text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Chilton Pearson

 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alfred Chilton Pearson

 * Delete not notable. Revolución 23:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and wikify (as long as it isn't copyvio). A published professor of Classics at Cambridge (Regius Professor was definitely a prestigious post) and a fellow of the British Academy suggests he was notable in his field, even if he's been dead for 80 years. Average Earthman 13:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Average Earthman, but this reeks of copyvio. A later edition of Brittanica or some other encyc.? Meelar (talk) 13:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and wikifi A curate's egg 12:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Brechin (disambiguation)

Brechin is a town in Angus, Scotland, UK.

Brechin may also refer to:

 * Brechin, Brechin Beach and Brechin Point, three communities in Ramara, Ontario, Canada
 * Brechin (Parliament of Scotland constituency), a former burgh constituency
 * Brechin City F.C., a Scottish Association Football Club who play in the Scottish Professional Football League
 * Diocese of Brechin, a historic diocese in Scotland
 * Diocese of Brechin (Episcopal), an active diocese of the Scottish Episcopal Church

People with the surname

 * Gray Brechin, geographer, architectural historian and writer

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

title: Brechin (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Rainbow party (sexuality)

Gawd
Gawd I wish there were rainbow parties when I was a kid. There probably have been now that old people thought it up and told kids there peers were already doing it. It's like the South Park episode on cheesing. News reports always tell parents about scarcely-done shit their kids've never heard of.

 * They don't exist. The closest to it is 'linking', which is nothing more than not really committed relationships and something which has been happening for decades. You'd have had a much higher chance of having a genuine 'rainbow party' in the 60's.

-- Ewen LaSalle

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.135.180 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on!
"According to the same report, teenage girls are also competing to see who can have the most babies with black men in an attempt to irritate parental guardians of foster homes."

This is entire article is someone a.) having a joke and playing along with chat shows b.) entirely made up by the show.

The statement above in particular is just utter rubbish! And abhorrently engineered to exploit racism via the younger generation.

The fact it has produced offspring to irritate parents (the book, this article) is not of much importance. There are endless minor hoaxes that simply don't get mentioned and certainly wouldn't be put forward as a possible 'fact' on here regardless of some people on blogs mentioning them or writing a book about it. Writing a book does not make it fact or worthwhile, or even reliable. But it does generate money if it's controversial enough and related to Operah.

How many minutes do you think it'd be before every teenage boy was boasting about having been to a 'rainbow party'? 3? At best.

When day time chat shows become your reliable reference, you have serious problems.

It's not important enough, it's almost certainly something made up by the show, the few mentions and book aren't interesting enough, or valid references. Should go back up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.135.180 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Legitimacy of term
"Oprah invited a guest which obviously was very 'hip' and 'in with the kids' and could easily infiltrate those naughty secretive teens to see what they were really doing."

This makes the article a little non-neutral to me. Any comments?

ParticleMan 23:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The text in question (which has since been removed) seems almost sarcastic. But it's been dealt with, and really it's not the problem I have with this article.

 * My problem with this article is that after consulting with even the sluttiest of my friends none of them had ever been to or even heard of anybody going to a so-called "rainbow party". In fact none of them had even heard of a "rainbow party" except from Oprah Winfrey.  Looking on Urban Dictionary has that sentiment worded in even stronger terms.  I think the statement "data is scarce" isn't strong enough.  This is at most a fad that happened at one high school somewhere and only managed to gain notoriety in the minds of scared parents because it ended up on a TV show.  IMHO if l0de Radio Hour can be VFD'd this certainly deserves it--TexasDex June 28, 2005 05:40 (UTC)
 * I agree....no one I have talked to has ever heard of this. It is, however, a book and was mentioned on the Oprah and if the article should be deleted, so be it.  I would rather change the "data is scarse" to something like "data is non-existant" or something like that.  What do you think?
 * This is an urban myth and should be marked as such immediately. Matthew McVickar July 1, 2005 17:22 (UTC)
 * I will try to find a better way to blend this seamlessly into the article. --TexasDex 22:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I have re-worded it to strongly suggest that this is not a prevalent or even real practice.--TexasDex 22:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Link to Urban Dictionary
What is the purpose of the link to Urban Dictionary? Is it to show that the reality of the practice is doubted? I think the article itself, along with the other links, is plenty sufficient to give the reader a clear picture. I'm sure if someone wants to see a host of smart-aleck wannabe comedians trying to define the term, they'll know where to go. Why not just throw Urban Dictionary links up everywhere? Any objections, or should I take it out? --BDD 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... to tell you the truth, that was the first time I ever looked at the external links, and yes, the Urban Dictionary one is kind of trashy. It does corroborate the skepticism in the article, but it doesn't look like an extremely reliable source.  It's not material to incorporate into the article. All in all, I wouldn't object if you removed it, but I don't see an urgent need to remove it either. CanadianCaesar 09:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow Party Scandals (removed section)

 * In the fall semester of 2004, a rainbow party supposedly occured among members of the freshmen class at Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School in Wichita, Kansas. The scandal spread around to the entire student body and eventually to the entire city of Wichita, which was eager to devour any rumors about Kapaun High School, which is generally considered snobbish and elitist. Soon, schools across the state of Kansas became aware of this supposed rainbow party, chanting "Rainbow Party" and "Skittles" at Kapaun sporting events. Today, many believe the rainbow party incident was grossly exaggerated and that it was an unfair reflection on the morality of Kapaun Mt. Carmel.
 * In the fall semester of 2004, a rainbow party supposedly occured among members of the freshmen class at Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School in Wichita, Kansas. The scandal spread around to the entire student body and eventually to the entire city of Wichita, which was eager to devour any rumors about Kapaun High School, which is generally considered snobbish and elitist. Soon, schools across the state of Kansas became aware of this supposed rainbow party, chanting "Rainbow Party" and "Skittles" at Kapaun sporting events. Today, many believe the rainbow party incident was grossly exaggerated and that it was an unfair reflection on the morality of Kapaun Mt. Carmel.

