text: Talk:Robin Quivers

title: Talk:Robin Quivers


text:
User:Lawrence Hall

I am Lawrence. I'm 17 and I live in Essex in England. My favourite musician is Squarepusher and I support Nottingham Forest. I can't think of anything else to say, I only edit a few articles, but it's quality, not quantity, innit!

Articles I have created

 * Bodger and Badger - Such a wicked show.
 * 18 Wheeler - A jolly good, underrated band.

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

title: User:Lawrence Hall


text:
User:Brenton

American university student, fan of Nirvana and The Adventures of Pete & Pete, former university paper copy editor.

title: User:Brenton


text:
Stanisław Targosz

General Stanisław Targosz (23 July 1948, in Jaroszów, Poland – 4 August 2013, in Grodzisk Mazowiecki, Poland) was a Polish general who was the commanding officer of the Polish Air Force.

On 15 August 2000, Polish Army Day, he was promoted by president Aleksander Kwaśniewski, to the rank of generał brygady (brigadier general) and soon afterwards Targosz was transferred to the NATO CAOC-1 command in Denmark.

On 18 November 2003, Targosz was transferred back to Warsaw, where he assumed the post of deputy chief of Air Operations Centre and, since 8 March 2004, the commander of that centre. On 15 August of that year he was promoted to the rank of generał dywizji (Major General). Finally, on 3 April 2005, he was promoted to the rank of Generał broni (three-star general) and became the commanding officer of the entire Polish Air Force until 19 April 2007. He was succeeded by General Andrzej Błasik.

title: Stanisław Targosz


text:
User talk:Rxasgomez

Hi, Welcome aboard. I noticed the 2 images uploaded by you - Image:Sneha.jpg and Image:Impn.jpg. The first one is a copyright violation and hence will be deleted. If the second one is a photograph personally taken by you (i.e., you own the copyright) and if you are willing release it for free use under GFDL, please add a GFDL tag to the image. See also the discussion in Talk:Tamil people. Welcome once again.

-- 04:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC) P.S. The following links may interest you.

Images
You have added a lake image to the India page. It does not have any licence information and could possibly be copyrighted. If you are the owner of the image please contact me here ; I'll guide you on the image tags. If it is not a free image or if you fil to respond, it will be deleted. Regards, = Nichalp  ( Talk )= 20:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I would suggest you read the following article on using preview to see how your changes will look before saving a page. Fitful 23:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi you could take away the pictures

Gomez

Chennai images
I noticed you uploaded a lot of images for the Chennai article. Please tag the images according to their copyright. If you got them from a website, please ensure that the website allows free use of its images. If you took them yourself, tag them with. Thanks. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs July 7, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

en:Image:I-shiva3.jpg
Please add a licence and a categorisation Scriberius 22:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Impn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Impn.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .)  If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. –Mysid ( talk ) 07:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Nadaswaram-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nadaswaram-2.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .)  If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --Michael 04:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ariyaloor.jpg listed for deletion
An image that you uploaded, Image:Ariyaloor.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion because it lacks source and license information, and it is not used in any articles. Please go there to voice your opinion (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image Tagging Image:Paravas.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Paravas.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Matha.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Matha.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. BRossow 03:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bangalore Edits
Hi Rxasgomez,

Thank you for contributing to the Bangalore article. However, some of the statistics quoted by you have been removed because they failed, per WP:V. It is important that statistics have not only sources, but also verifiable sources. The BBC website and the other website do not discuss how they obtained the percentages of Kannada/Tamil speakers in the country. Any statistics quoted could not possibly trump the stats that were previously included in the article, which were issued by the Government of Karnataka during the 2001 census, and therefore they have been deleted. The statistics on the number of Urdu and Malayalam speakers did not have any citations and so were automatically deteted. However, please continue to contribute to the Bangalore article to help improve its overall quality. As you may be aware, the article is currently undergoing a WP:Peer review and upon completion, will be nominated for a Featured Article status. Thanks AreJay 00:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply, however, I am not new to Wikipedia, as you assert — I have been editing articles here since August 2004. Gomez, I fail to comprehend your point of view that would supersede a statistic quoted from the BBC over one that was supplied by the Government of Karnataka during its 2001 census. I would assume that since Bangalore is part of Karnataka, that the government would know what it was talking about when it issued those figures. Those familiar with my edits will know that they are highly unbiased. I do not appreciate your labelling me a rascist or you vieled threat of "reporting the matter to Administration". Please review WP:CIVIL and refrain from making personal attacks. I am, however, willing to assume good faith and let the matter pass, believing that you wrote what you wrote in an attempt to contribute constructively to the Bangalore article effort. AreJay 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Gomez, first of all, I never said 39% - I quoted 38%. It might be prudent to review the article before making a statement otherwise. Second, the onus really is on you to prove factually the extent of your statistics, which you have not done. As far as Kannadigas, there are thousands of websites (such as the ones you have provided) that quote different statistics regarding the figures and it is hard to determine which is authentic and which isn't. I have seen numbers ranging from 17% to over 56% for the number of Kannadigas. Therefore I base my figures on those quoted by the Government of Karnataka. I invite you to review statistics quoted by the Government of Karnataka (The Deputy Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah) which specifies that Kannadiga population is 38.7%. Please review that here. Also please review the Indian Institute of Journalism New Media, Bangalore, citing a population of 37% Kannadigas. You can find that here (pdf). The point that I am trying to make is, is the BBC likely to better know the population proportion in Bangalore or would the Government of Karnataka and a journalism institution based in Bangalore have a better idea?? Your second source is from an Op-ed in a newspaper which states the population is "less than 30% by many counts". What counts? Who was counting the proportion? Was it the author? Do I take his word over that of the Government??

 * Based on this, there will be no change to the proportion stated in the article. Also, for all this talk of sources, where have you backed up your sources for the number of Malayalam speakers and Urdu spreakers? You quoted 18% and 10%? Where are your sources? AreJay 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Before I started contributing to this article? I don't know what you are talking about. I have been contributing to the Bangalore article before you were even a member in Wikipedia (your first edit was on 5/26/2005). Major portions of this article were written, re-written and QA'd by me. Please see the history of the Bangalore article for a better picture. This article is being pushed for FAC today after having been reviewed by myself and other contributors, many of whom are administrators, and none of them seem to have a problem with my statistics. The statistics quoted in the article stand as they are. I do not wish to continue this discussion as you are clearly not willing to review evidence presented. AreJay 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, The Statistics that I had coted as 18% and 10% are as before you had started to contributing to this article. Check the history before you had come into the picture. I will see the development for a week and then will submit the history and reference verificationquerry before the Administration. You can place your opinion and get their verdict(For you information the consequence will be to termination of ones contribution all together).I like your spirit of Bangalore projection as Hi tech hub and as being a Bangalorean Tamil, I think I need to choose a hard option like this. Please go throught your edits once for all and if you still see truth in it we can place the problem to the administrator jurries.

Hi Gomez. I'm a Bangalore Tamilian myself and have been here long enough to know the policies. Assume good faith on AreJay's edits as he's simply using official sources for statistics. That is the policy. If you have a more reputable source, please feel free to produce them. The policy of citing reputable sources is needed to avoid baseless assertions like this. Hope you get my point. All the best for your contributions. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Tanjore.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tanjore.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SteinbDJ 18:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Velankani.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Velankani.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 00:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging
These images also require source and/or license information.

 * Image:Tuticorin.jpg
 * Image:Sneha.jpg

Maybe have a look at for some background on image usage, copyright and tagging on Wikipedia
 * Image_use_policy
 * Image_copyright_tag
 * Copyright_FAQ

Regards, Dethomas 02:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Shrine altar.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Shrine altar.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DopefishJustin 21:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Mahindra_city.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Mahindra_city.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - KNM Talk 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rxasgomez


text:
Lee Stine

Lee Elbert Stine (November 17, 1913 – May 6, 2005) was an American right-handed pitcher in Major League Baseball who played for the Chicago White Sox (1934–35), Cincinnati Reds (1936) and New York Yankees (1938).

Stine was born in Stillwater, Oklahoma. He signed with the San Francisco Seals of the Pacific Coast League when he was just 16. Eventually, he debuted in the major leagues with the Chicago White Sox in 1934. In a four-season career, he posted a 3–8 record with 39 strikeouts and a 5.09 ERA in 143$1⁄3$ innings.

Stine is best known for his historic role in pitching Lou Gehrig's 14th grand slam in 1934. After two years in Chicago, he played for the Reds in 1936, compiling a career high 121$2⁄3$ innings with a 3–8 record and a 5.03 ERA. Injured a year later, he returned in 1938, pitching briefly for the Yankees.

