text:
Oak processionary

The oak processionary (OPM) (Thaumetopoea processionea) is a moth whose caterpillars can be found in oak forests, where they feed on oak leaves, causing significant damage. They travel in nose-to-tail processions (hence their name), often arrow-headed, with a leader followed by rows of several caterpillars abreast. They are a human irritant because of their venomous setae (specifically urticating hairs), which can cause skin irritation and asthma. The species was first described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae.

Description
The wingspan of adult stage days is between 25 and 35 mm. Their pattern of tan, brown and white makes the adults difficult to see against oak bark. Adults fly during July and August. The larvae construct communal nests of white silk from which they crawl at night in single file, head to tail in large processions to feed on foliage in the crowns of trees, returning in the same manner.

Oak is its preferred food source, but the moth also eats the leaves of hazel, hornbeam, sweet chestnut, birch and beech.

Identification
The caterpillars live and feed almost exclusively on oak trees. They may march in procession across the ground between oak trees, and cluster together as they feed on oak leaves. In early summer they build silk nests on the trunks and branches, but not in the leaves, of oak trees, and leave silk trails on the trunks and branches. The nests and trails are originally white and visible, but soon become discoloured and hard to see.

The nests may be hemispherical, teardrop shaped, bag-like, and blanket-like (surrounding part of a trunk or branch), and may be at any height on the tree. The diameter may range from about 25 mm (one inch) to stretching several meters up the trunk. The caterpillars stay in these nests during the day between feeding periods, and later in the summer they remain in the nests to pupate into adult moths.

The caterpillars are mostly found in oak trees or on the ground under them in late spring and early summer, and do not live on fences, walls, etc. as other caterpillars do. They have very long, white hairs contrasting markedly with shorter hairs. The caterpillars of several other species may be mistaken for the oak processionary.

Distribution
The moths are widely distributed in central and southern Europe, and are occasionally found as far north as Sweden. In the southern countries of Europe the populations are controlled by natural predators, but these predators are not present in northern Europe. Their range is expanding northward, possibly or partly as a result of global warming. The moth now has an established population in the UK. The eggs arrived on oak imported to the Richmond and Ealing areas of London in 2006 and the range of the species in the UK has been steadily expanding despite efforts to eradicate it.

Public health problem
The moths pose an increasing nuisance to humans as their range is extended. The backs of older caterpillars (3rd to 6th instars) are covered with up to 63,000 pointed defensive bristles, sized between 0.2 and 0.3 millimeters, which contain an urticating toxin, the protein thaumetopoein. The setae break off readily, become airborne and can cause epidemic caterpillar dermatitis (lepidopterism), manifested as a papular rash, pruritus, conjunctivitis and, if inhaled, pharyngitis and respiratory distress, including asthma or even anaphylaxis.

It has been found that the skin irritation and itching caused by contact with these hairs can be largely eliminated by the use of cetirizine-based antihistamine tablets.

Transmission of the hairs can be airborne, by ground contact via plants or grass or even by water contact in stillwater e.g. garden ponds. The hairs remain toxic beyond the life cycle of the moth and in some cases can remain a problem for several seasons. Mowing a lawn can bring a person into contact with these hairs. One alternative is to adopt a grass mulching technique to reduce possible contact, and to speed up the biological breakdown of the irritant hairs.

Damage to trees
Large populations can strip trees bare, leaving them weakened and vulnerable to other threats.

Control
Nests can be removed, or the caterpillars sprayed with pesticides soon after they hatch. However, neither approach is 100% effective. Male moths can be trapped in pheromone traps; this does not significantly reduce the population, but provides an indication of moth distribution.

United Kingdom
The caterpillars were accidentally introduced to the UK in 2005, almost certainly as eggs on live oak plants imported from continental Europe. Later distribution of the pest probably arose from several similar introductions, in addition to spread from the original point of introduction. By 2019 they had spread to all 33 London boroughs, and the Government had spent £37 million trying to control them. The general public have been asked to look out for these caterpillars and to report them, rather than deal with them themselves. The London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames set up task forces to deal with outbreaks. Sightings of these caterpillars in other areas should be reported to the Forestry Commission, whose research agency issued guidance on the way to contain outbreaks and deal with infestations, so as not to increase the risk to the public.

On 31 March 2008 an emergency amendment added the moth to the list of pests in The Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005, and has required all oak trees coming into the UK from the rest of Europe to have Plant Passports.

In 2013 the Forestry Commission announced helicopters would be deployed to "blanket spray woodland" where the caterpillars posed a health threat.

In 2015 fifteen OPM nests were found in Hampstead Heath, Highgate Wood and Queen's Park; in 2018 over 2,000 were found at those sites. In April 2018 an outbreak of the caterpillars was declared in Greater London and surrounding areas. In Spring 2019 more were reported at Bracknell by the BBC News website, and a number were also found in Virginia Water.