...even if it were referenced it would almost certainly be insufficiently notable for a paragraph in an encyclopedia article. If there were sourced coverage in news media, press releases by school officials or anything, it might just merit a sentence and an exemplary external link or two; as it is, I doubt there's even that. Samaritan 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Media sensationalism
This article (as well as the other "chicken party" article) smacks of media sensationalism. Not everything that is discussed on Oprah is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Where is the evidence that this trend is widespread and notable, and furthermore that this terminology is widely used? These are important criteria for deciding whether it merits an article. --Charles 04:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the article. The book alone might get an article, and there are plenty of other media references.  We need not demonstrate the "trend is widespread" because they couldn't do that for autocunnilingus either. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a completely inaccurate comparison. One is a technical term for a form of autoeroticism that has been in existence since the dawn of (wo)mankind, the other is a cooked-up term used to describe an alleged group sex event that was fueled by moral panic and was popular a couple of years tops. 24.126.199.129 11:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a valid article about a subject which involves media sensationalism. Nothing wrong with the article, although plenty with the subject. Maikel (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Rainbow party (sexuality), Chicken party, and Hooky party should all be merged into the same article. It doesn't matter how many "books" are written about each one (and so far as I know, only two were written), they're still all the same thing: unimportant, single-instance, moral panic terms that were used to describe alleged teen sex acts. I'm not asking for a deletion of these articles, but I am saying that we should be reasonable and not have three separate articles for essentially the same thing. Possible article renames: Teen group sex terms, Moral panic group sex terms, etc. 24.126.199.129 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 24.126.199.129 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Those terms used to be in this article (see history), and they were removed from it.  The concept of a rainbow party is certainly worthy of its own wiki article, given all the hulabaloo about it (especially the book), but I don't think the other topics deserve much more than a mention at the bottom of this page. --TexasDex 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but not to a title with terms in it, since we should be discussing the concept. I'd support merging it into sex party, as a sub-section discussing allegations (by Oprah and others) of widespread teen sex parties, and evidence or lack of evidence for (or evidence against) such things. --Delirium 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this sounds like a good argument for a Teen Group Sex category, not for an article merge. The subject matter seems discrete enough, and significant in its own way if only for being so memorable.  cf.  WP is not a paper encyclopedia Bdrasin 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose some material here would be out of place in a larger and more indisciminate article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support there's no need for specific articles about basically the same thing repeated. They aren't, by themselves, notable past a couple years. 99.104.126.16 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversion
I reverted what appeared to be some sort of vandalism (see history), but retained a speedy-deletion template that had been placed after the vandalism. It's possible that that template was placed with a mistaken assumption that the vandalism was the real article. But, seeing as there has been previous discussion on the usefulness of this article, I wasn't sure. 69.95.237.253 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You were right, anon. I removed the tag. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
Is there any solid, legitimate evidence of this act having ever occurred at any time? --Zantolak 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. --71.41.220.149 19:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah i know a few people whove done it Luke12345abcd (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding? Why do you think WWASP's teen abuse concentration camps has so many girls in there? Geez, you never been invited to a high school or college party? These things are actually everywhere, and the real urban legend is calling this stuff an urban legend. Coffee4binky (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald ["Behind Closed Doors", May 16, 2009]. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/behind-closed-doors-20090515-b62a.html?page=-1  I'd never heard of it before, but the idea makes sense. Sounds kinda fun... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.10.79 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article as written comes across not as informational regarding the term but as if it's trying to pretend this really IS an urban legend. It is not and such a mindset is utterly dated. Another book which delves into the overall issue or tween/teen oral sex, not just "rainbow parties"...

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/623507#Comments

Time for this to be reviewed and written accurately instead of as denialism. 76.251.85.189 (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Expert
So, who was the expert who supposedly spilled the beans on Oprah? Was it Dr Drew Pinsky? Maikel (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Appearances" (was: L&O: SVU)
I think there was at least one episode of Law & Order: SVU that featured "rainbow parties" as a plot device. 68.193.241.248 (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   ♥  18:36, 27 Jul 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a matter of "appearances".
 * Only instances of urban legend.
 * If "appearances" are removed, take out Oprah.
 * What's left? Nothing.

 * The Oprah show was instrumental in propagating the Urban Legend. We don't need a list of TV shows and movies that have mentioned rainbow parties, that's just trivia.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to popular belief,
 * not every word Oprah speaks is notable.
 *   Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   ♥  20:08, 27 Jul 2008 (UTC)

 * True, but this alleged phenomenon was covered by no less than The New York Times. This subject's notability is well established.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but everything is in the NYT.
 * Notability is non-existant; NYT even says it isn't real.
 * Article on book, perhaps.
 * Merged article would clean up bad stubs into decent article.
 *   Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   ♥  20:40, 27 Jul 2008 (UTC)

 * The point is not whether it's real or not, it's that stories about them are certainly prolific (prolific enough that a book about them was released, that they got on Oprah, and were reported in the NYT, which does not, contrary to your statement, report on "everything"). The article is quite clear that this is an urban legend and moral panic, not a real phenomenon. I would not object greatly to a merge with other related urban legends (sex party is most logical) but jamming it together with unrelated urban legends would just turn a decent stub into a bad article.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that noting popular TV shows that mentioned rainbow parties shows just how big this myth and moral panic has been and is of relevance here. In the first season of the TV show Huff, there is a depiction of a rainbow party, and a following scene of a discussion between parents and teenager about it.--Em79 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite for appearance on Oprah
The link to Oprah.com appears to be broken (http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200310/tows_past_20031002.jhtml). Currently there's no reference proving that the topic was mentioned on Oprah; the NY Times article cited as evidence doesn't quite state that it was.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

POV
this article, while probably deserving of an article, does not address the subject matter from a neutral perspective. 72.255.39.132 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 * In what way? Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Every way? The article is dripping with "supposedly"s but there isn't any in article content that disproves what was on the oprah show.--Crossmr (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So, uh; how do I get invited to one of these? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.135.65 (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard Times of RJ Berger (MTV)
They referenced "rainbow parties" on the show, which aired July 12, 2010, including that "purity club members do it because they can still have sex, but as long as they keep the "front door shut" they did it with "god's approval"" Probably more controversial a comment than the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.58.228 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dozens
"On May 27, 2010 the television program The Doctors discussed the topic with dozens of teens, parents, and professionals."

Dozens of people on one program? CBHA (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a legend
at 12:00 --Thirunavukkarasye-Raveendran (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rainbow party (sexuality)


text: User:JiFish/Gallery

title: User:JiFish/Gallery


text:
Adam7 algorithm

Adam7 is an interlacing algorithm for raster images, best known as the interlacing scheme optionally used in PNG images. An Adam7 interlaced image is broken into seven subimages, which are defined by replicating this 8×8 pattern across the full image.

The subimages are then stored in the image file in numerical order.

Adam7 uses seven passes and operates in both dimensions, compared to only four passes in the vertical dimension used by GIF. This means that an approximation of the entire image can be perceived much more quickly in the early passes, particularly if interpolation algorithms such as bicubic interpolation are used.

History
Adam7 is named after Adam M. Costello, who suggested the method on February 2, 1995, and after the seven steps involved.

It is a rearrangement of this five-pass scheme that had earlier been proposed by Lee Daniel Crocker: Alternative speculative proposals at the time included square spiral interlacing and using Peano curves, but these were rejected as being overcomplicated.

Passes
The pixels included in each pass, and the total pixels encoded at that point are as follows:

When rendering, the image will generally be interpolated at earlier stages, rather than just these pixels being rendered.

Related algorithms
Adam7 is a multiscale model of the data, similar to a discrete wavelet transform with Haar wavelets, though it starts from an 8×8 block, and downsamples the image, rather than decimating (low-pass filtering, then downsampling). It thus offers worse frequency behavior, showing artifacts (pixelation) at the early stages, in return for simpler implementation.

Iteration
Adam7 arises from iteration of the following pattern: which may be interpreted as "folding" in the vertical and horizontal dimensions. Similarly, GIF interlacing 1324 can be seen as iteration of the 12 pattern, but only in the vertical direction (12 expands to 1.2. which is filled in as 1324).

Using this 3-pass pattern means the first pass is (1/2)2 = 1/4 (25%) of the image.

Iterating this pattern once yields a 5-pass scheme; after 3 passes this yields which is then filled in to: In the 5-pass pattern, the first pass (1/4)2 = 1/16 (6.25%) of the image.

Iterating again yields the 7-pass Adam7 scheme, where the first pass (1/8)2 = 1/64 (1.5625%) of the image.