Plagued by tendinitis and injuries, Stine returned to California to play for the Los Angeles Angels of the PCL in 1940. By 1943 he had joined the Navy during World War II and after discharge settled in Long Beach. He later worked as a parimutuel clerk.

Stine died in Hemet, California, due to complications from a stroke, at age 91.

title: Lee Stine


text:
Talk:Voluntary childlessness

The pet rooster
Is the image of a woman talking to her pet rooster really the best image to represent voluntary childlessness? Fephisto (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I have read, some people prefer pets to children. Pick another picture if you want. Nerd271 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Absence of criticism section
Should there be a criticism section? I say this in relation to the article being voluntary childlessness and thus a choice. Perhaps criticism in relation to ideological aspects like antinatalism, a view that does have note of criticism in its article. Zilch-nada (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Moral reason
There is no mention of the most important reason to be child free,IMO, that it is immoral to impose a life of struggles and pain onto another being. 50.206.145.234 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Celebrities
I'm not sure if we need a large section on celebrities who pursue this lifestyle. Nerd271 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * 100% agree. Why is this wiki entry so long? 18.10.77.197 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and what's up with all the really strange, unnecessary pictures? It's like it's purposefully edited to make this lifestyle look as kooky and crazy as possible.  Fephisto (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Page Changes
My main goal was to try to be bold and clean up some of the accretion here. The article goes on for quite a while and it's difficult to read. Importantly, a lot of the lists had items that were listed multiple times and were very redundant, so I tried to recategorize them and bundle them together a bit more. Finally, a lot of the pictures seemed really haphazard or looked so weird that I wonder whether they were an attempt to discredit the page, so I tried to limit it to one per section.

I think the statistics section could really be condensed into general view instead of a "country by country" or "region by region" view, as there's a lot of unnecessary overlap with the "Aging of..." articles.

As for the third section, it has a lot of overlap with the first section, but I don't quite know how to handle it. It might be best to try to merge the first and third sections into one somehow. For example, the "Selfish" issue/ethical reasons/religion seems like parts of a good lede for the "Philosophical" reasons section. Something like that maybe?