On 15 July 2019 strengthened measures on the import of most species of oak into England were introduced to protect native trees from the threat of the pest.

In July 2023 the Forestry Commission sprayed woodland at Long Eaton, Derbyshire in an effort to control a local outbreak, with a five year plan to monitor the control measures.

Belgium
The moth is reported as being fairly common in Belgium, notably in the Campine but also elsewhere, the population fluctuating from year to year. In 2007 infestations in the province of Limburg were so acute that soldiers were deployed to burn them.

Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the caterpillars are dealt with by biological pest control. As in Germany, local authorities use fluids containing Bt toxins, a biological pesticide. These fluids are sprayed onto the infected trees. In cases of serious contamination, the use of relatively mild chemical pest killers has been allowed by local authorities.

An experiment with bird houses for the great tit began in 2016. It has been observed that great tits like to eat the young, not yet hairy caterpillars in April.

Because chemicals may be harmful to other insects, an alternative is to use vacuuming equipment to remove the caterpillars and then incinerating them.

title: Oak processionary


text:
User talk:Aure1ius9

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 04:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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

title: User talk:Aure1ius9


text:
Talk:Commodore 8050

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commodore 8050. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203060910/http://www.commodoremagazine.com/2010/05/commodore-dual-disk-drives.html to http://www.commodoremagazine.com/2010/05/commodore-dual-disk-drives.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Memory specifications
has enhanced the memory specification in the infobox to read, "4 kB RAM (2114 x 8) 16 kB ROM (6364 x 2)". I don't think it would be clear to readers what the parenthetical expressions mean. The reference is not readily helpful though the anon editor explains, "The numbers do "add up" and are detailed in the reference. Please see page 4 of the reference if unfamiliar with reading the schematics in the reference. Page 24 also details these parts." I know how to read schematics and am not able to get there. It turns out these are the part numbers of the memory chips. I had removed the parentheticals but 72.234.220.38 reverted. It seems like this detailed information should be covered in the body before being added as a cryptic parenthetical to the infobox. ~Kvng (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But should an editor's "not understanding" be used as a reason justifying removal over our common WP:STATUSQUO standard. If anything, taking this to the talk page first would seem appropriate.  There would be a lot of undos if people started browsing quantum physics or molecular biology articles and redacting technical parts they do not understand or were not fully clear to them. I'll proffer that someone unfamiliar with this era of computing would find "CPU: MOS 6502 @ 1 MHz" cryptic – this, and similar notations, are used on dozens of related article infoboxes.

 * That being said: The referenced data is actually on page 5 . What I've done is re-edited the article's infobox adding different formatting and extra wikilinks to the named memory chip parts.  This should make it clearer and assist in people's better understanding of the tech.  I'll also keep this in mind during future article edits of this sort.

 * Often one will find that in many articles, the "{{Infobox information appliance" infoboxes is where the "detailed information" or technical minutia is placed rather than into the body of the article. If you feel this should also be expanded into the boby, feel free. Regards. —

 * My concern is that a reader won't understand what "4 kB RAM (2114 x 8) 16 kB ROM (6364 x 2)" means and that there is not anything in the body of the article that will help them figure it out and it is not obvious from the ref what the numbers in these parentheticals refer to. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Understood. And, as you've been editing Wikipedia for 2 or 3 years more than I, and are doing great work, this is just my opinion, not a lecture. 😁 Things "not being obvious" or the chance that a reader "won't understand" are really not good reasons to remove content such as this from the encyclopedia. The WP:STATUSQUO standard we have really addresses this.  The idea is to not remove information that may be valid, useful and sourced - just not complete.  If an editor is really concerned, in my case, I've felt the best thing to do is to expand upon the lacking data or idea.  If too busy/lazy, there's also the cop-out Template:Expand where one asks someone else to do the work.  Also, before reverting/removing valid sourced data, one should go to the talk page (although it does take effort) at least as a courtesy to the editor and the project at large.  Again, just option here based on my own years at this and the general consensus that has been formed over this period.  Editors do have their own varying ideas.

 * Anyway, as to this article's infobox, as stated, I've done changes that may make things clearer. One can't simplify all subjects to a child-like level though, as many articles such as quantum physics, molecular biology & IPv6 packet headers would not be possible here.  Regards. —

title: Talk:Commodore 8050


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude

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

 * (Rangerdude | talk | contributions)

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

This is a case of an editor making personal attacks.