In principle this can be iterated, yielding a 9-pass scheme, an 11-pass scheme, and so forth, or alternatively an adaptive number of passes can be used, as many as the image size will allow (so the first pass consists of a single pixel), as is usual in scale-free multiscale modeling. In the context that PNG was developed (i.e., for the image sizes and connection speeds in question), a 7-pass scheme was seen as sufficient, and preferable to a simple 5-pass scheme.

title: Adam7 algorithm


text:
Joko

Joko may refer to:

Indonesians

 * Joko (Javanese name), a list of people with the Indonesian given name, especially Javanese people
 * Dulmatin (1970–2010), aka Joko Pitoyo and Joko Pitono, a senior member of the militant Islamic terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah

Others

 * Joko Beck (1917–2011), American Zen teacher and author
 * Joko Meštrović, birth name of James I. Mestrovitch (1894–1918), United States Army soldier awarded the Medal of Honor
 * Jōkō Ninomiya (born 1954), Japanese founder of a style of full-contact karate
 * Jōkō Obama (1886–1948), Japanese governor of Fukui Prefecture and Chief of Internal Affairs for the Governor-General of Taiwan
 * Joachim Joko Winterscheidt (born 1979), German television host, producer and actor
 * Joko Diaz, stage name of Filipino actor Francisco Gutierrez Diaz Jr. (fl. 1984–present)
 * Mark Joko (born 1986), South African cricketer

Other uses

 * title of a retired Emperor of Japan (see Daijō Tennō)
 * Jōko Station, a railway station in the town of Inawashiro, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan

title: Joko


text:
User:Tim Starlmg

This user has been banned for choosing a username designed to impersonate another Wikipedian. →Raul654 23:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Tim Starlmg


text:
Benedictine (spread)

Benedictine or benedictine spread is a spread made with cucumbers and cream cheese. Invented near the beginning of the 20th century, it was originally and still is used for making cucumber sandwiches, but in recent years it has been used as a dip or combined with meat in a sandwich. This spread can be obtained pre-made from some Louisville, Kentucky-area grocery stores.

Although benedictine is rarely seen in restaurants outside the state of Kentucky, it has been written about in articles in national publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Saveur Magazine, and also reported about on multimedia outlets such as the Food Network and NPR.

A benedictine-based sandwich was featured on the Food Network's 50 States 50 Sandwiches program in 2012, on the television shows of celebrity chefs Paula Deen and Damaris Phillips, in Southern Living magazine as one of June's "2011 Best Recipes" for their corresponding issue, in Garden & Gun magazine, and in PopSugar.

History
Benedictine was invented near the beginning of the 20th century by Jennie Carter Benedict, a caterer, restaurateur and cookbook author in Louisville, Kentucky. Benedict opened a kitchen for providing catering services in 1893, and in 1900 opened a restaurant and tea room called Benedict's. It was probably during her catering period when she invented and originally served benedictine.

Benedict's cookbooks are still being sold a century after they were first published. For example, her The Blue Ribbon Cook Book, which first published in 1902, has been reprinted numerous times and recently in 2008. Although early editions of this book do not contain a recipe for the spread, the 2022 edition does.

Recipe
Following are the original benedictine recipe ingredients used by Benedict, as reported by the Louisville Courier-Journal and NPR:
 * 8 oz. cream cheese, softened
 * 3 tbsps. cucumber juice
 * 1 tbsp. onion juice
 * 1 tsp. salt
 * A few grains of cayenne pepper
 * 2 drops green food coloring

The original spread is made by thoroughly blending all these ingredients with a fork.

Modern variants of the recipe use grated or chopped cucumber and onions rather than juice, as well as dill and common spread ingredients. They also use significantly less salt.

title: Benedictine (spread)


text:
User:Trikster85

Just some n00by on Wikipedia. Don't bite, I'm still figuring out the whole coding scheme myself :)

title: User:Trikster85


text:
Fujiwara no Nakamaro

Fujiwara no Nakamaro (藤原 仲麻呂), also known as Emi no Oshikatsu (恵美 押勝), was a Japanese aristocrat (kuge), courtier, and statesman. He was chancellor (Daijō-daijin) of the Imperial government during the Nara period.

Early life
Nakamaro was the second son of Fujiwara no Muchimaro, who was the founder of southern branch of the Fujiwara clan.

Career
Nakamaro was named to progressively important court positions during the reign of Empress Kōken.
 * Minister of the Right (udaijin)
 * Supreme Military Official (shibinaishō)
 * Vice Minister (jundaijin)

Opposition led by Tachibana no Naramaro and others was put down in 757.

In 758, Nakamaro was given the title and role of "Grand Guardian" (taihō); and his name was changed to Emi No Oshikatsu. The power to mint copper coins was granted to Oshikatsu in 758.

Nakamaro became Prime Minister (taishi) during the reign of Emperor Junnin. He acted to secure the northern border with the Ainu, but his plans did not succeed.

Plans for a military campaign in Korea were started, but it was abandoned.

His plans were opposed by some of his cousins in the Fujiwara clan.

Rebellion
In 764, Nakamaro was a trusted supporter of the emperor Junnin; and he was at odds with former-Empress Kōken and her close associate, the monk Dōkyō. In the struggle between the factions headed by Junnin and Kōken, Nakamaro was captured and killed. His wife and children were also killed. Soon after, Junnin was deposed; and Kōken reclaimed the monarch's role for another five years.

title: Fujiwara no Nakamaro


text:
User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Juni 2005

Dreadlocks
Toward your edits: There is no concensus on this issue and it is in the process of being heavily debated, with the removal of the second, amateur photo losing 3-2. If you have an opinion, please post it on the talk page and don't simply re-add the photo.--The Grza  09:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Have you read the talk page? Sam Spade 09:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have, in fact, I've made many a comment on the talk page. The issue has not been resolved and your edits are in opposition of any concensus there may be.--The Grza  09:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * According to you there isn't any concensus, not for removing the image nor anything else. Sam Spade 09:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

rebetika
Hello Sam, i write to you as you are a member of AMA. it's about the article "rebetika". the initial name was rebetiko. A user (can't recall who) had started it and i wrote most of the article. i used info from the book "rebetika minors" by Hlias Petropulos a Greek author (whom i mentioned of course). the user Jpbrenna changed the "shape" of the article (didn't add any info or add info from his head-can prove that) and renamed it to "rebetika". he redirected the article and neither me nor any other contributor seem to exist. it's like a theft to me.. will you do something about it? thanks.--Arberor 11:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The "thief" responds:

--Jpbrenna 04:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I moved it - and it should be moved right back. You should have referred to the discussion page for my reasoning (which I'm now going to elaborate on).
 * There was no mention of this Hilas Petropoulos anwhere in the page as I found it.
 * Contrary to your assertions, I also made some substantial modifications to your - quite frankly - unintelligible prose. User:Mel Etitis has suggested further changes.
 * See Requested moves. Cheers, Sam Spade 15:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * i see my article but i don't see my signature. why? you should have discussed first and then redirect it. shouldn't you?

 * i wrote the name "Petropulos" in the "edit summary". You can see that on "my contributions". back then i really didn't know where to put him. i still don't know where you put your sources. in the main article? please inform me. Petropulos is a writer that i respect and plan to make an article on him if i continue. maybe you didn't see him. i give you that.
 * let us see your modifications. let us see the previous edition and compare it with yours. let us see the new info. but where is the previous edition? vanished! the contributors? vanished!
 * if it was "unintelligible prose", please expose me. let us see it and laugh at it. but why were you interested at it then? ...
 * have many things to do with my time. with a pc or without it..--Arberor 19:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Primate
Thank you for your note about the photograph, Sam. I'm glad you think it improved the article, and it's nice to get positive feedback. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Censoring talk pages
Well, it looks like you can censor your talk page, but it's frowned upon. To wit:

 * from Talk etiquette FAQ:

 * Can I blank my talk page whenever I want?

