78 rpm)
 * 1953: F. Charles Adler, cond.; Otto Wiener (baritone), Waldemar Kmentt (tenor), Ilona Steingruber (sop.). Wiener Staatsopernorchester. SPA-Records 43 (1 LP)
 * 1953: Eduard Toldrà, cond.; Manuel Ausensi (baritone), Gaetano Renon (tenor), Lola Rodríguez de Aragón (sop.). Orc. National de la Radiodiffusion Française (Théatre Champs Elysées). Angel 35089 (2 LP); Columbia FXC 217 (1 LP); Fonit 303 (1 LP); EMI 569 235-2 (4 CD, 1996)
 * 1954: Ernesto Halffter, cond.; Chano González (bass), Francisco Navarro (tenor), Blanca Seoane (sop.). Orc. Théatre Champs Elysées. Ducretet 255 C 070 (1 LP); MCA Classics MCAD 10481 (1 CD)
 * 1958: Ataúlfo Argenta, cond. Raimundo Torres (bass), Carlos Munguía (tenor), Julita Bermejo (sop.). Orquesta Nacional de España. Decca TWS SXL 2260 (1 LP). RCA, London
 * 1961: Pedro de Freitas Branco, cond.; Renato Cesari (baritone), Pedro Lavirgen (tenor), Teresa Tourné (sop.). Orq. de Conciertos de Madrid. Erato; Grande Musique d'Espagne GME 221 (1 CD)
 * 1966: Ernesto Halffter, cond.; Pedro Farrés (bass), José María Higuero (tenor), Isabel Penagos (sop.). Orq. Radiotelevisión Español. Live from Teatro de la Zarzuela performance. Almaviva (1996) (1 CD)
 * 1967 (p)1972: Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos, cond.; (baritone), Julian Molina (tenor), Fermin Gomara (boy treble). Orquesta Filarmonía de España. Columbia CS8556 (1LP)
 * 1973: Odón Alonso, cond.; Pedro Farrés (baritone), Julio Julián (tenor), Isabel Penagos (sop.). Orq. alla Scala of Milan. Zafiro (1 LP)
 * 1977: Charles Dutoit, cond.; Manuel Bermúdez (bar.), Tomás Cabrera (ten.), Ana Higueras-Aragón (sop.). Instrumental Ensemble. Erato STU 70713
 * 1980: Simon Rattle, cond.; Peter Knapp (baritone), Alexander Oliver (tenor), Jennifer Smith (sop.). London Sinfonietta. Argo ZRG 921 (1 LP); Decca 433 908-2 (2 CD)
 * 1990: Josep Pons, cond.; Iñaki Fresán (baritone); Joan Cabero (tenor), Joan Martín (boy treble). Orq. de Cambra del Teatre Lliure (Barcelona). Harmonia Mundi HMC 905213 (1 CD)
 * 1991: Robert Ziegler, cond.; Matthew Best (bar.), Adrian Thompson (ten.), Samuel Linay (treble).Matrix Ensemble. ASV CDDCA 758 (1 CD)
 * 1994: Eduardo Mata, cond.; William Alvarado (bar.), Miguel Cortez (ten.), Lourdes Ambriz (sop.). Solistas de México. Dorian DOR 90214 (1 CD)
 * 1997: Diego Dini-Ciacci, cond.; Ismael Pons-Tena (baritone), Jordi Galofré (tenor), Natacha Valladares (soprano). I Cameristi del Teatro alla Scala (Milan). Naxos 8.553499 (1 CD)
 * 2007: Jean-François Heisser, cond. Jérôme Correas (baritone), Éric Huchet (tenor), Chantal Perraud (sop.). Orch. Poitou-Charentes. Mirare

Video

On 29 May 1938, the BBC presented a black-and-white television movie in English translation, using Thomas Shelton's version of Don Quixote adapted by J. B. Trend. Frederick Sharpe sang the role of Don Quixote, Jane Connard The Boy, and Perry Jones Master Peter. Hyam Greenbaum conducted the BBC Television Orchestra. Puppets were from Hogarth Puppets.