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

Rangerdude has been making personal attacks. On talk pages and in edit summaries he is calling me a "stalker" and accusing me harassing him. He has not accused me of breaking any Wikipedia polices. My edits have never been harassing and I have never made any personal remarks about this editor. In addition, I asked to participate in mediation and he has refused. I simply request the editor to please not make personal comments as part of the editing process. -Willmcw 04:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Rangerdude's claim: The charge of "wikistalking", which doesn't violate any policies that I am aware of, is simply not true. I have compiled a list of the 203 articles that Rangerdude had contributed to as of 04:33 (UTC), Jun 15, 2005. Of those, there are 59 that we have both contributed to. Of those, Rangerdude contributed first to 27 of them, I contributed first to 19 of them, and on 13 my only editing was to the category (mostly one small recategorization effort). By comparison, my watchlist covers 2272 articles and other pages and I've made a total of over 10,000 edits Rangerdude's editing is not a big concern to me, though I do wish his personal comments would stop. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The articles which Rangerdude cites below are mostly interlinked with one another. In many cases he added a link and I followed it. All of these articles fall into three fields: American Civil War and its historians, the Neo-confederate movement, and the Houston Chronicle.

 * 1. James M. McPherson (Civil war historian and commentator on Neo-confederates)
 * 2. Origins of the American Civil War (Civil War related)
 * 3. Olbers Paradox (Yes, I did arrive at this page from RD's contributions list)
 * 4. Walker Tariff (Civil War related)
 * 5. Ludwig von Mises Institute (Neo-confederate related)
 * 6. Thomas DiLorenzo (Neo-confederate related)
 * 7. Morrill Tariff (Civil War related)
 * 8. Thomas Krannawitter (Neo-confederate related)
 * 9. Claremont Institute (Neo-confederate related)
 * 10. Clyde N. Wilson (Neo-confederate related)
 * 11. The Real Lincoln (Civil war history)
 * 12. Eric Foner (Civil war historian and commentator on Neo-confederates)
 * 13. Black Codes (Civil War related)
 * 14. Negrophobia (Civil War related)
 * 15. Confederate States of America (Civil War related)
 * 16. Taney Arrest Warrant (Civil War related)
 * 17. Category:Clinton Administration scandals (edited while Rangerdude was arguing over undelete of Jim Robinson, a Clinton antagonist. RD had created an orphan category).
 * 18. Houston Chronicle (Invited to participate by other editor)
 * 19. Dan Patrick (radio host) (Chronicle-related)
 * 20. Texans for Public Transportation (Chronicle-related)
 * 21. Texans for True Mobility (Chronicle-related)
 * 22. Robert Jensen (Chronicle-related)
 * 23. Essie Mae Washington-Williams (Neo-confederate related)
 * 24. Metrorail(Chronicle-related)
 * 25. Category:Houston METRORail (Chronicle-related)
 * 26. WEDGE Group (I disambiguated Bill White, an unrelated article I have edited.)

I have never seen a definition of "Wikistalking", but editing closely related articles is not the same as following an editor around to random entries. -Willmcw 22:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * Edit summaries where Rangerdude calls me a "stalker"
 * (?Robert Jensen's September 11, 2001 articles - Jensen incident was more than just "articles" - involved a widely publicized controversy. Quit making unnecessary and deconstructive stalker edits)
 *  (It's an affiliated project. Some KSEV people write for LST, but not all LST works for KSEV. Nobody likes a stalker.)
 *  (revert stalker edit re: "controversy" - def. n. " A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." - not a POV term)
 *  (revert stalker deletion. Chronically biased is part of station history, add description of LST - edited by Patrick)
 *  (?Personal comments - and stalking is stalking, please stop.)
 * (Nobody likes a stalker...)
 *  (Revert deletion of legit. material. LST is a major & newsworthy Chronicle critic. Nobody likes a stalker)

 * Talk pages where Rangerdude calls me a "stalker"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=15204034&oldid=15203535
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MacGyverMagic&diff=15210871&oldid=15205845
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willmcw&diff=15175780&oldid=15164302
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nobs01&diff=15212120&oldid=15182804
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rangerdude&diff=15164492&oldid=15164262

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * no personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * User_talk:Rangerdude
 * User_talk:Rangerdude
 * Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Mediation

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Uncle Ed 02:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

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

Hello. I would like to take this opportunity to respond by demonstrating that User:willmcw's allegation in this matter is both frivolous and likely a retaliatory action for my posts made earlier today in which I requested arbitration against him for prolonged and extended wiki-stalking against me over a period of several months. I intend to further demonstrate that Willmcw has indeed engaged in a demonstrable pattern of behavior that may be accurately characterized as wiki-stalking, hence my previous posts in which I stated that he was engaged in the very same. Far from being a "personal attack" as he contends, these statements were made to communicate my objection to the very practice they describe, which also happens to be the practice in which Willmcw has been engaged towards me. Given that previous less direct attempts over the past several months to communicate this objection to Willmcw have failed to produce any reconciliation in his behavior, it is further my contention that these direct statements were both necessary and justified.