 * There's no hard-and-fast rule that says you can't, however many people will suspect that you are trying to hide something or ignore other contributors if you do it too often. Most users do archive their talk pages periodically to a personal subpage -- either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation.
 * In the past, attempts at reasoning with certain problematic users resulted in their use of this tactic. In that case, the removal of material on a talk page is viewed as a kind of vandalism and incivility, which combined with other issues may be grounds for a case before Arbitration.

I certainly frown upon it, and it's clear that some of your removals of comments are problematic, but as the rules stand currently, you're safe, it looks like. Besides, the legitimate complaits against you that you deleted are still in the version history. --Zantastik 22:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am familiar with the applicable policies. I would prefer it if you didn't continue to discuss this matter with me, I am unhappy with you and your actions here. Sam Spade 22:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries -- the issue is closed, as far as I'm concerned. We've covered it and your request that I no longer discuss it with you (unless something new comes up) is perfectly reasonable. But you needn't be so prickly; life's too short to get unhappy over so little. --Zantastik 00:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I have a new signature now: -- Silversmith  Hewwo  17:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Cool, me too~!

Click here to report admin abuse 19:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Are you a part of the welcoming comittee on Wikipedia? Kaschner 11:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am. Sam Spade 19:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the tips. I'm starting to get the hang of this. It's not all new to me, but just the interaction with other Wikipedians is encouraging. I've picked up a fair amount of how to edit just from using Wikipedia for my own purposes, but, now that I've began participating, I'm really getting into it.

-Recnilgiarc

Mediation
I have filed for formal mediation. Please stop communicating with me directly. --Cberlet 22:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That sounds to me like a contradictory statement, mediation requires communication. Sam Spade 22:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * LOL.--AI 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Siva Linga
Sam, it's been a while since we last spoke. I agree with you with there are people in wikipedia who try to denigrate Hinduism and try to present an one sided view. For example, I made extensive changes to the linga article. Here are some of them: "According to Swami Sivananda, although the Agamas do not derive their authority from the Vedas, they are not antagonistic to them but are all Vedic in spirit and character and are hence authoritative. According to rules of interpretation in Hinduism held by many religious scholars, anything that contradicts the Vedas or is inconsistent with its spirit is not deemed authoritative or is treated as secondary. Accordingly, according to this interpretation, the Puranic and Tantric views, are subordinate to the Vedas and the Agamas which are vedic in spirit. Hence, such views are secondary and are not deemed as authoritative by many religious scholars. With this point of view, then the view of the linga as a phallic symbol does not carry much weight.

Accordingly, many traditional Hindu scholars simply explain the Siva Linga to be an abstract symbol of God. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains in the lexicon section of his book, Dancing with Siva, that "Sivalinga is the most prevalent icon of Siva, found in virtually all Siva temples. It is a rounded, elliptical, aniconic image, usually set on a circular base, or pitha. The Sivalinga is the simplest and most ancient symbol of Siva, especially of Parasiva, God beyond all forms and qualities. The pitha represents Parashakti, the manifesting power of God. Lingas are usually of stone (either carved or naturally existing, svayambhu, such as shaped by a swift-flowing river), but may also be of metal, precious gems, crystal, wood, earth or transitory materials such as ice. According to the Karana Agama (6), a transitory Sivalinga may be made of 12 different materials: sand, rice, cooked food, river clay, cow dung, butter, rudraksha seeds, ashes, sandalwood, dharba grass, a flower garland or molasses."

As Shri K. Thirugna Sambantha, in his excellent web site of Saivism, [1] (http://www.geocities.com/shivaperuman/main.html), explains it, the Siva linga is the ruparupa aspect because it is not any manifested form of Siva, nor is it formless, because the linga is a concrete piece of stone, which is an emblem of God. Thus, it is intermediate between the formless Absolute, Parasiva, which is beyond the sensory perception of man and manifest forms of Siva. Siva manifests Himself in form for the grace of the embodied human devotee."

I find some of the comments posted as insulting. One can then argue any religious symbol is a phallic symbol. Swami Sivananda explained the siva linga nicely in this site, http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_110

User:Raj2004

 * You are quite correct, a crucifix could be seen as a phallis, or a sword, or any object longer than it is wide. These ideas are based on Freud, a notorious pervert ;) Sam Spade 09:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. I agree with you completely. Raj2004 10:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Vishnu
Vishnu article is another example of mistaken views taken over. Mr. DBachman said that the entmylogy of the word Vishnu is unknown. That's a hard to believe statement. Vishnu, means enter into, indicating All-pervading One; so says Vishnu Purana. Please help support me! Raj2004 02:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

People erase without giving any support for their views when they are clearly wrong!!!

To remphasize, there are lot of people who are unaware of different things. For example, in the Vishnu article, they said the meaning of the Lord's name was unknown. Vishnu always meant All pervading. I find there is a lot of ignorance. Raj2004 09:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Raj2004 02:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have made a note @ Talk:Vishnu. I am sure DBachman's ideas have some source, and thus can be included as one idea among many, once we discover where they come from :) Sam Spade 10:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I sometimes wonder whether Dab is anti-Hindu. I don't think he is but he is free to express his opinion but ignores my opinion. Time and time again, he is stubborn in citing Western scholars are notoriously anti-Hindu. There are lot of anti-Hindu Wikpedians out there. Raj2004 18:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This is what I replied to dab:

Dab, it's absurd to say that the meaning of Vishnu is not the all pervading one and simply the meaning given by one guru. You call my comments simply wrong without citing anything. There people who write nonsense in wikipedia without citing support. We had similar discussion about Rudram. Entymology, or the historical development of the word may or may not be known but the meaning is settled. You simply didn't read the link I sent you.

For the etymology of the name, "Vishnu" please see the meanings in this site which explains meaning of Vishnu, the second name in the Vishnu sahasranama. It quotes Vedic and Puranic verses. http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/ Please click on page 01 in the Links to slokams.

Read the whole link. Many great scholars, such as Sankara have explained what Vishnu means and the conclusion is all pervading. The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. Sankara, from the cite stated:

yasmAd vishTam idam sarvam tasya SaktyA mahAtmanah | tasmAd vishNuriti khyAto veSer dhAtoh praveSanAt || (Vishnu Purana 3.1.45) "Because the whole world has been pervaded by the energy of the great Self, He is named '''vishNu, from the root viS - to enter or pervade." ''' vyApte me rodasI pArtha kAntiscApadhikA sthitA | kramaNaccApyaham pArtha! VishNuriti abhisamgj~nita: || (Mahabharata. 350.43) "As I have pervaded the horizons, my glory stands foremost, and as I have measured by my steps the three worlds, O Arjuna! I am named vishNu". Quote from the scholars and summary: "To summarize,

- the nAma vishNu refers to the guNa of bhagavAn in pervading everything He has created, including all sentient and non-sentient objects from a blade of grass to brahma; - His pervasion is because of His Sakti; in other words, He is the power behind everything that exists; an instance of His Sakti is illustrated by His measuring the three worlds with His Foot; - His vyApati is indicative of the inseparable relation between Him and everything else outside Him, in the sense that nothing exists without Him. - His pervasion of everything is of the form of His enveloping and showering everything around Him with His Mercy. It is not just His sausIlya that is indicated by this nAma; all His powers including that of creation, sustenance, His Lordship, etc., are to be understood by this nAma. - It is because of His pervasion of everything in this universe that things (for example the constellations, the planets, etc.)., are in their respective positions without colliding with each other."

