text:
User talk:RvBFan

Image:Highlander.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Highlander.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.

Please refer to Wiki Image tags for copy right information on pictures you've uploaded. Every image uploaded to the site needs a copyright tag.-- ZeWrestler 12:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Duncan.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Duncan.gif. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. Please refer to Wiki Image tags for copy right information on pictures you've uploaded. Every image uploaded to the site needs a copyright tag.-- ZeWrestler 12:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Duncan.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Duncan.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Highlander.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Highlander.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Duncan.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Duncan.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Highlander film Connor MacLeod.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Highlander film Connor MacLeod.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. 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) 03:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:RvBFan


text: User talk:81.59.35.119

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

title: User talk:81.59.35.119


text:
Styrofoam (musician)

Styrofoam (Arne Van Petegem, born 4 November 1973  ) is a Belgian one man glitch electronica project (indietronic) on the independent record label Morr Music.

title: Styrofoam (musician)


text:
Talk:Zetor

This article was nominated for deletion on June 1, 2005, and the consensus was to keep. For discussion, see Votes for deletion/Zetor. sjorford →•← 12:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ownership trivia removed from article
I removed the following, which was added by an anonymous user: "The first of the Zetor 105-40 series was sold in Co. Cavan in the Rep. of Ireland which was purchased by Luke Reilly in 1998. A hell of a tractor!!!" I have no idea whether it's true or not. Un focused  16:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

On improving the article
Greetings. I have encountered a couple of Zetor tractors, and had a brief discussion with someone who has had some experience using them. The tractors I encountered are about 40 years old, and I understand there's a few of that vintage still around and still going strong. The Zetor that I paid a bit of attention to had clearly done some work over the years, but it looks and sounds like it has a bit more life in it.

Zetor tractors do indeed appear to be a bit legendary amongst those who have used them. I didn't recognise the name, and the little manual I perused didn't seem to mention country of origin. But it all made sense when one chap I spoke with told me they are or were Czechoslovak made. I once had the privilege of using a Tos horizontal boring machine, which was also Czech made. It was my favourite machine tool. So some good stuff appears to have been engineered in that country, and I was not surprised to learn of the Zetor's origins.

Methinks I should learn something of these machines, and a good way to do that is to see if I can help improve the article. I have yet to read the article through, but I daresay the content is accurate enough, and I have no intention or desire to make wholesale changes. My first editing task will be to attempt to find references that can help get the article to a point where removal of the advertisement box is justified. I do have an good track record at finding reliable information, so that should help. How much effort this will take and how successful I'll be is completely unknown to me, but one has to start somewhere. Wotnow (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be patient and don't panic
After creating this section, I will add an infobox atop the article, with a link to this section in the edit summary field. The reason for adding the infobox is that the first one indicates the primary problem, while the one I've added is the nearest thing I could find to indicate that work is about to be undertaken and to encourage patience.

To editors, I ask for patience. I have been away from Wikipedia for a bit, while making very large changes to my life and lifestyle. This is ongoing, so how much time I get to spend on Wikipedia is anyone's guess. I can guarantee persistence. I just can't guarantee time-frames.

To fans, and/or marketers of this product, don't panic, and please don't go into edit-warring mode (also other editors please). This is a good product, which is a key reason I'm interested in it, along with the fact that I realise I'm about to learn some interesting history. However, the article cannot of course be an advertisement, or read like one, and that's where I hope to contribute. While I don't have a massive number of edits to my name, my track record is on the whole good. I seek to contribute; imperfect as I am I try not to be a troublemaker; I seek verifiable, reliable and independent sources, and I'm reasonably good at referencing in a variety of styles (long before I encountered Wikipedia too) with the primary goal of the original source being locatable from the reference alone.

So let's plug away and see how we go. Wotnow (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on sources
Brief update. As evidenced from edits to date, my primary focus is on adding resources to work from. I have also started reviewing earlier edits. Sometimes earlier edits of articles contain useful sources which have become lost, and/or useful information and/or wording. I am re-adding a link to Zetorworld.com, which looks like it will be useful for referencing. While my preference is for books and journal articles etc, some useful-looking resources are not freely available on the internet, and I am unlikely to locate copies in the short term. Websites can of course provide good referencing material, if they contain stable information that is clearly traceable to establishable facts.