Fephisto (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Please keep working on this article. I could use some attention. Nerd271 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I copied the page over into my sandbox. If you want to help rewrite this article, please go there. Nerd271 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you have not noticed, and I rewrote this page. We both agreed that the previous (major) version was much worse because it was more like an outline than an article. We did it on my sand box. Like everyone else, you are welcome to improve this page. Drive-by templating is ill-advised. Nerd271 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you have not noticed, and I rewrote this page. We both agreed that the previous (major) version was much worse because it was more like an outline than an article. We did it on my sand box. Like everyone else, you are welcome to improve this page. Drive-by templating is ill-advised. Nerd271 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV
This article has a fair amount of weasel wording problems, but also a lot of issue with overall tone. The photo captions certainly are an issue; they should just describe the image, not use it to say "Oh look and that proves...". Similarly, a good deal of the rest of this article seems to be advocating this position, rather than simply describing the fact that it is and has historically been controversial, why, and presenting referenced facts about it so that the reader can learn about it and make up their own mind. While I personally agree that it's perfectly fine for someone to decide not to have children, the article shouldn't be pushing that, or any, position. It should present actual facts (environmental impact and so on), of course, but in a neutral way, and if "some say" something, it needs to be specified who "some" is and why their thoughts are of particular significance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) We can rephrase the captions to better match the body text, if necessary. We are talking about opinions here. So it is perfectly fine to use opinion or commentary articles. This is like the Reception section for an article about a movie. Nerd271 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Public opinion polls do not generally state the identities of the interviewees for obvious reasons. And since this is still a controversial topic, of course certain things are going to be vague. Moreover, we have both sections explaining why some want to be childfree and why some criticize this lifestyle choice. I don't see a problem here, except that more information could be added. Nerd271 (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "who" need not be an individual. If it's results from an opinion poll, it can be specified as (for an example, this is not of course actually the case) "In a 2015 Gallup poll, 60.3% of respondents answered 'Yes' to the question...". Then the "who" is, well, 60.3% of respondents to that poll; we don't need or want to individually list all their names, and of course couldn't anyway. But that's then specified in some way, rather than a nebulous "Some...". Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has previously been addressed. Saying, "According to this poll,..." again and again is repetitive and tiring. So another editor,, decided to change it to more or less where it is now. You are free to bring some of that back. I suppose switching between the two styles for the sake of variety is a good thing. Vigorous writing should not bore the reader to death. This does not mean that we should pursue sensationalism, of course. But there is nothing in this article that could be categorized as such. Nerd271 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the style could be varied, but "some" without further qualification isn't workable at all, even once. (And I know for me, reading and seeing that is a record scratch, not good style—"Wait, who is this 'Some' who say this, and why do I care what they think?".) But I'm sure there could be some different ways found to word it, so that every "Some" is made specific and contextualized without being unduly repetitive. The weasel words aren't the only issue, though; there's a fair few overall problems in tone. I'll try to collect some of those as well The photo captions were one example, those need trimmed down to just describing the image. A photo caption shouldn't generally be very long. But in the end, if the choice is "boring, repetitive, and neutral" or "exciting, varied, and non-neutral", well, we've got to choose the former. I don't think those are the only two choices, but currently it's more toward the latter, and we've always got to be very careful when trying to write "vigorously" that we don't, in that vigor, cross over the line of POV. Neutrality is more important than "vigor". Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Vigor, conciseness, clarity, and neutrality are all important. We should not write in a formulaic, chore-like, or robot-like manner. (What's the point of having human editors, then?) Since we are presenting people's varying viewpoints here, this means that at times, things might seem subjective, even if we tried our best to remain neutral. This is a lifestyle choice, after all. The top two sections present two classes of opposing opinions. (Again, you are free to present more viewpoints in the second section if you think this is too biased in favor of the childfree/voluntarily childless.) As for the captions, I suspect you may not have seen that many from the news or scientific publications. Some of them amount to a short paragraph. As long as they are relevant to the article and support the body text, and as long as there is enough space, there is no problem here. Nerd271 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As to captions, that may be true for news and science publications, as they have no policies against original research or synthesis. For articles, though, extrapolating anything about the image beyond what it directly depicts is those things, so captions can't do that. I'm definitely seeing a lot of other problems too, though. I've done a spot check of sources (a comprehensive check would be longer, so there certainly may be more issues than these), and found at least a few: Citation of the claim In line with policies of family-friendliness, governments and employers typically offer support for parents, even though people without children might have to care for invalid, disabled, or elderly dependents, commitments that entail significant financial and emotional costs is sourced to, which does not so far as I can tell in any way discuss the issues of adult caregiving in connection or contrast with childlessness, so that's SYNTH. The source would have to explicitly make a connection between them in order for the article to. This claim, The "life" aspect of the work-life balance is often taken to mean parenting. Non-parents, including the childfree, are thus assumed to be career-focused and willing to work extra time, which is not necessarily the case. What they do with their free time is not considered as important., is stated as fact, but is sourced to , an editorial (note the "Commentary" tag.) Editorials can be used as a source for what their author's opinion is, but not for factual statements. There's also this source, , which is used for several claims—but while being published by the New York Free Press probably makes it reasonably good reliability-wise, I don't know if the book actually supports those claims or not, because book cites need page numbers, not just a citation to the book as a whole. And that's on a spot check of a couple paragraphs—so if there's more sourcing issues like those, there's a lot to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the style could be varied, but "some" without further qualification isn't workable at all, even once. (And I know for me, reading and seeing that is a record scratch, not good style—"Wait, who is this 'Some' who say this, and why do I care what they think?".) But I'm sure there could be some different ways found to word it, so that every "Some" is made specific and contextualized without being unduly repetitive. The weasel words aren't the only issue, though; there's a fair few overall problems in tone. I'll try to collect some of those as well The photo captions were one example, those need trimmed down to just describing the image. A photo caption shouldn't generally be very long. But in the end, if the choice is "boring, repetitive, and neutral" or "exciting, varied, and non-neutral", well, we've got to choose the former. I don't think those are the only two choices, but currently it's more toward the latter, and we've always got to be very careful when trying to write "vigorously" that we don't, in that vigor, cross over the line of POV. Neutrality is more important than "vigor". Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Vigor, conciseness, clarity, and neutrality are all important. We should not write in a formulaic, chore-like, or robot-like manner. (What's the point of having human editors, then?) Since we are presenting people's varying viewpoints here, this means that at times, things might seem subjective, even if we tried our best to remain neutral. This is a lifestyle choice, after all. The top two sections present two classes of opposing opinions. (Again, you are free to present more viewpoints in the second section if you think this is too biased in favor of the childfree/voluntarily childless.) As for the captions, I suspect you may not have seen that many from the news or scientific publications. Some of them amount to a short paragraph. As long as they are relevant to the article and support the body text, and as long as there is enough space, there is no problem here. Nerd271 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As to captions, that may be true for news and science publications, as they have no policies against original research or synthesis. For articles, though, extrapolating anything about the image beyond what it directly depicts is those things, so captions can't do that. I'm definitely seeing a lot of other problems too, though. I've done a spot check of sources (a comprehensive check would be longer, so there certainly may be more issues than these), and found at least a few: Citation of the claim In line with policies of family-friendliness, governments and employers typically offer support for parents, even though people without children might have to care for invalid, disabled, or elderly dependents, commitments that entail significant financial and emotional costs is sourced to, which does not so far as I can tell in any way discuss the issues of adult caregiving in connection or contrast with childlessness, so that's SYNTH. The source would have to explicitly make a connection between them in order for the article to. This claim, The "life" aspect of the work-life balance is often taken to mean parenting. Non-parents, including the childfree, are thus assumed to be career-focused and willing to work extra time, which is not necessarily the case. What they do with their free time is not considered as important., is stated as fact, but is sourced to , an editorial (note the "Commentary" tag.) Editorials can be used as a source for what their author's opinion is, but not for factual statements. There's also this source, , which is used for several claims—but while being published by the New York Free Press probably makes it reasonably good reliability-wise, I don't know if the book actually supports those claims or not, because book cites need page numbers, not just a citation to the book as a whole. And that's on a spot check of a couple paragraphs—so if there's more sourcing issues like those, there's a lot to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Vigor, conciseness, clarity, and neutrality are all important. We should not write in a formulaic, chore-like, or robot-like manner. (What's the point of having human editors, then?) Since we are presenting people's varying viewpoints here, this means that at times, things might seem subjective, even if we tried our best to remain neutral. This is a lifestyle choice, after all. The top two sections present two classes of opposing opinions. (Again, you are free to present more viewpoints in the second section if you think this is too biased in favor of the childfree/voluntarily childless.) As for the captions, I suspect you may not have seen that many from the news or scientific publications. Some of them amount to a short paragraph. As long as they are relevant to the article and support the body text, and as long as there is enough space, there is no problem here. Nerd271 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As to captions, that may be true for news and science publications, as they have no policies against original research or synthesis. For articles, though, extrapolating anything about the image beyond what it directly depicts is those things, so captions can't do that. I'm definitely seeing a lot of other problems too, though. I've done a spot check of sources (a comprehensive check would be longer, so there certainly may be more issues than these), and found at least a few: Citation of the claim In line with policies of family-friendliness, governments and employers typically offer support for parents, even though people without children might have to care for invalid, disabled, or elderly dependents, commitments that entail significant financial and emotional costs is sourced to, which does not so far as I can tell in any way discuss the issues of adult caregiving in connection or contrast with childlessness, so that's SYNTH. The source would have to explicitly make a connection between them in order for the article to. This claim, The "life" aspect of the work-life balance is often taken to mean parenting. Non-parents, including the childfree, are thus assumed to be career-focused and willing to work extra time, which is not necessarily the case. What they do with their free time is not considered as important., is stated as fact, but is sourced to , an editorial (note the "Commentary" tag.) Editorials can be used as a source for what their author's opinion is, but not for factual statements. There's also this source, , which is used for several claims—but while being published by the New York Free Press probably makes it reasonably good reliability-wise, I don't know if the book actually supports those claims or not, because book cites need page numbers, not just a citation to the book as a whole. And that's on a spot check of a couple paragraphs—so if there's more sourcing issues like those, there's a lot to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As to captions, that may be true for news and science publications, as they have no policies against original research or synthesis. For articles, though, extrapolating anything about the image beyond what it directly depicts is those things, so captions can't do that. I'm definitely seeing a lot of other problems too, though. I've done a spot check of sources (a comprehensive check would be longer, so there certainly may be more issues than these), and found at least a few: Citation of the claim In line with policies of family-friendliness, governments and employers typically offer support for parents, even though people without children might have to care for invalid, disabled, or elderly dependents, commitments that entail significant financial and emotional costs is sourced to, which does not so far as I can tell in any way discuss the issues of adult caregiving in connection or contrast with childlessness, so that's SYNTH. The source would have to explicitly make a connection between them in order for the article to. This claim, The "life" aspect of the work-life balance is often taken to mean parenting. Non-parents, including the childfree, are thus assumed to be career-focused and willing to work extra time, which is not necessarily the case. What they do with their free time is not considered as important., is stated as fact, but is sourced to , an editorial (note the "Commentary" tag.) Editorials can be used as a source for what their author's opinion is, but not for factual statements. There's also this source, , which is used for several claims—but while being published by the New York Free Press probably makes it reasonably good reliability-wise, I don't know if the book actually supports those claims or not, because book cites need page numbers, not just a citation to the book as a whole. And that's on a spot check of a couple paragraphs—so if there's more sourcing issues like those, there's a lot to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is fine to use opinion articles as a source of opinions, which means to attribute the opinion to its holder and present it as such. But we cannot use opinion articles and present what they say as fact, "in Wikipedia's voice" so to speak. So, we can certainly use an opinion article, and present it as "John Doe, in the Example Times, stated that Foo is A and Bar is B, because C and D", and that's fine to source from an editorial, because we make it clear that it's Doe's opinion. But we cannot use that to source "Foo is A and Bar is B, because C and D". Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that this was what we originally had to work with when we slowly started picking away at this. So, before chastising us too much, please take a look at where it's come from.
 * I still don't quote like quite how the Statistics and Research section pans out either, given how it has the same issue of bullet-point-schizophrenia only the bullet points are hidden as different 'sections' that are frequently just a single sentence stating a poll for that region. In other words, that section still needs to be written out like an article.
 * The photo captions certainly are an issue; they should just describe the image, not use it to say "Oh look and that proves...".
 * Oh man, check out that link I posted above. I'd be in favor of getting rid of all the images minus the graphs, fwiw.  It's boring and clinical (the sleeping person with tie-dye dreams is fun, and don't get me started on the absolute riot that a Schopenhauer painting is), but this IS an encyclopedia.
 * and if "some say" something, it needs to be specified who "some" is and why their thoughts are of particular significance.
 * Could you provide a list of such statements in the article? Your guys' discussion is a little too abstract for me, so it'd help to have some concrete examples we can look at here.  At the very least, then we could go through and correct them.
 * I've done a spot check of sources (a comprehensive check would be longer, so there certainly may be more issues than these), and found at least a few:
 * It took all my attention just to get rid of the repetition and Nerd271 helped changed it from the bullet point list monstrosity you see in that link to an actual article. I think I complained somewhere else (on your talk page, Nerd271?) that I didn't even get to the point of doublechecking all the sources.  It's just too much work for me to bother with, and I'm sorry to say, but just between the two of you, I'm getting rather sick of reading and re-reading this article.  It took all I had to just get rid of all the repeated sentences.  I agree there are issues with the sources.  Why don't you go through them more thoroughly for us?
 * Fephisto (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly not my intent to "chastise" anyone. Article improvement is an iterative process, and certainly what's here now is better than that massive bullet list you linked to before. I do think we probably could do with something like the regional stuff the old version had, though; it's very unlikely that either the experience or prevalence of "voluntary childlessness" is much similar between the UK and Pakistan, so it probably would be good to have some idea of the differences that apply in that sense, rather than a lot of blanket statements that make it seem like this is essentially a globally similar phenomenon. As to "some", for a few examples: Some have argued that the conscientiousness of childfree environmentalists... (who has argued that?), The decision not to have children has been derided as "unnatural"... (who derided it that way?), Some women have argued that revealing their decision to not have children was akin to coming out as gay (who are some examples of those women?), and so on from there. It's not just "some", but weasel wording in general—"it's said", "some believe", "it is believed", "it is held", and so on. By whom? All of that is weasel wording.As to checking the sources, I'll try to get through those as I can, may make a separate section for that, but just checking a few certainly showed issues with it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and really, I don't think taking out all the photos is the answer. The one of the woman beating away the stork with an umbrella really is, I think, encyclopedic, in that it is historic and shows that this is not some new phenomenon. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * and, planned to start this sooner, but had some rather unexpected things come up. I think that's sorted, and I think Fephisto is correct that a comprehensive analysis of sources would be a very good starting point. It would be rather large to put onto this talk page, so I've started it up at Talk:Voluntary childlessness/Source analysis; would like to get your thoughts if anything else would be useful to add to the table. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Voluntary childlessness


text:
User talk:Duckecho/Archive01

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 May 2005 and 26 May 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Duckecho 04:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm.. Maybe he’s trying to say something.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, he's saying, "look at me, look at me." Sadly, when anyone does look at you they see a pathetic poseur pretending to be a player. Don't you have to clean your room or something? Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That time, it was filed on time, not late, but the court did not abide by court rules, which added several days on for postal submissions.