A filmed version in color of the opera is included on the DVD release Nights in the Gardens of Spain. and is available on YouTube. This is the same film version which was telecast by A&E in 1992, and features Justino Díaz as Don Quixote, Xavier Cabero as the Boy, and Joan Cabero (Xavier's father) as Maese Pedro, with Charles Dutoit conducting the Montreal Symphony Orchestra. In this production, the human characters are portrayed by real actors, while the puppets remain puppets. The production has been released without English subtitles, unlike the original telecast and the VHS edition. In the DVD edition, an English translation of the opera is included in the accompanying booklet. A LaserDisc version was released in 1990 both in Spain, on the PAL system, and in the U.S., on the NTSC system. The audio is also available on CD.

title: El retablo de maese Pedro


text:
Talk:Brittny Gastineau

name
her name is Brittny Gastineau

source: http://www.celebopedia.com/brittny-gastineau/

- Stoph 03:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I changed the redirect back from the improper (Brittany Gastineau) to this. I'm sorry, I had incorrectly sourced info. jglc | t | c 03:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is her age again?
The article comes up under 1982 births yet the body states, 'Brittny Gastineau is an American born socialite, model and actress. Born on November 11, 1983...'

Which is it? Shaybear 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the ratings information, because it was all wrong. The show actually averaged a .2 (roughly 200,000 viewers), and opened the season with a .4 (roughly 400,000 viewers). source: http://www.mediavillage.com/jmr/2005/07/25/jmr-07-25-05/

Why its origin has been removed. Her italian, Russian and French descent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.179.84.129 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brüno
People keep deleting the information about her in Brüno. It is true and it is sourced. All removals of this information are vandalism. Spidey104 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true -- she's listed as cast on imdb. Please include this appearance in the article, and DO NOT delete it!! 24.143.45.232 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

IT'S trivia and unsourced and should not be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.18.229 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT trivia. It is a legitimate movie. Just because you don't like that she showed a negative side to herself does not mean you should remove it from her article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.238.139 (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I don't like it. Not because it's a unsourced quote from a living person about another living person in a on-off apperance in a movie. No, it's not that at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.191.243 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Oh and the content about her apperance is already mentioned sans the unsourced quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.191.243 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with the edit summary for the last few removals. Focusing on this single quote seems to be giving undue weight to the comment...a comment which she later claimed (truthfully or not) was a joke. What's special about this quote that it requires inclusion? --Onorem♠Dil 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree as above. While the appearance may be notable, the insistance on going into detail about what she said, especially without context, is giving undue weight. In response to what Spidey104 said at the start of this section, removal of this material (or addition, for that matter) is not vandalism in any way, shape, or sort. Due to the IP's persistence in adding this material without discussion, the page is now semi-protected so we can all discuss the matter here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * It is not giving undue weight. It is illuminating her character and showing what she is really like. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Others apparently disagree. Please gain consensus instead of edit-warring over the issue. --Onorem♠Dil 17:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To begin with, welcome to wikipedia, 128.104.truth, I'm glad you've registered an ID here, and hope you stay on the wiki. Good to have you!