Evidence of Willmcw's Wiki-Stalking
During the course of my interaction with Willmcw I have communicated repeatedly to him that I consider his behavior towards me to be harassing and generally deconstructive to the purposes of wikipedia. His behavior has nevertheless become an extended, prolonged, and recurring problem with no resolution in site. Given that he now contends my latest and final attempts to convey to him my objection to his behavior before seeking outside intervention have prompted him to accuse me of personal attacks in place of resolving the objectionable behavior, it is necessary that I demonstrate that Willmcw has indeed engaged in wiki-stalking.

Definition - wiki-stalking, or stalking, as used in the context I have described pertains to a successive and extended pattern of editing behavior in which the aforementioned editor, Willmcw, has singled out my person and the edits I make on wikipedia for personal monitoring, harassment, deconstruction, and agitation over an extended period of time. Stalking consists of closely monitoring and following an individual editor's editing history to a degree that exceeds reasonable and ordinary use, and in doing so specifically targetting the edits of that editor for subsequent changes premised not on the subject matter of the articles in question but rather due to the editor who made them. Stalking of this type is a type of behavior that may be reasonably classified as trolling. It is also of poor etiquette and fosters incivility by subjecting the stalked editor to undue harassment and a level of cross-scrutiny above and beyond that which would be experienced through normal, everyday editing practices.

Background I first joined wikipedia approximately 6 months ago. In short order after joining I first encountered Willmcw on a small number of articles. Our first significant exchange happened on the article neo-confederate. Though heated at times this exchange produced eventual agreement and a working article. In short order after this exchange, Willmcw began appearing to make an unusually high number of followup edits on dozens of unrelated articles where I had contributed. The frequency and degree of our encounters soon exceeded what could reasonably be expected from chance encounters, and also ranged into topic areas far outside of Willmcw's normal areas of expertise, interest, or editing frequency. In summary, I may cite some 40 or more different articles where I have made an edit or contribution of some form that have immediately precipitated Willmcw's arrival at the said articles to make subsequent edits

, , ,, , , , , , ,, , , , ,, , , , ,, , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , ,, ,

Notable Cases of Stalking
1. James M. McPherson - On 2/1/01 I began developing this article through multiple factual additions and reorganizations. Willmcw followed me here after our discussions on neo-confederate towards the end of January and began deconstructing my additions around February 6th through 15th. His first change was to remove an entire summary paragraph the provided a brief general statement of materials documented in detail over the course of subsequent paragraphs. I reverted his edits, noting that the summary items were detailed in subsequent paragraphs. Willmcw responded by adding snidely worded and unprofessional qualifiers to the summaries, alleging specific charges had been made "by unnamed critics" that were indeed mentioned in the details and links. From then until late February I continued developing this article, adding several links in total. Throughout this period Willmcw engaged in multiple petty tit-for-tat style edits, deconstructive deletions, and awkward textual rearrangements while contributing very little new or pertinent information to the article in general. The article reached a form resembling its current one on February 15th. As new material about the subject of the article was published, I made subsequent additions on May 30th. Willmcw followed me back on May 31st, resuming multiple tit-for-tat and deconstructive editing rearrangements with little benefit or new material to the article. These edits in general tended to convey a POV that reflected favorably upon the political left/liberalism, such as changing a description of The Nation magazine from "magazine" to the more professional and academic-sounding "journal" and resuming the previously resolved issue of a general summary sentence followed by specific details.

2. Origins of the American Civil War - I began work on this article along with some other editors before I met Willmcw at the neo-confederate article. About the same day he followed me to James M. McPherson, willmcw, who had never before shown an interest in this article, began making several edits to it. Though not generally deconstructive as with the McPherson edits, this was one of several articles Willmcw followed me to at approximately the same time he began monitoring my edits across the board (circa weeks of February 6-15th).

3. Olbers Paradox - on February 10th I made an addition and factual clarification to this article on an obscure topic of astronomy. Willmcw, who previously had expressed no interest in this or any related subject, arrived the following day to make tit-for-tat changes to my additions and my additions alone. The changes he made included unneccessary and largely pointless linguistic changes (e.g. "wrote" to "observed") and the unexplained removal of a summary statement for the scientific implications of Poe's theory. Though a relatively minor dispute, the law of probability dictates that the only way Willmcw could've stumbled across this article to make non-pressing edits to my additions and my additions alone the day after I added them is if he was intentionally monitoring and stalking my contributions.

4. Walker Tariff - Again, I edited this article on February 8th and again Willmcw showed up to make changes - this time minor - a few days later. The only statistically probable way he could've "happened" upon this obscure article when he did, and in accordance with his arrival on the other aforementioned articles I had edited, many of them obscure, at the same moment is if he was stalking my editing history.