The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. If you want, you may write entymology may be unknown but the meaning is well-settled.

Also you cite a Western scholar. So-called Western scholars are notoriously anti-Hindu. It's fine if you disagree but you ERASED my work without reading any of the links. Ask any Hindu and Vishnu means all pervading. THat meaning is overwhelmingly the predominant one. Who cares about what an unknown scholar thinks when the overwhelming majority consider Vishnu meaning to be all pervading. (I.e., Vishnu Purana) If you cited Sankara or other giants in Hinduism, that would be authorative. Read the story of Narasimha which illustrates the Lord's omnipresence.

To satisfy the 1% of you who dispute the meaning of Vishnu, I put in the article, Most Hindus consider Vishnu to mean All-Pervading One but a minority attribute other meanings and even some suggest that the entymology of the name is unknown.

'''You may it think it' semantic to call Vishnu a Hindu god versus God but how would a Christian feel if someone call Jesus a god instead of God. The same would go with a Muslim. Judging by the conversation with (Oxy2Hydro 2) it appears that you may have offended some.'''

Person's feelings about religion are a sensitive issue and that's what we must strive in wikipedia to tread careful waters.

Thank you.

Raj2004

Raj2004 21:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again Sam as always for your suggestions for contributing a NPOV article. I always find you to be fair and balanced. Dab simply removed my statement regarding "all pervading" and then accuses me of having no business of removing his minority viewpoint. At least my (if any) fault) was removing a minority viewpoint. His "crime" was greater; He removed a majority prevailing viewpoint. Raj2004 23:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No fault at all, you took a stand, and then later compromised. That is a sign of your good character. Cheers, Click here to report admin abuse 23:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation
You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violating the Three-revert rule on Neofascism and religion. If you feel that this block is unfair for any reason, please contact me or another admin by e-mail. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly. Sam Spade 11:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sina
Why should the name of an internet troll be included in Wp, just b/c he runs an Islamphobic site ?? I am talking about this Ali Sina. Farhansher 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no idea, but I am a Inclusionist, so I think we should have an article on every verifiable human being who ever lived. Click here to report admin abuse 19:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Quote discussion
When speaking with a friend about his day, he is acting as an eye witness (the least reliable form of evidence). When reading the news, we are hearing from someone we don't know, who is at best (indeed rarely) reciting 1st or second hand information. When we are reading contemporary history, the lens is that much darker, the opinions and paradigms expressed by the author that much stronger, and the telephone game that much more distant from the source. But when we are talking about history 100 yrs old or more!... we honestly can't interpret it as very much more than a sociological or psychological insight into the author and the translators and historians between them and us.

Frankly, history is far removed from a hard science, and even the best intellegence gathering regarding the most pressing of current events (like WMD in Iraq for example) compiled by the most reliable of experts... isn't very reliable at all ;) In summary, take all such fairy tales, from the newspaper, from your history books old and new, and yes, even from your closest friend discussing his exciting day... with about a pound of salt ;)

(me, on Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica 14:07, 10 Apr 2005)

Herodotus, Polybius, Tacitus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Marco Polo, Froissart, and Mark Twain (his travels in and around Europe) all recorded what they saw and heard. Herodotus recounts a tale of sea travelers who went around Africa and at its southern tip saw the sun in the North part of the sky. Herodotus records it and says he does not believe it. Yet because he faithfully records the sun being in the north, it becomes evidence the event happened. Read these, please. You'll be amazed. They haven't been painstakingly saved generation to generation for nothing. They are truly interesting. And you might begin to get a better opinion of "history". 4.250.198.44 22:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It is an art, if thats what your getting at. Click here to report admin abuse 19:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats not even close to what I was trying to communicate. My fault for spartan language. Sorry.

"When speaking with a friend about his day, he is acting as an eye witness (the least reliable form of evidence). When reading the news, we are hearing from someone we don't know, who is at best (indeed rarely) reciting 1st or second hand information." True. No disagreement so far.

"When we are reading contemporary history, the lens is that much darker, the opinions and paradigms expressed by the author that much stronger, and the telephone game that much more distant from the source." No, not at all. Contemporary HISTORY is information validated from many sources, not just one eyewitness who told a stranger, who told a writer who wrote it and you read it. And like in a court case, scientific evidence is often available; and as we agree, better than eye witness evidence.

"But when we are talking about history 100 yrs old or more!... we honestly can't interpret it as very much more than a sociological or psychological insight into the author and the translators and historians between them and us. Frankly, history is far removed from a hard science" Completely in error. There is solid scientific data as well as many eyewitness accounts that we have an original copy of. Original Egyption and Mayan and Ur (and more) writings on stone and clay that we can translate. Whole libraries of detailed accounts, inventories, detailed tax records, letters between kings, on and on. The material is overwhelming in quantity and quality. DNA testing on mummies, pollen found in prehistoric camp sites, microscopic analysis of fibers (read about that guy found frozen in the Alps from thousands of years ago?), science done at the molecular level, on and on.

" and even the best intellegence gathering regarding the most pressing of current events (like WMD in Iraq for example) compiled by the most reliable of experts... isn't very reliable at all ;)" Current political data in undoubtedly no more than current political indoctrination and propaganda. It's not history. Julius Caesar's book on his victories in Gaul is the same, and historians know this.

"In summary, take all such fairy tales, from the newspaper, from your history books old and new, and yes, even from your closest friend discussing his exciting day... with about a pound of salt ;)" You appear to confuse the science of history with the science of propaganda and throw the baby out with the bathwater. That would be like me thowing out ethics, love, compassion, and love of truth just because I no longer believe in God. "Without love, the ability to move mountains is nothing" I Corinthians 13. 4.250.168.100 23:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a very long argument, email perhaps? See also - User talk:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases Sam Spade 00:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. At least not now. I only wished to provide you with evidence concerning the value of history. Do with the evidence as you will. I have no current interest in debate on this subject. Be happy. 4.250.33.185 17:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Question for Sam
How can you have so much knowledge and simulatneously maintain so much bigotry? What is the motive? User:168.156.88.232 10:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * What bigotry is that? Have you been reading User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases? Or more to the point, who are you, and why are you trolling me? Click here to report admin abuse 19:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you feel that you and those who agree with you are qualified to evaluate the truth and/or validity of opinions that differ from your own? User:71.35.121.203 20:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know, I guess so. People who agree w me tend to love God, and seek to obey him. Loving and obeying God assists one in evaluating / discovering the truth. Click here to report admin abuse 21:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, Sam. Please change the signature back to Sam Spade. The new signature is only going to piss off people and cause unnecessary fights. I don't believe that is what you really want to do. Sometimes it is best to swallow our pride and show how we can take what happens to us with dignity. This is not the way to do it. Danny 00:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't agree w all of that, but w you and others I respect insisting on it, I will comply. Sam Spade 00:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Danny 00:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's because we care. :) -- Silversmith Hewwo 01:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Rogue admin stuff
Hi Sam: I came here to say several things: one has been pre-empted by your change of signature, for which I thank you. I feel uncomfortable about your Rogue admin abuse on at least two counts but I do not see such discomfort as a useful contribution to the public general forum of VFD. I do, however, think that I should make you aware of my concerns so that you have the opportunity to allay them.