Regarding actual re-writing, my preferred method is to try to leave existing text intact, and (a) add references at appropriate places, and (b) simply reword sentences and phrases to read neutrally, while leaving the efforts of previous editors intact. Wotnow (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 * The main problem I have at the moment with the Zetorworld link is how to get a link to the sub-sections of the history link (I'm sure there's a way but I know not how). This is because when using for referencing, the goal is that the reader is taken straight to the relevant sub-section, and not a main page from which he or she has to navigate. If someone can help here, I'd be grateful. You could either place any such links directly into the links section or here, and I'll format and place them into the links section. There they would sit until utilised in referencing, or if not utilised, would remain as further reading links. Wotnow (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Adding notes section. Some information which appears accurate but for which I can't find references will be relocated to here. This keeps the information visible while allowing for someone, be it me or someone else, to find or provide a verifiable reference. Wotnow (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Expanding lead section
I have located a book on tractors which I spotted during my online resource searches but for which there was no preview. I will use this to expand the lead section. There will of course be some overlap of information in the lead section with information in the main article. That is to be expected for a few reasons.

Firstly, the lead or introductory section of any written work typically summarises or synopses the main work. That is, it gives an overview. Secondly, in this current exercise, I need to find a way to rework material while doing justice to the efforts of previous editors. Ultimately this will mean the article reads differently, but will contain substantively the factual information content provided by other editors. It will just not read like promotional article or like material from an annual report - mind you such an annual report would be a useful resource, providing verifiable referencing material. Expansion of the lead section will enable me to do this, utilising in the first instance material from the book.

The book itself is on tractors in general, meaning that the Zetor article is a brief overview of Zetor tractors up to roughly the period when the book was published (obviously there's a lag between preparing a book and the publishing date). So it serves my current purposes well. Having added material from the book, I will of course then see if I can find online references for the same material, although the book will remain a valid reference. Wotnow (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
I've removed 90% of this article as it was copy and pasted from http://www.zetor.co.uk/the-zetor-history. For information on why this is not acceptable, please see the policy page on Copyright Violations. Thanks Spigot  Map  01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Zetor did not have one of the first hydraulic systems
I removed the sentence "It produced one of the first hydraulic systems, known as the Zetormatic.", as it was Harry Ferguson that invented three-point hitch and depth control. Zetor copied it when Ferguson's patents expired, as did virtually all other manufacturers. Zetor called their vesion "Zetormatic", Bolinder-Munktell called their version "Terra Trol", etc., but they where all basically copies of the Ferguson system. --Sigmundg (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zetor. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140202123055/http://www.zetor.com/file/78994/Annual-report-of-ZETOR-TRACTORS-a-s_2012.pdf to http://www.zetor.com/file/78994/Annual-report-of-ZETOR-TRACTORS-a-s_2012.pdf

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) 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zetor


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of North American birds

List of North American birds
I've been aware of this list for some time and believe it meets the requirements. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Support Object - this is an excellent example of the list genre, but it needs references (presumably the "External links" will suffice, though, although something on paper would be good too). -- ALoan (Talk) 08:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have changes External links to References. Although online, these seem very reliable. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine - a paper reference or two would also be good, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As the primary contributor to the list, I can verify that these two online lists were my references. Paper editions of both exist, if you really need paper. Support btw. Dsmdgold 13:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Object, Comment, downgraded to comment, as I don't feel comfortable going all the way to object while we're still discussing this. I realize the following reason isn't from the criteria, but considering it's only a few days old, that should be okay. This isn't really a strong objection, but I don't think any list that's made up of (by my guess) as many as a quarter red links can qualify. After all, the main purposeof a list (since there's not much text) is to point readers to articles, right? Look at the list of popes and list of British monarchs for good axamples of fully blue-linked lists. --Dmcdevit 00:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A good question arises. I do not feel that a qualifying list has to have no red links, but what is an acceptable minimum. Let's take this to the talk page. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I am quite impressed how many links in that list are not red - someone has been very busy. As I said on the talk, I think a list (or any article) containing redlinks encourages readers to become editors and add something. All the headings, and the explanatory text, are blue-linked:  do we have to object because there is no article on the White-tailed Tropicbird or Le Conte's Thrasher? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally I think a good list is even more useful in fields where there are lot of articles missing. - User:Docu
 * I agree heartily here, especially if the list is accurate and the elements are properly named. I agree, I am particularly impressed that so many have an article at all. I hope most are more than one sentence. As for a vote, I'll stay neutral, but I think a list that has a bit more information on each element, like the Cultural references list and the list of Pope's is much more something worthy of being featured, than just one split into categories and with scientific names. - Taxman Talk 04:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I've got no problem at all with the number of red links. OpenToppedBus 15:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - it would be nice to see some more pictures toward the bottom of the page... they just seem to stop about half way down. Any good warbler pictures out there?  The red links to me aren't a problem.  But don't shoot too low on list quality - people are going to be skeptical about "featured lists", so the lists that get featured ought to be simply awesome.  This one is on its way, but I think more pictures would improve it. --Spangineer ∞ 11:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple more pictures further down the page. OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a couple yesterday. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC) And a couple more today. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Support --Spangineer ∞ 17:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Object - Great list but, (1) both references listed give "file not found" messages, and (2) I think there should be more pictures. Comment: the red links are fine. Paul August ☎ 12:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the links. More photos have been added since yesterday and more will. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I changed the second reference to warn that it was a PDF download. Looking forward to more pictures. Perhaps a couple could be in the toc section as well. Paul August ☎ 13:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added 13 more images, including one by the toc. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:51, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Ok, I still think the toc could use a couple more images. But great work Filiocht! Paul August ☎ 20:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I think redlinks are an issue, but this list doesn't have all that many.  If the entire list, or close to it, was redlinks, I'd object. Tuf-Kat 22:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of popes/archive1