 * As for the information on the subject, what's missing are sources showing the notability (and seriousness) of her comments. You say that it's showing "what she is really like," but that's not what wikipedia is here for. An encyclopedia doesn't (and shouldn't) take sides. If her comments had caused a major stir in reliable secondary sources that we could quote, maybe then it would be notable enough for a mention. It's not up to us to judge what's noteworthy, or to show people what the subject of an article is "really like." Dayewalker (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Why does Onorem say I should get consensus? There was consensus to include this information and then other users started the edit war to have it removed. I'm the hero here for trying to maintain what consensus had already established, so stop making me out to be the bad guy. Look at the guy with the rotating IP addresses to find the real bad guy. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Consensus can change over time. Now that we've got more eyes on the page, consensus clearly seems to be against inserting that information. I'm not interested in making anyone the "bad guy" here, so we're just talking about the validity of the information as presented. As I stated above, even leaving aside the issue of whether the statement was a joke, this doesn't seem to be notable. Just because she said it (in some context) doesn't mean it belongs in her wikipedia article. Dayewalker (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I realize consensus can change, but I would argue that this new "consensus" was artificially created by one person using multiple IP addresses. Also, you present no reasoning for why it is not notable. I argue that it is notable because there were a lot of people in that film and not all of them behaved in the same way, so to differentiate between them it is important to state what she did/said. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus exists this is not notable. Just because a case was filed on the BLP board and went nowhere does not invalidate the opinions of other editors. As for notability, please read wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Simply because something exists doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Dozens of people were in Bruno, and Borat, and the Jackass movies, etc. We don't need to fully explain what everyone does in every movie. She was in the movie, that's enough. Dayewalker (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus exists? What, between you and the guy with a rotating IP address? 128.104.truth (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus exists on this talk page, if you'll read the above section. Further, an admin looked at the situation, and locked the page to keep you from edit warring your changes onto the page without consensus (or even trying to gain such). In any case, you still haven't shown how this is notable to a biography of a living person. BLP's are especially well-protected on Wikipedia to prevent people from using them for personal comments and interpretations. If you feel it's notable, please feel free to take this up on a relevant noticeboard, such as WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Consensus does not exist on this talk page! Besides you there is only one person who has argued against this, the guy with the rotating IP address. That guy has also mysteriously disappeared, so how do I know you're not actually one guy instead of two? There is already a discussion on the WP:BLPN started by that guy with the rotating IP address, and he's the one that started the edit war. I'm just trying to maintain the consensus that existed before that ONE person tried to make the consensus go away. So stop making claims with no actual backing. 128.104.truth (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 128.104.truth about what should be included in this article, but it's not worth my valuable time to try to fight with you zealots. --Spidey104 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Just to let everyone know, I've asked for more opinions at the BLP board here . Dayewalker (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You misrepresented the situation. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not misrepresent the situation, you're more than welcome to comment on anything you disagree with. Dayewalker (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll restate my opinion from the BLP noticeboard. You cannot take a comment made in a movie as being representative of Gastineau's opinion without some secondary source to back it up, as we have no idea of the context of the comments. Without any media discussion of the comments they carry undue weight, in that they do not fairly represent a viewpoint published in a reliable source. Finally, as this material is clearly being added to show Gastineau in a negative light, it must be impeccably sourced, which it is not. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 * The context is evident in the movie, so we can understand her comments as true. 128.104.truth (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That is the very definition of original research. This needs a reliable source for context, otherwise it's all speculation. Dayewalker (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * There is a clear consensus that this material does not belong, and if I see it added again prior to an alternate consensus being formed you're going to be blocked. Kevin (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to this discussion and article, and I'd like to think I'm a fairly experienced editor. I have inserted a brief mention of her appearance in the article. Regarding the claim to consensus, I disagree that there is "clear consensus" that the material doesn't belong. The existence of this discussion is pretty strong evidence of that. That the event was notable is a non-issue. The fact that the San Francisco Chronicle and numerous tabloids is certainly evidence of that. I think it is fair to avoid the conclusion that her statement equates to her opinion, but the fact that she made the statement is pretty irrevocable and undeniable and is fair game for inclusion. Reswobslc (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, welcome to the article, Reswobslc. Glad to have you here. On the subject of this quote, however, I still completelely disagree with using it. There is a clear consensus here (and at the previous BLP thread) that the material does not belong. Only two editors have pushed for inclusion, everyone else has had a problem with using a quote from a comedy as her personal opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dayewalker, I will disregard your conclusion that there is "clear consensus here", as the dialogue here already speaks for itself. But I wasn't around for the "BLP thread" - if you could do me a favor of linking to it, I'd be happy to review it.  I actually agree with you that it's crossing a line to represent the statement as her "personal opinion".  But it is factual to say that she said it.  It's also factual that her rebuttal was that she was "joking".  Both are notable and appropriate for the article.  There has got to be a better reason for omitting it beyond the illusory idea that there is a "consensus" not to do so.  Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Links to the BLPN threads are easily found through the BLPN archive - Post #1 and Post #2. As for a "better reason" not to include the content, it's called WP:UNDUE which has been cited above numerous times. There's no reason why this one-off comment in one comedy film is notable except for the fact that it is disparaging to another living person (Jamie Lynn Spears). I suspect that's the only reason it was added to begin with and that's not what Wikipedia articles are for. Further, just because something has a source does not mean it should be included in an encyclopedic article and evidently, the community also believes this to be true. You're free to "disregard" another editor's assessment that a clear consensus already exists, but it clearly does. It appears that only one editor was gunning for this material to be added and other came out to discuss why the content was not appropriate in the given context. At least three other editors disagreed - that's a pretty clear consensus that the content should remain out of the article. If you want to challenge that, I suggest opening an WP:RfC to seek more community input because rehashing the same arguments and attempting to push the content into the article will not work.  