5. Ludwig von Mises Institute - same thing, same timeframe.

6. Thomas DiLorenzo - same thing, same timeframe. This time he removed some pertinent links I added without significant specification. The purpose of removing and consolidating the links in general seemed to be directed at limiting or restricting their inclusion - not unsurprising as this user's political POV's differ with the links' contents.

7. Morrill Tariff - same thing, same timeframe. Willmcw quickly became involved in an extended discussion on this article as well, aimed primarily at deconstructing my edits and giving a voice of support to changes made by another editor who was at the time attempting to insert his own POV into the article's interpretive material. This is one of the first of many cases where Willmcw has mysteriously "arrived" in the middle of a disagreement between myself and another editor, only to advocate the position of the other editor. Again the topic was obscure and completely unrelated to any of Willmcw's usual areas of interest. He followed me there and started throwing fuel to the flames of a pending dispute, plain and simple. The edits he made ranged from unnecessary tit-for-tat word rearrangements to POV advancement and unreasonable source citation requests. The article itself is about an obscure 19th century historical topic and while developing it earlier, I had added a historical quotation by Charles Dickens - a notable commentator of the period for self-evident reasons - that was widely published in the day although neither it, nor the tariff law it talks about, are well known today. Willmcw began deconstructing and removing this quotation without justification (though he left a quotation I added by Karl Marx, another notable period commentator, who took the opposite POV of Dickens, and evidently same POV of the other editor Willmcw was lending his support to) while demanding extraordinary documentation to restore the Dickens quote. The original quote was in an English newspaper article that I have access to but that is not online. Several secondary sources that reproduce it in part are online and I offered them, though none satisfied Willmcw and were dismissed as partisan sources for POV reasons. In turn I provided the full citation of the original newspaper article including title, date, publication etc. which he was reluctant to accept. Several more tit-for-tat and deconstructive edits and extraordinary sourcing demands by Willmcw ensued, all generally aimed at diminishing the amount of the Dickens quote contained and/or removing it entirely e.g., including in spite of sourcing. Again his presence at this article was precipitated by no reason other than the fact I was editing it, and his edits made to it once he arrived were almost entirely dedicated to either dismantling my work or supporting the other editor involved in a disagreement over its contents.

8. Thomas Krannawitter - I created this stub on February 14, willmcw arrived moments later to classify it as a biography. Again, this edit isn't objectionable in itself like some of the other ones that were intentionally deconstructive but the only way for Willmcw to have even known about this article to come to it was by wiki-stalking my editing contributions.

9. Claremont Institute - same timeframe as above on February 14. Again, minor edits but conclusive proof willmcw is wiki-stalking my contributions.

10. Clyde N. Wilson - same as Kranawitter article, more evidence of wiki-stalking my user contributions page.

11. The Real Lincoln - same as Kranawitter. Minor edit made immediately following mine, evidencing he's wiki-stalking my user contributions page. It should be noted that this edit was the addition of the "controversial books" category - a category that is very arguably POV in its own right, and appears to have been added here to denigrate this particular book.

12. Eric Foner - this case was somewhat similar to the McPherson case. I had edited the Foner article, making several additions, back in January sometime before I'd ever met Willmcw. He showed up here and began deconstructing my edits on February 15th - the same week he started popping up on all the other articles I had edited. In this case he pressed me to source contributions to the article that had been made by other editors and generally attempted to suppress or diminish the article's already exceedingly brief mention of Foner's well known and publicly admitted marxist political affiliations. That willmcw showed up here at the time he did again indicates he was wiki-stalking my user contributions, this time going back to things I had added a month earlier.

13. Black Codes - Just before I signed up for wikipedia I extensively sourced and developed this article from a small stub to a thoroughly documented and specific article containing multiple specific statute descriptions, timelines, and a delineation of their development in the United States. I added a few things to it as well after joining. Around February 15th Willmcw, again wiki-stalking my editing contributions, arrived at this article and actively attempted to agitate for the deconstruction of the extensive work I had done. He began this effort by attempting to recruit another editor who had previously worked on this article into a dispute with my edits, misrepresenting them through out of context quotations in the process. When that editor did not bite he began the work himself on a related article I had been developing (Negrophobia) plus the usual tit-for-tat edits on the Black Codes article. It should be noted at this point I also stated one of my first vocal objections with his editing behavior by noting in the description page that I was adding more material in order to forestall his "planned deconstruction" of my work as he had been doing on so many other articles.