List of popes
Another classic. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A fine example. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Very thorough. Dsmdgold 23:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll support now- This is an exceptional list, but I wonder about its activity. It's still getting something like 20-25 edits a week, even major formatting ones, like the latest edit (as of this writing). We might want to wait for it to calm down a bit, right? --Dmcdevit 05:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine that much of the recent activity on this list has something to do with a turn of events in the real world. Only one edit so far this week may indicate that it is settling down. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Exemplary. --Theo (Talk) 13:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Paul August ☎ 12:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Spangineer ∞ 23:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The English is not up to standard, particularly the Notes on numbering section. Mark1 07:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. What does "shown in the popes tombs in Vatican" mean? It should clarify that it is not referring to the illustration and should be more specific. --Theo (Talk) 10:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support and object, Theo? :) I'll look at the prose when I have time over the next day or so. Please don't remove as a candidate until I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I wriggle away from valid accusations of ineptitude by claiming that I would support if my objection was addressed? I thought not. I would fix the list text myself if I could only work out what was meant. --Theo  (Talk) 16:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed up the English in the Notes section, and removed the troublesome sentence about PP. I don't see how it is relevant to anything (the engraving at the top of the page doesn't have PP on it, as far as I can tell), so I just took it out.  If someone disagrees with that decision, feel free to put it back in, but explain what it means with a bit more clarity please =).  I'm not sure if that edit sufficiently addresses your objections, Theo and Markalexander.  --Spangineer ∞ 17:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also copyedited and then sorted out the unfortunate edit conflict with Spangineer - I hope our joint version meets the objections. I took the "PP." explanation to Pope where I think it belongs (it already mentioned "PP." but did not explain it). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. No, really! I really mean it this time! --Theo (Talk) 18:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cultural references in The Cantos/archive1