I am uncomfortable with a page of this nature being a user page. I find that such placement feels personal; that is, this feels to me like your "hitlist". I do not believe that you are waging personal vendettas; I do think that you seek the communal good. So I conjecture that holding this as a user page misrepresents your intentions and reduces your effectiveness at achieving your aims. Your witty private detective agency has the same problem to a lesser degree but its targets are less overt so the issue is smaller.

I find the page name emotive and aggressive. The agression towards an observer is mild but I imagine that it must feel pretty harsh to the named admins. "Rogue admins" would be too personal (such a list is ad hominem) and inappropriate because you are (I hope) trying to change behaviours rather than people. "Admin abuse" is ambiguous (is the admin the subject or the object) so I can see why you sought a modifier but the combination of "rogue" and "abuse" seems too strong. Ultimately, you have created an RFC on admins so "Admin RFC preparation" or something similarly neutral may be better.

Ultimately, however, I see such a page being divisive because it is too easy to infer an agenda from its existence. I hope that this helps. --Theo (Talk) 09:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Such an inference would be correct. My goal is pretty clear, to create a process of deadminship at least as intensive as the process of user blocking. There is no good reason for the double standard admins benefit from, it is against the ideals of the project as well as the spirit with which the policies were written. Adminship IS a big deal, especially when policy violation by an admin is dismissed as trivial, while policy violation by a user results in blocking. Sam Spade 09:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

By "it is too easy to infer an agenda" I meant that in my opinion many readers will infer that you are pursuing a personal vendetta against the named admins. I think that I understand why you appear to believe that admins are being treated more gently than other users; I suspect that it is easier for many editors to assume good faith by admins than by others because those admins have been through a public review process. You say (and I paraphrase to test that my understanding is correct) that you seek to create a more overt desysopping process than that which already exists, and which has been exercised. I believe that this is more likely to succeed as a public policy page that is not associated with any individual cases before its acceptance. I think that, regrettably, your public statement of individuals that you wish to demote makes you appear too partisan to propose such a policy with any real success. --Theo (Talk) 18:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. Sam Spade 00:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I am greatly warmed by your apology to El C and your deletion of those pages. --Theo (Talk) 10:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Some more appreciation from me for your considerate action over the VfD, Sam. Best. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice
I am notifying you formally that I have requested sanctions against you from the Coordinator of the AMA for your maintenance of the Report rogue admin page. I am also notifying the Coordinator that I have done so, and I have placed my objections on his talk page here: Wikipedia talk:AMA Coordinator.

Yours,

Wally 03:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Neither, dear man, do you

 * See above.

Wally 16:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Signature
I wonder if you'd consider a redesign of your signature. Presently it's extremely obtrusive. It says something like  Click here to report admin abuse  and, on my browser at least, tends to overwhelm whatever it is you're trying to say and obscure who is saying it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh never mind I see you have already changed it back. Thanks for being considerate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed it, based on polite suggestions such as yours. I'm obviously agravated with what I see to be a problem with a number of wikipedia admins, but that needn't be a burden on beneficial and amiable contributors such as yourself. Cheers, Sam Spade 12:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Rogue admins
Sometimes, I feel like reporting dab as a rogue administrator. He consistenly imposes his preconceived western view of hinduism.

Raj2004 15:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately there is an awful dynamic, wherein people become admins due to having a network of allies (people who share their politics, culture or other demographic relationships), and then proceed to protect one another based on that. Therefore its not very safe disagreeing with an admin, much less complaining about them. For ordinary users like you and I, the only safe answer is to avoid conflict, and focus on making friends, and distancing oneself from rogue admins. I have likely gone too far, and may disappear at anytime. Such is the result of publicising corruption. Sam Spade 16:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam I didn't realize how intense this things can get. When I joined wikipedia, I simply thought it was a community portal for exchange of ideas. Guess I am partially wrong. Raj2004 16:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Its organisational. The project was founded with high ideals, and good policy. Unfortunately the owner, developers and so forth allowed a rather organic and hands off "democratic" method of determining admins and new policy. After the project exploded in size, this has evolved into a circumstance which can be found in most legislatures worldwide: cronyism, corruption, and abuse. That said, there are still many fine qualities of the project, not the least of which being the opportunity I have had to meet excellent people like yourself. Sam Spade 17:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Sam You are also a great guy. Raj2004 18:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Dab conceded. see the talk in Vishnu but he's a still can be nasty when it's not his own belief. Raj2004 11:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the excerpt on Talk-Vishnu. It's quite interesting that Dab may sound anti-Hindu and even contradicts himself. "Also, it's worthy to note that Monier-Williams is anti-Hindu. His goals for study were for the purposes of denigrating Hinduism. The wikipedia article states, " Monier-Williams declared from the outset that the conversion of India to the Christian religion should be one of the aims of orientalist scholarship." Raj2004 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC) It is a well known fact that many Western scholars used to have an extremely biased view of Hinduism and that this only gradually and slowly improved. Older Western sources should hence be treated with suspicion. I dunno about Monier-Williams though. Andries 11:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC) he was a Christian. That is irrelevant. He was an extremely competent scholar of Sanskrit, and you couldn't show his Christian bias from the pages of his scholarly publications. The "denigration" part is a ridiculous ad-hominem charge by the Hindutva. Attack his scholarly views, if you can, not his religion. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be irrelavant that he is a Christian and it is irrelevant when he is a good scholar but it is notoriously difficult not to be biased when describing other people's or your own religion. I also wrote this at cult (after reading the description about this phenomonenon as described by Dutch religious scholar Wouter Hanegraaf.) Even scholars show bias when describing religions. Andries 11:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No. It is relevant but his biased view mars his credibility. Raj2004 11:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, but fine. Why should he care (biased as he was, for argument's sake) if the name was derived from this or that root? It would have been all the same to him, except for scholarly (and encyclopedic) interest. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not true, Dab you're ignoring your own precedent. We had a similar discussion about verses in Rudram. You had argued that a Vedantist would interpret certain lines in Rudram to indicate that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same while other scholars would interpret śipiviṣṭāya differently. So one can't argue that educated scholars can't be biased. With religion, one could always interpret lines to support one's particular point of view. Does the Bible support slavery or would God support slavery? I don't think so. In the nineteenth century, American slaveowners interpret certain lines in the Old Testtament to support slavery.

Who says people or scholars aren't biased. It's all a matter of interpretation. Raj2004 18:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)"

Raj2004 18:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert
Sam, I've reverted my revert of your admin abuse page because I don't want to get into a silly game. However, most 3RR violations are punished without a warning being issued once the violation has occured. You know the rules, and I think you knew you were breaking the 3RR rule when you broke it despite your rationalization and don't need to be warned about a 3RR violation the way a newbie would be. It's been well established that when a specific word is in dispute, reverting that word four times is a 3RR violation regardless of motivation and regardless of what else you do in the edits. Since, according to well established precedent, what you did is a 3RR violation the entire basis of your complaint against "rogue admins" who called you to task for your violation is extremely fragile and your allegation of admin abuse is specious and I think the fact that you've taken the route of complaining on your talk page rather than initiating an RFC or an arbcom complaint shows that you know this.

Your actions look like sour grapes to most people, I would think, and I don't think you're helping yourself or your reputation. AndyL 17:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

adding: To call an admin a "rogue" for enforcing the rules and not allowing special treatment is a contradiction. Try to look at this outside of yourself and you'll acknowledge that, I think. AndyL 17:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Clearly thats not my appraisal of the situation, nor is it that of all knowledgable parties. What pised me off was Mel's revert of David Gerards unblocking, per Controversial blocks. Sam Spade 17:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If no consensus has emerged after several respected Wikipedians have reviewed the matter, the user should be left unblocked.