 * Sorry. The docket says "filed 1 day late." Was that your first time using the mail? Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No. I have mailed stuff by US Postal mail many times. I know what the docket said. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Apparently not. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The other time, when I was 15 days late, I really was late, but remember -this was an original jurisdiction case, and even if I were late (which I think was the only time in my life I was late in a court filing), it is of no import: "Original jurisdiction" filing is allowed any time that a deprivation in liberty is alleged, which I was certainly doing, because Terri was still detained in contravention to the laws on hospice limitations to terminally ill. So, the court probably said to itself: "Hmm... the boy has a point: If we dismiss him, he can simply re-file, and it would be "timely," because Theresa is indeed illegally detained; so, we'd better continue his case." In any case, the court actually did continue my case from late 2003 until mid 2005, which is discussed briefly below. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I really would like to know what color the sun is on the planet where you live. Time that passes while one's case is pending does not constitute it being continued. In any event, the multiple denials and strikes occured over a much shorter time period than you allege. We're not even to mid 2005 yet, for crying out loud. You should go back to the official docket and review the time table. All your speculation as to what the court may have thought or said to itself is worthless. They said all they had to say when the declined to accept your improperly filed motion, declined to accept your untimely filed motion, and denied a rehearing on their decision. They never actually addressed your motion. They may not even have read it. However, in your fantasy world, you can have ice cream for every meal and all the kids will like you. Have a ball. Those who can read will look at the docket and see what really happened. Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Listen here, Duck, I know the rules of the court, but since you don't, I won't go too hard on you. Take a look at this quote: "Additional Time After Service by Mail. If a party, court reporter, or clerk is required or permitted to do an act within some prescribed time after service of a document, and the document is served by mail, 5 days shall be added to the prescribed period." That quote Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.420(d), which governs the computation of time. In plain English, it means that I get several more days to be on time if sending by mail. In this case, I recall that I sent it on time, and that the mail got there BEFORE the five day grace period had ended, but the blasted court decided to try and find a violation when there really wasn't one. If they can't win by hook, they'll try to win by crook, if you know what I mean. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * They're all against you, aren't they? Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Quack! --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's not forget that both the governor and I lost our initial rounds in court, and when the dust settled, we both stood on equal ground (or maybe he was a tad higher, being "the governor," who got a hearing), but we both lost unanimously (I lost 1-0, with the clerk being the only "vote," and he lost 7-0 with the court voting), and we both went into overtime, seeking something to break the tie, in the friendly rivalry that existed among those on our side. Now, in a tie-breaker, no one cares what happened before -we both lost unanimously -a tie. So, BOTH of us asked for a rehearing, and who do you think did better? I was voted down 4-3, and the court called my rehearing motion a reinstatement motion, but it is the same thing. Jeb was voted down 7-0, and no one came closer to winning for Terri than did I --but it was theoretically possible. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * For example, someone could have been granted a rehearing (which I don't think happened) -and THEN lost. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * For example, someone could have lost 5-4 in the US Supreme Court (which would be a loss of only 55.56% vs. 44.44% of the vote, better than my 57.143% vs. 42.857%) --the US supreme court has nine members, not seven, changing the ratios, and a 44% loss would’ve been better than a 43% loss that I encountered. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * For example, some one on the "save Terri" side could’ve actually won. No one did. I came the closest. The route traveled is of no import; the fact that I achieved a better result than the Governor is a measure of my success. By the way, if we were to accept your hypothesis that I was merely a legend in my own mind, Duck, then why did the court no dismiss me 7-0? Awaiting an answer, but I won't get one. I don't check my page much, so go see my full contact data, which, by the way in on both my WIKI page AND at the bottom of ALL the official court briefs I filed. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You are too clueless for words. Your motion in the Florida Supreme Court was never even accepted for consideration. You missed two filing deadlines (one in defiance of the court's order) which led the court to decline to even accept your motion. Bush's was heard and argued (and to add insult to injury, your motion to file an amicus brief in his case was denied, too—another loss). Do you not see the difference? Sure, both of you filed for a rehearing: Bush, to re-argue the case that the court heard, you to get the court to hear your motion in the first place. Bush lost (the vote doesn't matter—he lost), and the court didn't re-hear his case. You lost (again, the vote doesn't matter—you lost), and the court didn't accept your motion at all. Never even heard it. Didn't rule on it. There is utterly no equivalency in your cases. And frankly, the fact that the court heard arguments in Bush's case and didn't even accept yours means he came way closer to denying Terri's wishes than you. Duckecho 21:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Gordon, just know that everyone but you sees a simple windmill and someone wearing tinfoil clothing riding a donkey. Your insistence on casting yourself as a knight in shining armor fighting the evil dragon doesn't change the truth. usually, by the time kids reach 8 or 10 years old, they learn that they cannot simply wish for something to be true to make it true. FuelWagon 23:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, If my case were such a "loser," then why wasn't my rehearing motion promptly denied? (If my case were so stupid, it would've been immediately denied, and NOT lingered in court from late 2003 until mid 2005!) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Would it have anything to do with your untimely filings and dilatory waste of the court's time? In any event, as I said above; check your calendar. You were directed to properly file your motion by 18 March 2004. You didn't file until April. I'd say that's when the clock started. Your motion was dismissed in late June. That's pretty prompt in court time. Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If you can't rebut the point raised in the rhetorical question, then just make up stuff, like this gem: "Your motion was dismissed in late June. That's pretty prompt in court time." Let's look at the real court dates: Searching for my case, SC03-2420, we find THIS little "detail:" Petition docketed on "11/24/2003," but Petition Dismissed on "06/22/2004," which, as I count it, is almost seven months. Then, we find my petition for rehearing on "07/08/2004," which was really a "MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, CONCURRENT WITH MOTION FOR REHEARING." That motion was not dismissed until "02/23/2005," which was a whopping seven months and 15 days later! Now, you say my case is not notable -or words to that effect. However, if it were this stupid and lame, then:

 * a) My initial petition would've been dismissed IMMEDIATELY. (It wasn't; it took 7 months almost.)
 * b) My rehearing motion would've been IMMEDIATELY tossed. (Many cases are tossed real fast; The court doesn't play!)
 * and ... c)It would've been shot down by a unanimous 7-0 vote. (It was narrowly defeated, 4-3m as we all know, or did you lose the link I gave before?)

 * ...but d) This was not the case -in a,b, or c above, and since you don't rebut these facts of record, then "d," you don't support your argument, and it falls by default (even if it were right). Lose I did, but bad my case wasn't. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Spin it however you want. The court did not accept your motion for consideration. Period. Doesn't matter how long they took to determine that they wouldn't. Doesn't matter what the vote margin was. Your motion never even made it to the inner chamber. Jeb's did. He lost. You lost, but he got farther than you did. As if that counted for something. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Doesn't matter how long they took to determine that they wouldn't. Doesn't matter what the vote margin was." Well, according to your logic, if it doesn't matter how long it takes -or the margin of victory/defeat, then we are ALL losers: After all, we ALL will die, right? And the "margin of victory" (how close one came to immorality) doesn't really matter right? We might take 10 years --or 100 years to pass on, but we all die, so even Jeb is a loser by this standard, last I checked. So, why then would he be mentioned. "Quack." Before you ask for a standard, be careful: You just might get that for which you asked! --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * We're not even at mid 2005 yet and your case was sent to the record center in early May, well before mid 2005. Your request for reinstatement was denied in February—early 2005. The only actual filing of yours that the court admitted was stricken in March, also early 2005. Looks to me like your entire case (once properly, if untimely, filed) took up no more than ten months of the court's time. Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Basic Math 101 might help here: From 11/24/2003 (the beginning) to 02/23/2005 (final dismissal) exactly one year, three months, but even 10 months would have been long for such a lame case, if it were lame, eh? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I see you've backed off that mid 2005 BS. You can paint it however you want about woulda, shoulda, coulda. It doesn't matter. You lost your petition for a rehearing on a motion that the court never even accepted for consideration. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * One other tidbit: If my case were such a loser, that is, not notable, as you might call it, then why was I not defeated by a 7-0 margin? (If it were so stupid, it would've been defeated 7-0, not 4-3). Just thought I might ask a few probing questions, to which you probably have no answers, eh? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I said it before and I'll say it again, but you won't get it. Vote spread doesn't have any relavence to the merits of a case. 4-3, 7-0—doesn't matter. It's a loss. And here's something else to try and get your arms around. I never said your case was a loser. The court never said your case was a loser, either. The court never even accepted your case (the motion for habeus corpus) for review (they did look at your motion for reinstatement—that was your only case). What I did say was that you were a loser at court. You lost. You didn't win. You are bereft of victory. Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