List of cultural references in The Cantos
An offshoot of my work on The Cantos, this is the reference work I wish I'd had 35 years ago. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow. Is it comprehensive? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I may add a few minor things over the weeks and months ahead, but it's enough for the average reader. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll take your word for it. Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Likewise wow. Dsmdgold 17:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support anyway, but I just wanted to bring up another policy question. I know over at FAC, a 50kb article (which this is) would have a hard time getting passed just because of its size. What do we think? --Dmcdevit 18:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that lists were an exception from the 32k rule when it used to be applied more strictly, but I can't see it now at Article size. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd think they should be, because there's no way to reduce the size of something that's juat a list without compromising comprehensiveness (unless excess images can be removed). So since comprehensiveness should always trump length, it's no problem. Should this go in What is a featured list? --Dmcdevit 19:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just on a point of interest, the Cantos article, which is an FA, is 82k. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, now that I have taken out the self-reference in the first sentence. OpenToppedBus 10:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, superb. — mark ✎ 14:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, but why are some references noted like "Canto ###: context" and others like "Context - Canto ###"? --Spangineer ∞ 14:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've clarified my consistency concerns on the article's talk page. --Spangineer ∞ 16:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Because some of the items in the list are referenced in different cantos for different reasons. Generally, Context - Canto### is a general context followed by cantos in which the person/place/thing is named. Canto ###:COntext is used for a specific quotation from or aspect of the person/place/thing is cited in the canto or cantos indicated. The Cantos is a complex work and the list somewhat reflects this reality, I'm afraid. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize that it's complex, but I'm not convinced that it's impossible to create a mostly consistent format. Perhaps there will need to be an exception here and there, but right now I feel like the list is in disarray with respect to formatting. I suggested one possibility on the talk page; what do you think about it?  --Spangineer ∞ 10:47, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it contains some misunderstanding of what the list is doing, though I could easily be wrong. The quotes are not "famous quotes"; they are quotes that occur in specific cantos (the poem is partly collage). Many of them appear in a number of cantos, forming a kind of leitmotiv, frequently echoing other phrases used or created by Pound (see, for example, all the references to the philosophy of light) (the collage is equally fugal). What you see as disarray, I view as a means of reflecting how a reader would need to access the information while reading the poem, offering paths through the key strands in the fugue. At the same time, it provides context for many of the figures, especially the less well-known ones and/or the ones we have no articles for. If you (and others) really feel there is an unsurmountable problem, I'll withdraw the nomination for a rethink. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I understood that the quotes come from the cantos themselves, so that's why I thought it would make sense to first reference all of the Cantos that the character appears in, and then more specifically, if there's anything important at all (quote, topic, whatever) that needs a reference to a specific canto, mention it and put the canto in parenthesis after it. Also, just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that any actual content be added or removed, I just want to move around what is already there.  If one character has less information, that's fine, just put it in where it should go according to the standard and leave it.  Additionally, while I do see this as a problem that should be addressed, and I admit that I still do not understand why it cannot easily be done (perhaps because I have never read The Cantos), I continue supporting the nomination because of the quality of its content. I continue to hope however that this can be worked out in the future, perhaps after this attains featured status. --Spangineer ∞ 17:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC) To clarify, when I say "character" I mean character/place/philosophy/whatever is being alphabetized on the list.  Also, I don't mean to limit any specific topic/quote to a "specific canto" if it is mentioned in more than one; just reference all of them. --Spangineer ∞ 18:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if there is an issue with this for more people and if this nomination should be withdrawn. Most of the discussion is on Talk:List of cultural references in The Cantos. I can't see what the problem is, but then I wouldn't, would I? More input would be good. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Support, great list! Someone should create a similar list for Dante's The Divine Comedy. Paul August ☎ 11:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a terrific idea, and I may well start on it soon. I have the old Temple Classics bilingual edition at home, which would be a pretty good reference to start with. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. My gut feeling is that this list (or anything like it for this work) is unique to Wikipedia, which is a definite plus as far as I'm concerned. Courtland 01:56, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
 * You know, I hadn't really thought of it that way, but I think you may be right. There are a few really good reference books, but almost nothing comprehensive online. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:15, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I didn't think this featured list thing was worth much till I looked at this list. This is truly impressive, and a great compliment and even enhancement to The Cantos. - Taxman Talk
 * Support(the list, not the work) Superm401 | Talk 02:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This must be a paragon of literary lists. --Theo (Talk) 09:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Boston University/to do

 * History: What happened between the 1800s and the present?
 * Administration: Silber from the seventies through 2000, Presidential search problems, selection of Brown
 * Academics: Right now all we have is a list of colleges and schools
 * Facilities: GSU, Marsh Chapel
 * Updated Guest Policy
 * We need to cite sources too; was the book in "further reading" used as a source? We could use that...

title: Talk:Boston University/to do


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whie Malreaux

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge with List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whie Malreaux
Edit: Appears this character can be SW canon after all - some carelessness on my part. However, I vote we merge this with List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters, as I don't think it warrants its own article. Nufy8 12:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We need no vote for that. Merge boldly. -- BD2412 talk 13:16, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Kongo

Kongo may refer to:

Kongo culture

 * Kingdom of Kongo
 * Kongo cosmogram
 * Kongo language or Kikongo, one of the Bantu languages
 * Kongo languages
 * Kongo people
 * Kongo religion

Places

 * Kongo, Ghana, a town in Ghana
 * Kongo Central, formerly Bas-Congo, a province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * M'banza-Kongo, the capital of Angola's northwestern Zaire Province
 * Kongo University, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

People

 * Cheick Kongo, French heavyweight mixed martial artist and kickboxer
 * Cyril Kongo (also known as Kongo), (born 1969), French painter and graffiti artist
 * Kongo Kong (born 1979), American professional wrestler
 * Shekie Kongo (born 1949), Malawian boxer

Arts and entertainment

 * Kongo (film), a 1932 American pre-Code film directed by William J. Cowen

title: Kongo