Also Sam, I think the fact that you initially included me in your list of "rogue admins" in your report of this incident despite the fact that I didn't actually use any admin powers (let alone abuse them) and simply reported a 3RR violation shows that your true motivation here is spite for having been caught out and punished. Your initial impulse, therefore, was to retaliate against all involved, regardless of whether or not they violated any rules. That, is very revealing of what's behind your recent actions. 17:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well duh... No great insight there. What I would say is more telling is how I have focused on legitimate cases, and set aside those based sheerly on vitriol. I'd also like to think that my avoidence of article conflict, particularly the article in question, since my unblocking, might reflect well on myself. Sam Spade 17:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What I would say is more telling is how I have focused on legitimate cases

But your complaint re the 3RR block is not legitimate. You violated the rule and a 24 hour ban is supposed to be automatic. Mel acted appropriately. If anyone acted inappropriately it was David for prematurely lifting the ban. AndyL 18:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It is just so weird how everything the hate Sam squad does makes perfect sense if you begin by assuming Sam is evil. Leave out that assumption and none of it makes sense. Like Andy using this unspoken assumption to prove it was wrong to lift the ban rather than noticing that lifting the ban is proof the ban was wrong in the first place. 4.250.33.185 17:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The temporary unblocking of SS proves only that SS cynically manipulated a hopelessly naive arbitrator. SS gets upset when he is blocked for breaking the 3RR. What a suprise, I don't know any editor who has been blocked who has agreed with their blocking! No double standards for SS, sorry. If only SS had used his 24hr block to reflect. *sigh*. So now, like your email to FM, this 3RR block is merely added to the litany of your unrepentant un-wiki behaviour. --CarloGiuliani 19:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Why are you editing with a sockpuppet? Sam Spade 22:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Funny that a sycophantic anon ip doesn't get any questioning about their motives from you SS. Not funny, predictable. --CarloGiuliani 23:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If this is El C, check your talk page. Sam Spade 00:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Not me. I have never used, nor will I ever use, any other account except this one (with the possible exception of uppercase i EI_C). El_C 04:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I applaud you stepping up and doing the right thing by apologizing to El C. I'd love to put our ongoing strife behind us as well and archive my Talk page; I'd welcome the apology for your email that I've long sought-after. How about it? FeloniousMonk 03:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You'd have to consider the context, and the specification, of the apology I gave El C. Essentially I became convinced that him leaving in that manner was creating a bad atmosphere, and was hurtful to the community. While I think your railing on about that email is creating a bad atmosphere, I don't think it is particularly hurtful to the project. For example, my suggestion that you were committing a copyright vio with it, that could have set a bad precedent, and been hurtful to the project (threats of lawsuits being frowned upon). You also need to consider that I was sincere in what I apologized to El C about. I actually was wrong to place him on that list, since I have no knowledge of him misusing his admin powers. I do not however feel wrong in having sent you that email, sincere as it was. There is of course a possibility of you making such a good impression on me that I would regret those statements, but that hasn't exactly happened. I suggest you focus on the positive, rather than the negative, as I am trying to do. Sam Spade 14:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That all sounds very reasonable, except that your repeated refusal to apologize for your personal attack by email belies any notion that you're "focusing on the positive" and your statement that you feel you were not wrong in sending me the email only renews and reaffirms the personal attack it contained. As for my making a good impression on you: Why should a victim reward an attacker for attacking him? The issue here your personal attack directed at me and how you will either atone or eventually be held accountable. Predictably, once again you disappoint when given an opportunity to do a morally right thing. FeloniousMonk 17:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The page you asked to be deleted
You forgot the talk page. It might be a good idea to add a there too (the content that made you want to delete the page is also on the talk page). --cesarb 00:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I wasn't sure if that would be proper, and was worried someone would think Iwas covering things up, or not allowing a place to discuss the matter. If you disagree, please delete it, you certainly have my permission. Sam Spade 00:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. Kim Bruning 00:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) OK, and what about the subpage (the one with the emails)? (Sorry for not asking together above, I just noticed it right now while cleaning my watchlist.) --cesarb 00:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Good question. Kim Bruning 00:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * For the sake of consistancy, I suppose that would be best. Sam Spade 14:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Sam, thanks for proving what a great guy you are. Some of us knew it already of course! ;) And I hope such positive things will continue, from everyone. -- Silversmith Hewwo 10:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Glycoalkaloid

Glycoalkaloids are a family of chemical compounds derived from alkaloids to which sugar groups are appended. Several are potentially toxic, most notably the poisons commonly found in the plant species Solanum dulcamara (bittersweet nightshade) and other plants in the genus Solanum, including potato.

A prototypical glycoalkaloid is solanine (composed of the sugar solanose and the alkaloid solanidine), which is found in the potato. The alkaloidal portion of the glycoalkaloid is also generically referred to as an aglycone. The intact glycoalkaloid is poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, therefore causing gastrointestinal irritation. The aglycone is absorbed and is believed to be responsible for observed nervous system signs.

Taste
Glycoalkaloids are typically bitter tasting, and produce a burning irritation in the back of the mouth and side of the tongue. The Aymara people of Bolivia use taste to detect the levels of glycoalkaloids in potatoes to determine the safety of various cultigens.

Detection
Although not routinely available, detection of alkaloids in tissues or urine is possible for laboratory diagnosis of exposure.

Treatment
Sale of a glycoalkaloid-based treatment marketed by Lane Labs USA Inc. for prevention of skin cancer was banned by the FDA in 2004 as an unapproved drug.

title: Glycoalkaloid


text:
User talk:205.188.117.68

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

This message is regarding the page Britney Spears. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 00:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. (vandalising Administrators' noticeboard) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  04:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (vandalising my talk page) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  04:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the page Ace Combat Zero, this is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

January 12, 2006
Thanks for experimenting with the page Melissa joiner on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. — Gaff ταλκ 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Brown Rat
Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Prodego talk  22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Halo 2
Injecting unnecessary swear words, racially or sexually abusive comments, or provocative pictures to articles or user pages offends many people. Wikipedia treats such actions as vandalism and blocks people from editing for such repeated vandalism. --Winter 02:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. ==

Thanks for experimenting with the page Jason Kidd on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is ). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type   on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian:01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.   Nacon kantari   e |t||c|m 05:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

March 2006
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Monkeyman(talk) 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Please do not remove tags from articles without explanation. -Will Beback 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- King of Hearts talk 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * templates substituted as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

April 2006
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. Jacek Kendysz 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.   Sango  123   (e)  20:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Europe on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. Adrian(Talk) 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Chun-Li. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This little brat has been going around Wikipedia and just spamming and basically being a little troll. --Chicbicyclist 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

May, 2006
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Bill Gates. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rlevse 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Lorenzo de' Medici, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Mwanner | Talk 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

13 May, 2006
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to United States Senate election, 2006. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. RandyWang (raves/rants) 00:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Josh Hutcherson, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. — ßottesiηi  Tell me what's up 19:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for vandalising Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Roy boy cr ash fan  19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during June 8 2006 (UTC) to Qur'an desecration
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. Bachrach44 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Qur'an desecration. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. LaMenta3 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Srikeit (Talk 08:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding commercial links to Wikipedia, as you did in Barefoot Contessa. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. mboverload @ 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Smurfing (crime), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rlevse 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Smurfing (crime). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.  (James McNally)   (talkpage)  23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Smurfing (crime), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.  (James McNally)   (talkpage)  23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Smurfing (crime), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.  (James McNally)   (talkpage)  23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DVD R W (talk • contribs)