See above: If your logic holds, we are ALL losers. Does your logic hold? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If I implied that you had said my case was a loser, I didn't mean to quote any one person directly, but I was merely inferring the general consensus of my detractors. (Some people think I'm a hero, as I've found by getting phone calls and emails from perfect strangers.) My detractors in general -well, detracted, and I simply chose to paraphrase the general complaint as I saw it. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, we're down to the private-emails-and-phone-calls-support-me method of debate. You lose. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. Why would I want to send a private email to understand the posts on the board; I can read fairly well. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Gordon, you are nearing 40 years of age. You need to start coming to terms with some realities. One of them is that you are not a lawyer. Filing motions in court does not make you a lawyer. Even just understanding the legal system (which it is clear you do not) does not make you a lawyer. Pretending that you have enjoyed success by not losing as bad as you could have is something that most people start growing out of around puberty. What's holding you up? Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You simply make the naked claim that there is no difference between a 7-0 loss and a 4-3 loss, but offer no proof. Well, I'lll offer proof you are wrong: The difference is I got THREE more justices to agree I was right on the same point of rehearing than GOV BUSH. Now, since your only rebuttal to that has been that Jeb got listened to in court, I will point out that this alone would make his case "more notable" than mine, but it didn't stop there, and you offered not rebuttal of the "tie breaker" of the rehearing action, and your argument falls. I'll take a page out of your play book and distract and evade: What in the world does "duck echo" mean? Aren't you human? What color is the sun on your planet? OK, you get the picture. My point is not whether or not my case was stupid or valid, but its noteworthiness. You see, the governor lost worse than did I, and therefore, since in WIKI rules, fame doesn't matter ("An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous." from vanity page), then you may only compare non-fame things, and I did better than Bush, so my "notability," or whatever you want to call it, should be higher. Period. It has nothing to do with my life goals. I will address them in their time, but your job, I guess, is to refrain from cheating the WIKI reader and turn out an informative product. Period. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You keep quoting vanity page as if that has anything to do with the reason no one is permitting you to post your vanity links on the article. I suggest you go read the article on vanity page. I'm going to keep hammering on this until you get it: you were not on the same point of rehearing that Bush was. His case was heard and dismissed. His 7-0 loss was on the petition for rehearing the case that had already been heard. Your case never even got heard. I don't understand what your comprehension problem is. The honors program at FSU must have diminished markedly since my brother went there. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So? He lost, thus, by your logic, it would all be equal: You kept hammering in the point that I lost, no matter what the margin, ...so, let's apply it to Bush & Co.: HE lost, by whatever margin. so, by your logic, he is not notable: He lost. Yet you don't object to mention of Jeb Bush. ''What's wrong? Logic not working?'' So what if he were heard in court? That's not the point of the article. Terri Schiavo's father NEVER filed a court paper; he got a lawyer to do it for him --and he lost on top of that! But you don't object to mentioning Robt Schindler. Logic not working today? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

While there may be sympathizers to your POV, you are not in the majority; sit tight and chill.

Duck, I answer your concerns at this diff, which would link to:  if the page is not modified by the time you click on it. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Scatology, et al
Hi, Duckecho. Thanks for your message. As you'll see, I've added another message to the Terri Schiavo talk page, concerning the treatment of NCdave. You think I'm a little quick to rise to his defence, but in fact, I was around more at an earlier stage, and I have almost constantly found that the atmosphere was hostile towards anyone who seemed to lean towards the Schindler side. Tropix, for example, arrived on 9 April, and made some calm, rational contributions (in my opinion). I would guess that Tropix is pro-life, although he never said so. He seemed to understand the meaning of NPOV. He never inserted personal commentary about Michael being abusive, or Greer being wrong. He tried to give more mention to testimony from doctors who disputed the PVS diagnosis, for example. He was not rude; he did not engage in edit wars. (I'm assuming that Tropix is a "he", but I don't actually know.) He was abused, and ridiculed. I only discovered last night, looking through archives, etc. that FuelWagon made five edits to Tropix's user page, accusing him of being a sockpuppet (first vandalism), or a suspected sockpuppet (the other four vandalisms). The evidence and  seemed to be simply that his edits showed considerable Wikipedian skill for an alleged newcomer. Placing a sockpuppet image on his user page seems spiteful and childish, and in violation of the Please do not bite the newcomers policy. I do not think it would have happened if his edits had been more on the side of Michael Schiavo. Tropix has now disappeared, and I don't blame him. I felt like disappearing myself. I have also received a certain amount of abuse, though it hasn't been too bad.

With regard to NCdave, his method of editing is very different from Tropix's and mine. It seems pointless to keep on inserting the POV tag, knowing that it will be reverted within minutes. But I can sympathize because I do believe that the neutrality is disputed. I can name at least five registered editors who would agree - but some of them have left, possibly in frustration or disgust. I can sympathize because I believe he has been treated rudely and unfairly. Whether you agree with his POV or not, it seems certain that he has tried to discuss the issues on the talk page, and has been scorned, abused, and ridiculed. Many of the points he makes are ignored. (I admit that his messages can be very long!)

I disagree that he has vandalized. The Vandalism article clearly states that NPOV violations are not vandalism. He has certainly engaged in edit wars, but I'm sure that could happen to any of the other editors who currently enjoy a respected status among Terri Schiavo Wikipedia editors if 98% of fellow editors were pro-life Christians who started a "revert on sight" policy.

Another accusation against NCdave which I believe to be unfair is the accusation that he tried to change the official Wikiquette policy to match his own behaviour. His edits (made between 20 March and 6 April) can be seen here. I see no evidence that he was trying to alter the policy. He claims that there was an ambiguity, as "right and wrong" can refer to morality or to truth. The article said that the talk pages were not a place to discuss what was right or wrong. He clarified what he saw as an ambiguity, adding that issues of what was true or false could be discussed. I have a degree in linguistics, and I fully agree that there was an ambiguity. My experience of Wikipedia tells me that his attempted edits are in accordance with what is expected at a talk page. (Not whether or not Terri should have had the tube removed, but whether or not she received any therapy after 1992, or whether or not Dr Hammesfahr was validly nominated for a Nobel Prize. In other words, facts, not moral judgments.)  The way he was reverted - one edit summary said, "Any further edits by NCDave should also be reverted" - seems also to be contrary to the Please do not bite the newcomers policy.

So, all I'd say is that the atmosphere at the Terri Schiavo Talk Page is not always very friendly towards pro-life newcomers, even those who don't start edit wars. I'm happy to say that there are exceptions though. Thanks again for your message. Ann Heneghan 01:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements
Dear Duckecho,

I am sorry to have been forced to disagree with you in such a public way. If I could have removed your edits more privately, I would have. I am extremely busy at the moment, preparing for a final assignment, and had intended to contribute little to Wikipedia in the next week.

I can guess which editors on the Terri Schiavo page have personal sympathy for Michael Schiavo, and which editors have personal sympathy for the Schindlers. That should not prevent us from working together and discussing our differences, or from producing a neutral article - one which acknowledges the bitter disputes in this case without implying either that Michael lied about Terri's wishes so that he could get the malpractice money, or that he loved her to the end and was only carrying out her wishes. I have many friends in real life who disagree with my personal views. I never quarrel with them.

Regardless of which side I take in the Terri Schiavo controversy, I cannot imagine wanting to make fun of an opponent - especially if my opponent were in the minority group. You may not have thought it through - it may just have seemed funny. I agree that a lot of material on the talk page was irrelevant to the discussion. I know nothing about the other people who contribute to Wikipedia. I don't know their weaknesses or their vulnerabilities. I just don't want to take their dignity away.

Duckecho, you can afford to be generous. The majority of contributors to the Terri Schiavo article are on your side. It is unlikely that you will be attacked and ridiculed. You may not feel very kindly towards me, because of my opposition tonight, but I am still going to ask you a personal favour. Please, can you look at your user page and your talk page, and remove anything that you think might wound the dignity of another editor. I am not referring to criticism of other editors. I am referring to jokes that might seem cruel, even if they were not intended in that way.

I don't know what time it is where you are. It's very late in Ireland. I'm going to bed now, so I shall not know until tomorrow whether you have reverted me again, or whether you have decided to show some goodwill. I would urge you to think before your next edit. This is on the same lines as what you wrote on my talk page about foul language (but it's actually more serious) - it's something we shouldn't feel the need to resort to in order to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia.