14. Negrophobia - This was an article I had also developed before joining with a username, which Willmcw again followed through his wiki-stalking of my editor contributions. He first requested sources, which I quickly provided (the original edits had been made before I was accustomed to wikipedia's sourcing methods). On February 16th he began deconstructing my additions premised around an awkward and unusual semantical concept ("negrophobia" is a term used by historians to describe pre-civil war white racism against african americans and Willmcw was insisting that 19th century original source documents showing pre-civil war white racism couldn't be used to describe "negrophobia" since they didn't use the modern historian's word "negrophobia" themselves, e.g. ). The entire exercise was counterproductive and aimed primarily and dismantling the extensive contributions I was making to the article. His sourcing "requests" reached excessive lengths so as to border on absurdity, including posts that essentially amounted to demands that I provide him with a private historical etymology of the word "negrophobia" as used by historians itself. I got a strong feeling that the tactic being used here was to tire me with excessive and impractical demands so that I would stop his deconstructive edits, which essentially amounted to deleting material additions and historical quotes I had added to the article outright and in large segments at a time.

15. Confederate States of America - this is a historical article about the government of the CSA. Back around January 28th I added a factual reference to their government's foreign diplomacy involving the reciept of diplomatic recognition from the country of Saxe Coburg and Gotha. This information was discussed when the addition was made and fully documented in historical records to the other editors here on the talk page at the time I added it. In early March another editor came along and, unaware of the January 28th discussion, sourcing, and addition of the material on the talk page link above, deleted it. The information was restored with a note to see the talk page. The information had already been established, accepted, and settled and the removal had apparently been a mistake. Then willmcw showed up - again after seeing that I was the one restoring the information. He immediately lent his support to the editor who was mistakenly removing the information, causing me to refer him to the talk page as well. At that point he shifted strategies and began denigrating the nationhood status of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha itself, to support the contention that it wasn't a true act of diplomacy. This produced a prolonged, tedious, and wholly unnecessary diversion in which I had to demonstrate to willmcw's excessively high demands that he was just plain wrong (all along he could've obtained the exact same information by simply clicking on wikipedia's own SCG article, which I suggested he do but which he evidently declined). Once again he wiki-stalked me here, intentionally picked a bone over an innocuous and fully supported edit I made, and attempted to justify its deconstruction and removal by trying to make me reprove and redemonstrate that which was already plainly and thoroughly sourced on the page itself.

16. Taney Arrest Warrant - I developed this article some on May 18th after finding a stronger source for information than it contained than the one being used previously (the new source I added was a published article by a well known author & the old was a cluttery usenet thread containing some of the same info the published article had repeated in far more polished form). The appropriateness of using the article over a usenet post was obvious, so I substituted it in the links. Sure enough, Willmcw showed up a few days later to restore the old usenet post with little reason beyond the fact that I'm the one who made the edit. Once again, this is an obscure wikipedia article on a highly specialized subject. Willmcw found it by wiki-stalking my editor contributions page.

17. Bill Clinton scandals category - On April 18th I developed a category to consolidate and facilitate navigation of scandals in the Clinton administration. About a week later Willmcw showed up and rearranged the category designations with little practical contribution to wikipedia, but a distinct change nonetheless that was precipitated by his continued following of me through my editor contributions page. See, , , ,, , , , ,

18. Houston Chronicle - On May 12th I added a brief reference to a boycott of this newspaper that was announced a couple days earlier by the Republican Party. I had previously done work on this article on other areas that had surprisingly escaped Willmcw's deconstructionist attention. On May 24th he showed up and immediately began massive deletions and revisions to the article, primarily aimed at removing content I had added or changing the wordings around in ways that intentionally diminished, belittled, or understated the information in sections I had written. Among his more notable deconstructions was a major editing of the paragraph I added on the 12th about the newly announced boycott. This paragraph was fully sourced and accurate to the event it described, however Willmcw misread the link I added describing it then transposed his misconstruction into the text in a way that severely diminished the scope of the boycott (he attributed it to the action of a minor committee within the Republican Party rather than the Republican Party as a whole and persisted in advancing this faulty and diminished version through several posts until I explained and showed him in detail how he was being inaccurate). Also ncluded among his edits were the outright deletions of external links that had extensive information on the Houston Chronicle controversies but did not meet Willmcw's political POV's or unusually crafted and often arbitrary editing stipulations. When I restored the links with extensive notes on where to find the pertinent material on them he continued his deletions and at times added POV and pejorative qualifier descriptions about them and other phrases. He also engaged in his usual tit-for-tat edits and removal of paragraphs etc., while adding virtually nothing new or constructive of his own to the article. Instead the whole of his work seemed - as usual - aimed at deconstructing everything I had added to the greatest extent he could get away with. Unfortunately the Chronicle dispute has extended to the present. It is currently under mediation involving another editor who differs on some of the content with me. Characteristic of his involvement in every other article where I've had similar content differences, Willmcw has also offered his full support to espousing the POV of the other editor against me. It should also be noted that during the current mediation Willmcw engaged in other improprieties that will be discussed in greater detail below.