Pinkadelica ♣  01:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pink, so what you are saying, is that it was three to two before I got here (and now it's "three to three")? Please see WP:VOTE.  Consensus is not a !vote where the biggest number wins.  Consensus means agreement, not disagreement.  Your description lends understanding to why the event is not notable to you - it appears that you completely did not get the joke (or, perhaps you simply have not seen the film).  The butt of the joke is not Jamie Lynn Spears (and mind you, the description of the event will be just as complete without any mention Ms. Spears name).  Let me explain this one a little.  The butt of the joke is Brittny Gastineau, in that she was fooled into saying something objectionable and distasteful simply by being persuaded that it was the punch line she was supposed to follow.  In other words, she was baited into selling herself out and she bit cheerfully.  It is no less notable than Tiger Woods and his infidelity that have nothing to do with golf, or mentioning in an article about how someone got Punk'd (example).  I am sure you aren't over removing mention of Woods' infidelity from his article to "protect his wife", who is also a living person.  In the absence of a real consensus to completely omit this event, when I reinsert it I will ensure to leave Ms. Spears' name out, which should completely satisfy your concern about it being disparaging to her.  Are there any other issues with merit to consider? Reswobslc (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, of course my statement describes why the event is not notable to me - it's my opinion. That's what a consensus is. A group of editors' opinions that are ideally backed up by Wikipedia policy. In my very humble opinion (and in the opinion of several other editors), the comment is trivial and adding it would result in undue weight on an event that is insignificant in the grand scheme of the subject's career. Further, the comment did impact the subject's notability in any way, shape or form which would again indicate that it is trivial. As for attempting to compare the comment to other events such as Tiger Woods infidelity - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Using other articles and/or events throughout the project as examples to include or remove content is a very weak argument at best and I won't indulge in such discussions. Those sort of points inevitably go nowhere as the arguments are circular and can be proved both ways. As for pointing me to WP:VOTE - I really don't need to read a guideline I read three years ago as I'm fully aware of !votes and the like, but thanks for the link. For the record, I didn't count any votes nor did I say a word about votes or numbers or anything of that nature. I actually read through the previous discussion and determined the consensus that way which is how it should be determined. One person saying the content should be included simply because it's the truth! isn't convincing. Another person saying the content should be included just because it was here to being with and no one challenged it - and then leaving a parting personal attack to fellow editors - isn't convincing either. None of those reason for inclusion is based in any kind of policy or even back up by a valid reason. If you want to consider that vote counting, so be it. As I stated previously, if you don't want to believe that a consensus exists because it doesn't jive with what you want the article to say, open an RfC on the matter to establish a shiny new and crystal clear consensus that everyone can see and believe in. I can guarantee that if you attempt to add the content simply because you want believe there is no current consensus (despite being told by two separate editors that one does exist), the outcome will not be in your favor. I highly suggest you instead pursue the correct avenue of dispute resolution instead of disregarding other editors' opinions.  Pinkadelica ♣  03:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, do you have any suggestions to offer on how it should read? Enough editors have indicated it is notable and should be included, even if just a brief mention.  It appeared in the mainstream print media (not to mention the trash tabloids too) - notability simply isn't at issue here.  A brief mention is not undue weight; your opinion that it's insignificant to her career equates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Keep in mind, I just showed up here today and have never previously interacted with anybody previously involved in this dispute, so my opinion is as "shiny new" as most anyone else's. Reswobslc (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the final time, if you want to reopen the discussion regarding the matter or establish a new consensus, open an RfC. To be frank, I'm not terribly interested in repeating myself numerous times or defending my opinion on this matter. I have stated why I don't feel the content should be included as have others. Linking to various guidelines isn't going to change my mind or prove me wrong. It's my opinion - can't prove it wrong no matter how hard you try. At this point you're the only one attempting to challenge the established consensus, so either seek a new one via RfC or drop the issue. This is the final time I will be commenting on this unless a proper RfC is opened on the matter. Happy editing.  Pinkadelica ♣  04:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have frustrated you, I think I understand. Your words weren't wasted.  Consensus is as clear as the emperor has no clothes.  You WP:DONTLIKEIT, and it's disparaging to Jamie Lynn Spears if her name is included.  Very well then, I will edit accordingly.  Thanks for your input.   Reswobslc (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can keep throwing out WP:IDONTLIKEIT if you want...even though I don't believe that's what anyone has argued. Do you have anything other than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:INTERESTING to counter with? I still have no idea why people think that this is notable. OK, so the gossip page of the chronicle, tabloids, and blogs covered it...who cares? Your version is definitely an improvement, but I still don't think it belongs in the article. I still think it is trivial and adding it would result in undue weight on an event that is insignificant in the grand scheme of the subject's career (to steal Pinkadelica's wording from above). I really have no interest in edit-warring over this. Please consider RFC as suggested above, or bring it back to the BLP noticeboard. --Onorem♠Dil 14:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get bogged down with claims there was no prior consensus, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree with Pinkadelica's summary above, and Onorem. It still seems undue weight to include something that all parties involved admit was a joke. It's extremely trivial. I would suggest, as above, that you take this to an RfC. Dayewalker (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since one of the returning editors above has reverted without returning to the talk page, I've asked for opinions on the BLP page here in hopes of keeping this from turning into a battleground. Dayewalker (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I have removed it as it is a contentious disputed desired addition about a living person, please do not reinsert it without support or consensus here or on the WP:BLPN imo I appears to be excessive and its insertion would give the off the cuff comment undue weight and would assert a general personal opinion on to the subject that could not be individualy cited in clear violation of WP:BLP policy and WP:WEIGHT . Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Gastineau Girls