This unfortunate edit war has already cost me a considerable amount of study time. If you reply to me, I may not be able to reply to you for another week. Good night. Ann Heneghan 02:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Duck Echo, I have spotted the outbreak of controversy, and address it in this subheader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Sandbox_-_general_reccomendations_.26_suggestions In case it is deleted, it should be stored in this diff:. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Quoting you from Wagon's talk page: '''You know how people in substance abuse programs occasionally have temptations and need to call on their friends and supporters to stay on the wagon (no pun intended)? Well, this is my call for help. The Fat One vomited another several pages of out-of-context non-sequitir pseudo-legalese in response to my Life Prolonging Procedures comments and it is all I can do to keep from going there and adding another couple of pages of rebuttals to his nonsense. Please make it stop...Please repeat DNFtT to me over and over...Please keep reminding me how clueless he is...Please tell me the Whack-a-Mole story again...Please? Duckecho 01:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)'''

If you don't like the Florida Laws, talk to your representative and your senator up there in north Florida. Don't pin it on me. Besides, if you feel I misplaced blame on the judges, let me know. After all, I conceded that the "necessary" phrase in the retained rights section might be an excuse for denial of therapy, etc., but I can't keep making any more excuses for these Florida judges; They violated the laws plain and simple. Look, I think Wagon's kinda weird, but don't bother his page: I can take your criticism just fine, trust me. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * "Moreover, that people (even millions of them) have doubts is even more irrelevant than my approval, and is most certainly irrational because they (nor I) were not at trial (and in most cases they haven't even read the orders)" I don't understand your point? Yes, I'll agree that the opinion of the "millions" is irrelevant to the mention of Mike's testimony, but their sentiments, in and of themselves, are not irrelevant, and bear mention. For example, lets see how WIKIpedia treats the Dred Scott v. Sanford court case. See there? The Wiki entry mentions that other people had an opinion, so to speak, in this quote: "It is considered by many to have been a key cause of the American Civil War, and of the later ratification of the Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments..." and then later in the article, under the sub header, "The consequences," we find this quote: "The reaction to the decision from opponents of slavery was fierce. The Albany Evening Journal combined..." eventually quoting from the opinion piece. My point? ALL the facts are relevant to report, and this includes that "opinions" of the masses, be it an opinion on the Scot case -or of the Schiavo case.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"Duck, I'm disappointed in you" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#The_.22singling_out_Hammesfahr.22_POV_debate_.2F_and_Duck.27s_complaints_addressed You can do better. Sleep on it. --- N2GY

title: User talk:Duckecho/Archive01


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order 67

 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 irrelavent, the article was speedy deleted by Cyrius. bainer (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Order 67
This is Idiotcruft. It has nothing to do with Star Wars 61.69.12.15 04:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I suppose we must keep the fancruft free from idiotcruft ... --Tabor 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It really should be speedied. Force10 05:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Godzilla (comics)

Godzilla has appeared in a range of comic books that have been published in Japan and the United States.

Japanese Godzilla comics

In his native Japan, Godzilla has been featured in various comic books since his inception in 1954. These comics, for the most part, were black-and-white publications known as manga. The vast majority of these comics were adaptations of the films. Every film from Godzilla to Godzilla 2000: Millennium received a comic book adaptation with the exception of King Kong vs. Godzilla. In addition, all of the films from Godzilla vs. Megaguirus to Godzilla: Final Wars did not receive a comic book adaptation.

For the most part, there were anywhere from two to four different adaptations of each film; for example, the first comic adaptation of Godzilla vs. Biollante was called Godzilla 1990, while the second adaptation of Godzilla vs. Mothra was called Godzilla vs. Mothra: Great Study. Most of these comics (in particular, the comics from the 1950s to the 1970s) were published in children's magazines such as Bokura, Bouken Oh and Shonen, while others were published in Yellow Pages-sized weekly or monthly publications, while still others were published as one-shots and sold in movie theaters. Many of the latter comics (the 1980s to the 1990s) were published by Shogakukan Comics, Tentomushi Comics and Kodansha Comics. In the early 1990s, many of the original adaptations from the original series of Godzilla films were compiled into two pocketbook-sized volumes and reprinted by Bamboo Books. In 1992, Bamboo would reprint Godzilla's battles with King Ghidorah from earlier manga into a collection called Battle History of Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah.

Most of the time these adaptations would deviate from the original films and flesh out characters or add scenarios to the stories that were not present in the original films. Outside these adaptations, many of the original Godzilla films also received Asahi Sonorama book-and-record sets. These illustrated comic-style book-and-record sets featured painted artwork within.

Outside these adaptations, Godzilla was also featured in original stories as well. A sequel story to the original film was published in 1955 called The Last Godzilla, while a sequel story to Godzilla Raids Again was published in 1958 called Godzilla Continued: Anguirus Strikes Back. In 1979, the Japanese edition of Starlog featured a two-part illustrated story written by Katsuhiro Otomo called A Space Godzilla. Part 1 was featured in issue No. 4 ("Farewell Earth"), while Part 2 was featured in issue No. 6 ("Return to the Stars"). In 1990 an anthology-style comic, featuring different stories by different writers and artists, was published and called The Godzilla Comic. This was followed in 1991 by a second anthology-style comic, also featuring different stories by different writers and artists, called The Godzilla Comic Raids Again: Gigantis the Fire Comic. These two comics featured varying styles of stories, which ranged from typical Godzilla stories to comedic stories, violent stories and even "adult"-themed stories that contained nudity.

In 2014, to coincide with the 60th anniversary of Godzilla and the 40th anniversary of the company's own Big Comic Original Magazine, Shogakukan Inc. released the comic Big Comic Original Godzilla Special Issue. This one-shot comic featured 21 Godzilla-themed comic stories from the industry's top manga artists and writers.

In 2018, Toho produced a manga serial published in Shōnen Jump+ based on the film Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters.

US Godzilla comics
Through the years since 1976, there have been various U.S. Godzilla comics published by different comic book publishing companies. These range from promotional comics to comics published by large mainstream comic companies such as Marvel Comics.

Godzilla vs. Megalon comic
The first Godzilla comic published in the United States was actually a small promotional comic. In the summer of 1976 (as part of the publicity promoting the upcoming U.S. release of the film Godzilla vs. Megalon), a small four-page comic book adaptation was published by Cinema Shares International Distribution Corp. and given away for free at movie theaters. The comic featured no credits (so the artist and writer are unknown) and featured no cover. It was magazine-sized and published on newsprint. The comic is infamous for getting names of two of the major characters wrong, as Jet Jaguar is referred to as "Robotman" and Gigan is referred to as "Borodan".

Dark Horse Comics

In 1987, Dark Horse Comics acquired the rights to Godzilla and for the next 12 years published various comic books and trade paperbacks based on the character. These ran the gamut from back-up stories in anthology titles, to one-shots, to miniseries, to an ongoing series, as well as various reprints in the trade paperback format. In 1987, they published a black and white one-shot comic called Godzilla, King of the Monsters Special #1. Between 1988 and 1989, Dark Horse published a six-issue miniseries simply called Godzilla. It was a translated version of the Japanese manga of the film The Return of Godzilla, which was based on the Japanese version of the film rather than the Americanized version, Godzilla 1985. This series was reprinted in the trade paperback Godzilla, which was issued in 1990 and then reissued in 1995. It was then reprinted in color as the miniseries Dark Horse Classics: Terror of Godzilla #1–6 from 1998 to 1999.

In 1992, an illustration of Godzilla (provided by Arthur Adams) was published in San Diego Comic Con Comics #1. Also that same year the one-shot issue Godzilla Color Special #1 was published. It would be reprinted as simply Dark Horse Classics: Godzilla #1 in 1998.

In 1993, Godzilla was featured in the anthology series Dark Horse Comics in issues #10-11 (parts of Dark Horse Comics #10's story and artwork would be slightly altered twice in both Godzilla, King of the Monsters #0 and the trade paperback Godzilla: Age of Monsters). That same year, Godzilla was also featured in a pair of one-shot comics, Urban Legends #1, which dispels the dual ending myth from the film King Kong vs. Godzilla, and Godzilla vs. Barkley, which was based on the TV commercial Godzilla vs. Charles Barkley. The latter comic was also published in Japan.

In 1995, Godzilla appeared in the one-shot comic Godzilla versus Hero Zero. That same year Godzilla starred in a second ongoing series called Godzilla, King of the Monsters that ran from issues #0–16. This series was published from 1995 to 1996. The series features several new monsters for Godzilla to battle and a story arc in which Godzilla was flung through time by a would-be archvillain, who uses him to cause both the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the sinking of the RMS Titanic, as well as battle the Spanish Armada. Godzilla would then be flung into the far-flung future as well and would rampage across it before returning to the modern day. The last issue of the Dark Horse series sees Godzilla flung back into time to just a few hours before the asteroid which supposedly destroyed the dinosaurs impacted on Earth, and fighting an alien creature. This issue first seems to have an "it was all a dream" ending, as Godzilla wakes from his slumber in the modern day. But then a twist is thrown into the ending: Godzilla is shown staring at a piece of his opponent's tail that is still in his hand from where he had ripped it off in the final moments of their battle before the impact.