19. Dan Patrick (radio host) - I created this article as a stub on May 27th. Willmcw arrived within approximately half an hour of its creation to begin edits. As with some of the other cases, they were mostly minor and without objection but the timing and presence of Willmcw on this article indicate once again that he is following me from my editor contributions page.

20. Texans for Public Transportation - another article stub I created on June 2. Willmcw arrived a day later to edit - once again following me.

21. Texans for True Mobility - a stub I created on May 26th. Willmcw arrives on May 27th to edit - makes a minor non-controversial category change, but further proof that he is wiki-stalking from my editor contributions page.

22. Robert Jensen - stub I created on June 14, Willmcw arrives on talk page on same day, advocates position of another editor who wanted to change the content I included - more evidence of wiki-stalking.

23. Essie Mae Washington-Williams - Yet another obscure article I made additions to on March 14th. Willmcw showed up on March 22nd. Once again, the only way he could've done this is by wiki-stalking my editor contributions page.

24. Metrorail - I added material on June 3rd, willmcw arrives moments later and deletes multiple legitimate categories. Another minor change, but also more proof he's working off my editor contributions page.

25. Category:Houston METRORail - I created this category on June 3rd, willmcw arrived moments later to reorganize it with other category placements. Again the change is minor, but proves he's working off my editor contributions page.

26. WEDGE Group - I created this article stub on a corporation of virtually no relation to anything willmcw and I have edited in common on June 17th. Sure enough, willmcw arrived 2 days later to make a minor link fix - proves yet again that he's following my editor contributions page.

27. Council on American-Islamic Relations talk page - Upon seeing a RfC for this page regarding a current editing dispute I visited its talk page and posted a comment on June 21st on how a similar situation on the neo-confederate article was resolved to its current form. Though this comment pertained to a solution reached on another article we had both edited, its content had absolutely no bearing on anything of interest to Willmcw prior to my arrival there. Sure enough, Willmcw showed up the very same day and attempted to refight the dispute on the other article, relying upon an incorrect portrayal of events there at that. As usual, Willmcw had previously shown absolutely no interest in the CAIR article. The only way he could've found and responded to my comment is by intentionally stalking me there.

28. Justice at the Gate - I created this page on June 18th, Willmcw arrived on June 23rd to recategorize it. Further evidence of wiki-stalking by him.

29. Rick Perry - I edited this page on June 23rd to include a current event about Perry, the governor of Texas. Willmcw stalked me here on June 26th. His edit was minor in this case (fixing a photo format) but the fact he happened upon this article to edit immediately after I had done so evidences further stalking.

30. DeBow's Review - In April another editor created a less developed stub of this article about a historical magazine under De Bow's Review, unaware of the existing article. I redirected the stub to the more established article on July 1st to rectify this problem. The small amount of factual material contained in the stub was already present in the established article and the remainder contained unsourced POV speculation that the stub's author had deemed to be "irony," thus I saw insufficient need to merge the two with anything beyond a simple redirect. Willmcw stalked me to this article on July 2nd where he subsequently attempted to insert the unsourced POV "irony" sentences from the redirected stub as well as multiple unnecessary tit-for-tat word rearrangements that are characteristic of many of Willmcw's stalker cases yet do little to nothing for the article itself. Once again, the only way Willmcw could have "happened upon" this obscure article on a subject completely foreign to his common areas of interest less than a day after my edit was by stalking me here through my user contributions page.

31. James Dunwoody Brownson DeBow - Related to stalker incident #30 described above. I moved a biographical paragraph from the redirected DeBow's Review stub about JDB DeBow (the editor of DeBow's Review) into the existing separate article about him after Willmcw attempted to reinsert it into the DeBow's Review article. Willmcw immediately stalked me there and commenced to tit-for-tat rearrangements of the very same paragraph he was repeatedly trying to insert into the DeBow's Review article, apparently for little other reason than the fact that I was the one who placed it there. In addition to stalking, this behavior is suggestive of an unhealthy obsessive compulsive need he has to make edits to my work on wikipedia simply because I'm the one who posted it.

32. Tariff of 1842 - This is another article on an obscure trade law topic that is a work in progress for me. I am currently in the process of developing it and on July 1st I wrote some new descriptive paragraphs to this end. Willmcw stalked me to this article yet again on July 2nd for no other reason than the fact that I am the one editing it. This topic is too obscure for him to have happened on by chance and is largely foreign to his areas of interest, thus the only way he could've found it was by following me there.