 * Gastineau has also begun doing promotional assignments for a third season of Gastineau Girls, which has switched from the E! Network to MTV. The shows' first MTV run is slated to premiere in early 2010, and production will end in 2009.

There's no inline source for this so I can't check it easily. But I don't understand how production ends before the premiere. Are they shooting the entire season before they air any of it? If so it would help to put those into chronological order.  Will Beback   talk    23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is wishful thinking more that verifiable fact. I didn't find anything other than forum posts expressing hope for season 3. Kevin (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I'll just delete it. Once sources are found it can be re-added.   Will Beback    talk    06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brittny Gastineau. 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/20051202084034/http://stuffmagazine.com:80/cover_girls/girl.aspx?id=403 to http://www.stuffmagazine.com/cover_girls/girl.aspx?id=403

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) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brittny Gastineau. 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/20100614093051/http://www.maxim.com/stuff/girls-of-stuff/38024/brittny-gastineau.html to http://www.maxim.com/stuff/girls-of-stuff/38024/brittny-gastineau.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070126053141/http://www.freejose.com/lists/maxim/2005/ to http://www.freejose.com/lists/maxim/2005/

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) 12:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brittny Gastineau


text:
Sericite

Sericite is the name given to very fine, ragged grains and aggregates of white (colourless) micas, typically made of muscovite, illite, or paragonite. Sericite is produced by the alteration of orthoclase or plagioclase feldspars in areas that have been subjected to hydrothermal alteration (also see Sericitic alteration) typically associated with copper, tin, or other hydrothermal ore deposits. Sericite also occurs as the fine mica that gives the sheen to phyllite and schistose metamorphic rocks.

The name comes from Latin sericus, meaning "silken" in reference to the location from which silk was first utilized, which in turn refers to the silky sheen of rocks with abundant sericite.

title: Sericite


text:
Stanwell Park railway station

Stanwell Park railway station is located on the South Coast railway line in New South Wales, Australia. It serves the seaside village of Stanwell Park opening on 23 December 1901, relocating to its current location on 10 October 1920.

Buildings and railway history
The original rail line followed what is now Lawrence Hargrave Drive, curving around the southern headland and through Stanwell Park. The station opened on 14 March 1890 at its original site opposite Station Street under the footbridge. To the north the line followed Chellow Dene Avenue to the Otford Tunnel through Bald Hill.

A platform was provided on the eastern side on 24 April 1890, and was moved to the western side to make room for a crossing loop which opened on 23 December 1901. Station buildings were added on 4 June 1903 and a signal box on 17 May 1909. A second platform was provided on 13 July 1909, and the footbridge over the station installed on 9 October 1911.

To the north a steep grade of 1 in 40 faced northbound trains almost all the way to Otford. This combined with the 1550 m long Otford Tunnel meant that many trains were divided at Stanwell Park and hauled through to Otford or Waterfall in stages. Refuge sidings were provided for northbound trains at Stanwell Park from 17 December 1912 so that the rear portion of divided trains no longer had to be left on the main line.

In 1920, the original single line was replaced with a double track deviation. The deviation avoided the Otford Tunnel and steep grades by tracing around the Stanwell Park amphitheatre at a higher level, and the present station was constructed. The new line featured an eight span, 145 m long, 42 m high curved viaduct over Stanwell Creek south of the station which required over three million bricks in its construction.

Platforms and services
Stanwell Park has two side platforms and is serviced by NSW TrainLink South Coast line services travelling between Waterfall and Port Kembla. Some peak hour and late night services operate to Sydney Central, Bondi Junction and Kiama.