In 1996, Godzilla appeared in the anthology series Dark Horse Presents in issue #106, as well as in issue #4 of the four-issue miniseries A Decade of Dark Horse. Also that same year, some of the earlier published material was reprinted in the trade paperback Art Adams' Creature Features.

Finally, in 1998, Godzilla appeared in trade paperbacks and miniseries that were simply reprinting earlier material. This included the miniseries Dark Horse Classics: Godzilla-King of the Monsters #1–6 and the trade paperbacks Godzilla: Age of Monsters and Godzilla: Past Present Future.

Trendmasters Godzilla comics
In 1994, Trendmasters toys published a mini-comic called Godzilla, King of the Monsters that came packaged with some of the figures from their Godzilla toy line.

Fox Kids Magazine Godzilla comics
In 1998, Fox Kids Magazine featured two Godzilla: The Series comics to promote the animated series, one based upon the three-part episode "Monster War" and the other being an original story.

Ongoing main series
In 2010, IDW Publishing obtained the comic book rights for the license of the Godzilla. franchise. Unlike the two previous companies who licensed Godzilla, IDW was able to acquire the rights to many other Toho movie monsters from Toho International (which is the American branch of Toho. co). These include Anguirus, Rodan, Mothra, King Ghidorah, Kumonga, Hedorah, Gigan (Showa), Mechagodzilla (Showa), Titanosaurus, Battra, SpaceGodzilla, Destoroyah, Moguera, Varan, Manda, Baragon, Gaira, Sanda, Ebirah, Kamacuras, Gorosaurus, Gezora, Kamoebas, Jet Jaguar, Megalon, King Caesar, Biollante, Mecha-King Ghidorah, Orga, Megaguirus, Zilla, Mechagodzilla (Heisei), Gigan (Millenium) and Kiryu. As well as these licensed monsters, IDW introduced a new group of monsters called the Trilopods (トリロポッド). Created by artist Matt Frank, these monsters are based on the prehistoric arthropods called trilobites.

From March 2011 to February 2012, IDW published their first Godzilla series, a 12-issue series called Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters. Originally going to be titled Godzilla: Monster World, the new series launched with a painted cover by Alex Ross, as well as a record 100 variant covers of issue #1 that were mostly retailer incentives. This promotion allowed 100 U.S. comic book store owners to have personalized variants featuring their store being demolished by Godzilla's foot if they each ordered over 500 copies of issue #1. As a result, Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters #1 was thus able to sell out its 1st printing. In August 2011, IDW released a one-shot issue called Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters 100-Cover Charity Spectacular. The issue featured all 100 of the unique covers of the comic book store-smashing variants of issue #1 via a cover gallery. Proceeds from the sale of the issue went to benefit the International Medical Corps for tsunami relief in Japan. In September 2011, they began collecting the series as a three-volume trade paperback series. In July 2019, the entire series was collected as a deluxe trade paperback.

From May 2012 to May 2013, IDW published a second ongoing series, simply called Godzilla. The series ran 13 issues. In November 2012, they began collecting the series as a three-volume trade paperback series. In April 2014, the entire series was collected as a deluxe trade paperback called Godzilla: History's Greatest Monster.

From June 2013 to June 2015, IDW published a third ongoing series called Godzilla: Rulers of Earth, which ran 25 issues. They began collecting the series as a six-volume trade paperback series in December 2013. In June 2016, they started to recollect the series as a two-volume deluxe trade paperback series, with the first volume called Godzilla: Complete Rulers of Earth. In August 2019 the second volume, called Godzilla: Complete Rulers of Earth 2, was released.

Miniseries
Outside of the ongoing main series, IDW has also published seven five-issue miniseries. They first published a five-issue miniseries called Godzilla: Gangsters & Goliaths from June – October 2011. The miniseries was then collected as a trade paperback in November 2011.

A second five-issue miniseries called Godzilla: Legends was published from November 2011 – March 2012. The miniseries was then collected as a trade paperback in June 2012.

A third five-issue miniseries called Godzilla: The Half-Century War was published from August – December 2012. The miniseries was then collected as a trade paperback in May 2013. The miniseries was then collected again as a hardcover book, with additional artwork, in July 2015. In October 2016, issue #1 was reprinted as Godzilla: The Half-Century War – Greatest Hits #1.

A fourth five-issue miniseries called Godzilla: Cataclysm was published from August – December 2014. The miniseries was then collected as a trade paperback in March 2015.

A fifth five-issue miniseries called Godzilla in Hell was published from July – November 2015. Issues #1 and 2 of the miniseries both went into a second and third printing, while issue #3 went into a second printing. The miniseries was then collected as a trade paperback in February 2016.

A sixth five-issue miniseries called Godzilla: Oblivion (which was originally going to be titled Godzilla: World's End) was published from March – July 2016. The miniseries was then collected as a trade paperback in October 2016.

A seventh five-issue miniseries called Godzilla: Rage Across Time was published from August – November 2016. Issue #1 went into a second printing. The miniseries was then collected as a trade paperback in December 2016.

An eighth five-issue miniseries called Godzilla: Monsters & Protectors was published from April – July 2021.

One-shots
In June 2014, IDW published a one-shot issue called Godzilla: The IDW Era. This one-shot issue gave a brief overview of all the various IDW Godzilla series and miniseries that had been published over the past three years.

In June 2016, a one-shot collection called Godzilla Treasury Edition was released. This one-shot collection features reprints of some of James Stokoe's artwork and covers from the various IDW series and miniseries.

Godzilla Rivals is a quarterly series of one-shot comics, each focusing on Godzilla battling a different monster. The first installment of the series was released on June 30, 2021.

Legendary Comics
In May 2014, Legendary Comics released Godzilla: Awakening, a graphic novel prequel to the MonsterVerse film Godzilla (2014). It was written by Max and Greg Borenstein and featured art by Eric Battle, Yvel Gluchet and Alan Quah. In September (to coincide with the film's home video release), the novel was reissued as a trade paperback. Characters from the graphic novel would later be adapted to live-action media in the 2023 television series Monarch: Legacy of Monsters.

In October 2018, Legendary announced plans for a graphic novel prequel to Godzilla: King of the Monsters titled Godzilla: Aftershock. It was written by Arvid Nelson and illustrated by Drew Edward Johnson, and released on May 21, 2019.

In March 2021, Legendary published a graphic novel prequel to Godzilla vs. Kong titled Godzilla: Dominion.

Marvel Comics

 * Essential Godzilla, King of the Monsters (2006, collects Godzilla, King of the Monsters #1–24, ISBN 978-0785121534)

Dark Horse Comics

 * Godzilla (1995, collects Godzilla (vol. 2) #1–6, ISBN 978-1569710630)
 * Godzilla: Age of Monsters (1998, collects Godzilla, King of the Monsters Special #1, Godzilla Color Special #1, Godzilla, King of the Monsters (vol. 3) #0–4 and 16, Godzilla versus Hero Zero #1, and a short story from Dark Horse Presents #106, ISBN 978-1569712771)
 * Godzilla: Past Present Future (1998, collects Godzilla, King of the Monsters (vol. 3) #5–15 and a short story from A Decade of Dark Horse #4 of 4, ISBN 978-1569712788)