19th June 06
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Steel 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Chikusa-ku, Nagoya on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Dcflyer 06:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. Iola k ana |T 11:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to St. Clairsville, Ohio - July 10-11
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Baseball,Baby!  balls  •  strikes  04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to St. Clairsville, Ohio, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Polish Catholic Church. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. - Gl e n 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Europe, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Baseball,Baby!  balls  •  strikes  06:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User:Helsonn Enn, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.  °≈§→  Robom  æ  yhem:   T / ←§≈°  02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. DVD+ R/W 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to St. Clairsville, Ohio, you WILL be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scott3 23:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Pilotguy (roger that) 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Political parties of minorities on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

August 25 edits
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Wikipedia talk:No legal threats, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Bill Gates
Your recent edit to Bill Gates (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Bishop George Ahr High School
Your recent edit to Bishop George Ahr High School (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Bishop George Ahr High School. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Hús ö  nd  04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your change to the page Gouverneur Morris was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. 1568 00:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Edit to Chaparral
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Watergate vandalism
Thank you for experimenting with the page Watergate on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Grahamtalk/mail/ e 02:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

More October 2006 problems
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Virtual Dungeon, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JonHarder 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Talk:B%C3%A1b, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. ¡Kribbeh! Speak!\Contribs 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Girls With Glasses
Your recent edit to Girls With Glasses (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

November 2006 problems
Your vandalism of Mishnah -- no more warnings for you, it's block time. --Shirahadasha 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 contribs 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, feel free to come back, but please make useful contributions instead, and refrain from vandalising or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. — ERcheck (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Justin Burnett

The article Justin Burnett has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * I think it's possible for a composer of music for video games to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, I am not sure that Justin Burnett is that composer- this article lacks reliable independent sources about his significance in the field, and I wasn't able to find any good sources with my own search.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Farber Hebrew Day School – Yeshivat Akiva

The article Farber Hebrew Day School – Yeshivat Akiva has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "fails GNG.Only one semi independent source, a local religious newspaper"

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

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

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

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:205.188.117.68


text:
Andor Lilienthal

Andor (André, Andre, Andrei) Arnoldovich Lilienthal (5 May 1911 – 8 May 2010) was a Hungarian and Soviet chess player. In his long career, he played against ten male and female world champions, beating Emanuel Lasker, José Raúl Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine, Max Euwe, Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, and Vera Menchik.

At the time of his death, he was the oldest living grandmaster (since surpassed by Yuri Averbakh), and the last surviving person from the original group of grandmasters awarded the title by FIDE in 1950.

Biography
Lilienthal, of Jewish origin, was born in Moscow, Russian Empire, and moved to Hungary at the age of two. He played for Hungary in three Chess Olympiads: Folkestone 1933 (scoring +7−0=6 as the reserve, the fifth player on the team), Warsaw 1935 (scoring +11−0=8 on second board), and Stockholm 1937 (scoring +9−2=6 on, leading his team to the silver medal). He won the individual gold medal for his board (reserve and second board, respectively) at the 1933 and 1935 Olympiads, and had the fourth-best result on first board in 1937. His total score in the Olympiads was 75.51%.

Emigrating to the Soviet Union in 1935, Lilienthal became a Soviet citizen in 1939. He played in the USSR Chess Championship eight times. His best result came in the 1940 championship, when he tied for first with Igor Bondarevsky, ahead of Smyslov, Paul Keres, Isaac Boleslavsky, Botvinnik, and 14 other players. He qualified for the Candidates Tournament once, in 1948.

From 1951 until 1960 he was Tigran Petrosian's trainer. Lilienthal began a friendship with Vasily Smyslov in 1938, and was Smyslov's in his world championship matches against Botvinnik. He retired from tournament play in 1965 and returned to Hungary in 1976. His last tournament was Zamárdi 1980, where he finished sixth in the B group, scoring +3−1=11.

Lilienthal remained actively involved in the chess world into his ninth decade. He died on 8 May 2010, at the age of 99. It was reported that he had been ill for some time. At the time of his death, he was the oldest living grandmaster.

According to Boris Spassky, Robert James Fischer approved only three chess players who could carry his coffin at his funeral: Andor Lilienthal, Lajos Portisch, and Boris Spassky.

Notable games
Lilienthal was one of the few players with an even record against Capablanca. Lilienthal's "most celebrated victory" is his win commanding the white pieces against Capablanca at Hastings 1934–35:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 b6 6. f3 d5 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 Ba6 9. e4 Offering a pawn sacrifice introduced by Alexander Alekhine–Erich Eliskases, Hastings 1933–34. 9... Bxc4 9...dxe4 10.fxe4 g5 11.Bg3 Nxe4 12.Be5, followed by Qc2 or Bd3, gives White an. 10. Bxc4 dxc4 11. Qa4+ Qd7 12. Qxc4 Qc6 Eliskases got a satisfactory game after 12...Nc6. 13. Qd3 Nbd7 14. Ne2 Rd8 15. 0-0 a5 16. Qc2 Qc4 17. f4 Rc8 18. f5 e5 19. dxe5 (diagram) Qxe4? Lilienthal analyzes 19...Qc5+ 20.Bf2! Qxe5 21.Bd4 Qxe4 22.Qxe4 Nxe4 23.Bxg7 Rh7 24.f6 "and Black's position is hopeless." On 19...Nxe5, White retains the initiative with 20.Nf4, for example 20...Nfd7 21.Rad1 0-0 22.Nd5 threatening 23.Ne7+ or 23.f6. 19...Nxe4 20.Rf4 Qc5+ 21.Kh1 Ng5 22.Bf2 is strong for White. 20. exf6!! A spectacular queen sacrifice. 20... Qxc2 No better is 20...Qxh4 21.fxg7 Rg8 22.f6! followed by Rf4; if 22...Nxf6 23.Qf5 Ke7 and now 24.Rae1 or 24.Qe5+ wins. 21. fxg7 Rg8 22. Nd4 Threatening a murderous check on e8. 22... Qe4 If 22...Qa4, 23.Rae1+ Ne5 24.Rxe5+ Kd7 25.Rd5+ Ke8 26.Re1#. On 22...Qd2, 23.Rae1+ Ne5 24.Rxe5+ Kd7 25.Rd5+ Ke8 26.Re1+ wins. As in the game, Black loses back the queen after 22...Qxc3 23.Rae1+ Ne5 24.Rxe5+ Kd7 25.Re7+ Kd6 26.Nb5+ or 22...Qd3 23.Rae1+ Ne5 24.Rxe5+ Kd7 25.Rd5+. 23. Rae1 Nc5 24. Rxe4+ Nxe4 25. Re1 Rxg7 26. Rxe4+ Kd7 Seeing that 27.Re7+ Kd6 28.f6 and 29.Bg3+ wins, Capablanca resigned.

The game is famed, and Lilienthal relates, "wherever I went on an exhibition tour, both in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, chess players and fans always asked me to show them how I sacrificed the queen against the great Cuban." When Bobby Fischer noticed Lilienthal in the audience at his 1992 return match against Boris Spassky, Fischer greeted him with the remark "Pawn e5 takes f6."

title: Andor Lilienthal


text: User talk:205.188.117.73

title: User talk:205.188.117.73