Transport links
Premier Charters operates two bus routes via Stanwell Park station, under contract to Transport for NSW:
 * 2: to Wollongong via Thirroul
 * 15: to Helensburgh station

title: Stanwell Park railway station


text:
Talk:Khải Định

Untitled
doesn't sound all that neutral ... "In a manner fitting for a traitor, that is cowardly," etc.
 * Unfortunately many of these articles seem to have been devastated by Vietnamese monarchists (or maybe just one) with an agenda to make the royals look as good as possible and the communists as bad as possible. Everyking 03:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rumors
There have been rumors that Bao Dai wasn't his child at all, but an adopted child. Khai Dinh was rumored to be either impotent or homosexual, as he wore flamboyant clothes, preferred to be in the company of men more than women, and when he watches hat tuong, he made the men take the role of women. DHN (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

啟定 or 啓定 ?
On the coins it was 啓定

Pyvanet (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Minh Mang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khải Định. 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/20041022204738/http://www.vietscape.com/travel/hue/khaidinh.html to http://www.vietscape.com/travel/hue/khaidinh.html

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) 20:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Better/ more sources for LGBT categories etc
Given he's listed under three LGBT categories, and the only given source is a (now-dead but viewable archived) news site of unclear quality, shouldn't there be more added? Per the evident facts, he was married, and had a son who succeeded him. There must be books, scholarly research, etc, regarding whether or not he was homosexual, surely? If so, they want including, if not, maybe the categorization is precipitate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.200.175 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Khải Định


text:
Category:Royalty

For more information, see Royal family.

title: Category:Royalty


text:
Total Request

Total Request was a music video request show on MTV in the United States.

Background
The show debuted in April 1998 as part of a renewed effort by MTV to increase the amount of music programming aired on the network. The show originally debuted as a 30-minute program aired as part of a weeknight programming block that also included Artist's Cut, Say What?, and Rockumentary Remix. Carson Daly served as the host. By May, the show had been expanded to an hour, replacing Rockumentary Remix. Each episode consisted of counting down the day's top music video requests received by MTV via phone, email, and a camera set up in Times Square. While the show was based at MTV's studio in Times Square, it was also filmed in Seaside Heights, New Jersey as part of MTV's Summer Share from May through August 1998. The show last aired in September 1998 and was then merged with MTV Live to form Total Request Live.

title: Total Request


text:
Lotus tenuis

Lotus tenuis is a flowering plant of the pea family Fabaceae, native to western and southern Europe and southwest Asia. Some botanists treat it as a subspecies of Lotus corniculatus, as L. corniculatus subsp. tenuifolius.

Its tolerance of salt and poor soil make this plant useful for marginal conditions. It has become naturalised in many other locations, including the Pampas of Argentina, and parts of the United States.

Common names include narrowleaf trefoil, narrow-leaved bird's-foot-trefoil, slender trefoil, creeping trefoil, or prostrate trefoil.

title: Lotus tenuis


text:
Talk:SALT I

It seems that there should be a similar section "The Larger Historical Context" in this article as the SALT_II article. Or perhaps move it here, since this one was first.

--Vsb 03:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:SALT I


text:
GE Security

GE Security was a division of General Electric's GE Enterprise Solutions. It was acquired by UTC on March 1, 2010, and became part of UTC Fire & Security. GE Security's division provides intrusion alarm systems, integrated security systems, fire systems, access control, video surveillance, explosives and illegal drug detection, key control/lockbox, fiber optic transmission, machine guarding, and more. GE Security was based in Bradenton, Florida.

History
GE Security was mainly aimed at businesses, organizations, and governments, but products from GE Security were available for both residents and small businesses. GE Security included different families of detection systems, web-based surveillance systems, and aviation security products, such as handheld and walk-thru explosive/narcotics portals. Much of General Electric's fire systems came from the acquisition of Edwards Systems Technology from SPX Corporation in May 2005.

On November 12, 2009, GE Security announced it had signed a definitive agreement with United Technologies Corporation for UTC to acquire GE's Security business for $1.82 billion. The transaction was approved by the boards of both companies, and the sale closed on March 1, 2010. After UTC's 2020 merger with Raytheon, GE Security's remains are a part of Carrier Global.

GE warned consumers of ongoing scams related to GE Security home security products in which telemarketers and door-to-door salespeople falsely say they work for GE Security and attempt to sell home security systems even though GE has not manufactured, sold, or marketed any home security equipment since 2016.

GE was one of the twelve companies listed in the Dow Jones Index, newly launched in 1896, and the only one of those twelve to remain in the index through 2018. On June 26, 2018, GE retired from the Dow Jones Index after 111 years of membership.

title: GE Security