IDW Publishing

 * Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters
 * Volume One (2011, collects Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters #1–4, ISBN 978-1613770160)
 * Volume Two (2012, collects Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters #5–8, ISBN 978-1613771228)
 * Volume Three (2012, collects Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters #9–12, ISBN 978-1613772058)
 * Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters (2019, collects Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters #1–12, ISBN 978-1684055333)
 * Godzilla: Gangsters and Goliaths (2011, collects Godzilla: Gangsters and Goliaths #1–5, ISBN 978-1613770337)
 * Godzilla: Legends (2012, collects Godzilla: Legends #1–5, ISBN 978-1613772232)
 * Godzilla
 * Volume One (2012, collects Godzilla (vol. 4) #1–4, ISBN 978-1613774137)
 * Volume Two (2013, collects Godzilla (vol. 4) #5–8, ISBN 978-1613775844)
 * Volume Three (2013, collects Godzilla (vol. 4) #9–13, ISBN 978-1613776582)
 * Godzilla: History's Greatest Monster (2014, collects Godzilla (vol. 4) #1–13, ISBN 978-1613779484)
 * Godzilla: The Half-Century War (2013, collects Godzilla: The Half-Century War #1–5, paperback ISBN 978-1613775950, hardcover ISBN 978-1631403217)
 * Godzilla: Rulers of Earth
 * Volume One (2013, collects Godzilla: Rulers of Earth #1–4, ISBN 978-1613777497)
 * Volume Two (2014, collects Godzilla: Rulers of Earth #5–8, ISBN 978-1613779330)
 * Volume Three (2014, collects Godzilla: Rulers of Earth #9–12, ISBN 978-1631400094)
 * Volume Four (2014, collects Godzilla: Rulers of Earth #13–16, ISBN 978-1631401725)
 * Volume Five (2015, collects Godzilla: Rulers of Earth #17–20, ISBN 978-1631402814)
 * Volume Six (2015, collects Godzilla: Rulers of Earth #21–25, ISBN 978-1631404078)
 * Godzilla: Complete Rulers of Earth (2016, collects Godzilla: Rulers of Earth #1–12, ISBN 978-1631406263)
 * Godzilla: Complete Rulers of Earth 2 (2019, collects Godzilla: Rulers of Earth #13–25, ISBN 978-1684055050)
 * Godzilla: Cataclysm (2015, collects Godzilla: Cataclysm #1–5, ISBN 978-1631402425)
 * Godzilla in Hell (2016, collects Godzilla in Hell #1–5, ISBN 978-1631405341)
 * Godzilla: Oblivion (2016, collects Godzilla: Oblivion #1–5, ISBN 978-1631407338)
 * Godzilla: Rage Across Time (2016, collects Godzilla: Rage Across Time #1–5, ISBN 978-1631408533)
 * Godzilla: Unnatural Disasters (2021, collects Godzilla: Legends #1–5, Godzilla in Hell #1–5 and Godzilla: Rage Across Time #1–5, ISBN 978-1684058266)
 * Godzilla: World of Monsters (2021, collects Godzilla: Gangsters and Goliaths #1–5, Godzilla: Cataclysm #1–5 and Godzilla: Oblivion #1–5, ISBN 978-1684058303)
 * Godzilla: Monsters & Protectors—Rise Up! (2022, collects Godzilla: Monsters & Protectors #1–5, ISBN 978-1684058723)
 * Godzilla Rivals
 * Round One (2023, collects Godzilla Rivals #1–4, ISBN 978-1684059133)
 * Godzilla vs. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (2022, collects Godzilla vs. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers #1–5, ISBN 978-1684059379)
 * ‘’Godzilla Library Collection Vol 1’’ (2023, collects ‘’Gangsters & Goliaths’’ #1-5 ‘’Legends’’ #1-5 ‘’Godzilla: The Half-Century War’’ #1-5, ISBN 979-8887240329)
 * ‘’Godzilla Library Collection Vol 2’’ (2024, collects ‘’Godzilla: Kingdom of Monsters’’ #1-12, ISBN 979-8887240701)

Legendary Comics

 * Godzilla: Awakening (2014, Legendary, hardcover ISBN 978-1401250355, paperback ISBN 978-1401252526)
 * Godzilla: Aftershock (2019, Legendary, ISBN 978-1681160535)
 * Godzilla Dominion (2021, Legendary, ISBN 978-1681160788)
 * Godzilla x Kong: The Hunted (2024 Legendary, ISBN 978-1681161280)

Official

 * Godzilla
 * Dark Horse Godzilla comics
 * Dark Horse Gamera comics

Information

 * Kaiju comics
 * Kaiju books
 * Godzilla comics
 * Godzilla's Path through the Marvel Universe – tracks the geographic location of Godzilla through the entire Marvel Comics series

title: Godzilla (comics)


text:
If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears

If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears is the debut album from vocal group The Mamas & the Papas (stylized as The Mama's and the Papa's [sic]), released on February 28, 1966. The stereo mix of the album is included on All the Leaves are Brown (2001), a double CD compilation consisting of the band's first four albums and various singles, as well as on The Mamas & the Papas Complete Anthology (2004), a four-CD box set released in the UK. The mono mix of the album was remastered and reissued on vinyl by Sundazed Records in 2010, and on CD the following year. It is the band's only album to reach number one on the Billboard 200.

In 2003, If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears was ranked number 127 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, with its rank rising to number 112 in the 2012 revision.

Cover art
Five versions of the album cover were produced:
 * No. 1: The original cover (shown at upper right) features the group in a bathroom, sitting in a bathtub with a toilet in the corner. These were pulled from stores after the toilet was judged indecent; since then they have since become a collector's item, with one copy selling at an auction for $300.
 * No. 2: Most of the toilet bowl is covered with a scroll listing the presence of "California Dreamin'" on the album.
 * No. 3: Two additional songs from the album are shown on the scroll: "Monday, Monday" and "I Call Your Name".
 * No. 4: Same as No. 3 but with a gold record award blurb added (in black) to the left of the group.
 * No. 5: Black cover with a closely cropped shot of the group that hid the fact that the picture was taken in a bathroom.

The cover art was produced and shot by photographer Guy Webster.

The cover shows the artist as "The Mama's and the Papa's", a grammatical error that has not been corrected on any of the album's reissues.

Reception
The album received a positive retrospective review in Rolling Stone, in which critic Rob Sheffield remarked "The Mamas and the Papas celebrated all the sin and sleaze of Sixties L.A. with folksy harmonies, acoustic guitars, and songs that told inquiring minds way more than they wanted to know. And on their January 1966 debut, If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears, they somehow made it all sound groovy." He described the album as a dark look at L.A. culture that sounds accessible and optimistic thanks in large part to Lou Adler's production. Bruce Eder wrote for AllMusic that the album "embraced folk-rock, pop/rock, pop, and soul, and also reflected the kind of care that acts like the Beatles were putting into their records at the time." He added that it had a stronger polish than the group's other albums, in part because it predated the personal conflicts that tainted their later works. The album was included in Robert Dimery's 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.

Personnel

 * Denny Doherty – vocals
 * Cass Elliot – vocals
 * John Phillips – vocals, guitar
 * Michelle Phillips – vocals
 * P.F. Sloan – guitars, additional vocals
 * Larry Knechtel - keyboards
 * Hal Blaine – drums, percussion
 * Joe Osborn – bass guitar
 * Bud Shank – flute solo on "California Dreamin'"
 * Peter Pilafian – electric violin
 * Technical
 * Lou Adler – producer
 * Bones Howe – engineer
 * Guy Webster – photography

title: If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears


text:
Heteropoda venatoria

Heteropoda venatoria is a species of spider in the family Sparassidae, the huntsman spiders. It is native to the tropical regions of the world, and it is present in some subtropical areas as an introduced species. Its common names include giant crab spider, pantropical huntsman spider or cane spider.

Description
Adults have a flat, brown body 2.2 to 2.8 cm (0.8 to 1.1 inch) long, with leg spans of 7 to 10 cm (3 to 5 inches). The female may be slightly larger than the male, particularly in the abdomen, but the male has longer legs and larger tips on its pedipalps. The clypeus, the area just in front of the eyes, is cream or yellowish, and the carapace behind the eyes has a wide band which is usually tan in the female and cream in the male. The body is not very hairy, but the legs have erectile setae, each of which is marked with a black dot.

Biology
Females produce an egg sac up to about 2.5 centimeters wide, carrying it with their pedipalps under the body. Egg sacs are variable in size, usually containing over 100 eggs, with larger ones holding over 400. The spiderlings undergo their first molt while still in the sac. In one small laboratory sample, the life span of the male averaged 465 days, and that of the female was 580 days.

As part of its courtship behavior, the male produces a sound by vibrating its abdomen while keeping its feet firmly planted. This is faintly audible to humans as a "buzz" or "hum".

The spider is not considered dangerous, but it does deliver enough venom to give a painful bite.

Prey
The spider feeds on insects, which includes various species of butterflies and moths such as Deilephila elpenor. The spider captures them directly instead of spinning webs. After capturing its prey, the spider injects them with venom. The venom of this spider contains the toxin HpTX2, a potassium channel blocker. In some tropical areas the spider is considered a useful resident of households because of its efficient consumption of pest insects. It commonly lives in houses and other structures such as barns and sheds, especially in areas that experience cold temperatures. It is sensitive to cold and can live outdoors only in warmer climates. In Bermuda, where they are mostly found indoors, they are generally called house spiders (which may cause its identity to be confused with the Southern house spider), or sometimes wolf spiders. (Not to be confused with Lycosidae, which are also called wolf spiders.)

Besides insects it has been known to prey on scorpions and bats.

title: Heteropoda venatoria


text:
Rock the Coast

Rock the Coast is a concert put on by Muskegon, Michigan-based Alive on the Lakeshore. The event was presented for several years at the amusement park Michigan's Adventure. As of 2017, Rock the Coast took place at Ottawa County Fairgrounds in Holland, Michigan. It features Christian artists, including Crowder, Hillsong Young & Free, Plumb, Josh Wilson, Audio Adrenaline, Roper, and Toby Mac. Rock the Coast is typically held in May. In the past, the concert has featured several acts, among those Kutless, Family Force Five, BarlowGirl, Hawk Nelson, Everlife, Fireflight, John Reuben, and Superchick.

The festival is a member of the Christian Festival Association.

title: Rock the Coast