33. Claremont Institute - Part II on this same article. I developed this article substantially on July 1st by adding extensively sourced material, quotations, and formatting. Willmcw arrived during his July 2nd stalking wave and began immediately deconstructing virtually every single edit I made. The majority of his edits were clearly pushing a POV, and contained virtually nothing constructive towards building or bettering this article. A major focus of his POV edits was to diminish and deconstruct the section on controversies the Claremont Institute had been involved in. This activity consisted of removing and diminishing virtually all references to Claremont's controversies except those involving the Ludwig von Mises Institute alone. His object in doing so was also to facilitate his insertion of a blatantly POV pejorative description of the Von Mises Institute. I removed this pejorative several times, directing him repeatedly to WP:NPOV yet he has continued to reinsert it. In an edit that he described as a simple movement of existing text to a different section, Willmcw also deleted specific material regarding the Claremont Institute's statements on Robert Bork and diminished the discussion of Bork to a brief 5-word afterthought - again for the purpose of emphasizing only Von Mises Institute critics. To further facilitate his attempt to group all critics of Claremont into the Ludwig von Mises Institute alone, Willmcw also deleted a published and sourced criticism of Claremont by Derek Copold, a critic not affiliated with the Von Mises Institute. The Copold source had been a part of the article since its creation. When I restored this deletion, noting it was unjustified, Willmcw first began mischaracterizing Copold as a "blogger" (the sourced article by Copold was in a print publication put out several years before blogging even came into the mainstream) then attempted to remove the source entirely. I attempted to address this with him on the talk page, in which he responded with ad hominem dismissals of the source and even a personal attack allegation against me in the description line where he implied without any substantiation or reason that I was Copold! Such behavior is clearly harassing and deconstructive to wikipedia.

34. List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations/William H. Herndon - Willmcw stalked an edit I made to fix a broken link on these two articles for a dab. The articles were yet again far too obscure for him to have happened upon by chance, proving he is still stalking.

35. Abraham Lincoln - On July 4 an anonymous ISP editor added a mid-article sentence containing duplicate information already in the article and an unsourced anonymous assertion. I removed this edit as part of a routine maintenence of the article. A few hours later Willmcw stalked me there, reinserting a more specific and sourced version of the previously inappropriate ISP addition. Evidencing that he made this edit for no other purpose than the fact that I had done the previous maintenence, he labelled his addition "add back prematurely removed fact."

36. Border states (Civil War) - On July 4th I made a factual addition to this article about the division of New Mexico territory into Union and Confederate halves during the Civil War. Shortly afterwards, another editor added factually erronious material to this description after finding an unsourced personal website that contained the same error he repeated. I corrected the errors and posted an original source and description correction on the talk page that in any reasonable circumstances should've settled it. A few hours passed by and Willmcw yet again stalked me to this page. Without stating any reason for doing so, he immediately reverted my sourced correction and restored the factual error simply because I'm the one who corrected it.

37. John Baylor - I created this stub on July 5th. Willmcw stalked me to it only a few hours later. As usual, the topic of the article was obscure and could only have been found by him stalking me.

38. Arizona Territory (CSA) - I edited this page on July 5th. Later that day Willmcw stalked me to it to post routine questions on its talk page. While a minor change, it is further evidence that he is following my user contributions yet again. It should be noted that the multiple minor followup edits of this sort where Willmcw has stalked me often resemble the stalking edits in "the Recycling Troll" case precedent, where the user of that name was blocked after following another editor for the purpose of making minor and inconsequential edits that were nevertheless deemed to be harassing due to their stalking element.

39. Ken Masugi - Willmcw followed me here on July 2nd during his 9+ article stalking wave around July 4th weekend 2005. The edit was inconsequential much like the "Recycling Troll" case's incidents, but clearly stalking and therefore disruptive.

40. Southern Partisan - On July 23rd I followed a link to this article and immediately noticed it was in need of both a major cleanup and an NPOV overhaul and did so. Willmcw stalked me to it later the same day where he subsequently made multiple additions to the article, all aimed at disparaging the magazine itself with allegations that are favorable to his personal political POV. More evidence of wiki-stalking.

Evidence of other related improprieties by Willmcw
Another related impropriety to this dispute is worth mentioning as it involves a current article mediation on the Houston Chronicle page where I had communicated my objections to Willmcw's long pattern of harassing behavior towards me as exhibited through his extensive wiki-stalking of my edits over the past 5 months. This mediation involves a disagreement over content between myself and another editor (Katefan) within the Houston Chronicle article. When mediation was initiated, User:MacGyverMagic volunteered for the job and contacted myself and Katefan to arrange for the process. As noted above, Willmcw had tracked me to this article and as the disagreement with Katefan emerged, he remained present on its talk page generally espousing her side on disputed matters and agitating with a pattern of edits similar to those noted above.

When mediation was offered the question of who should participate arose. Knowing Willmcw's wiki-stalking of me and general bias against my edits on other articles and hoping that some sort of discussion over the differences I had with Katefan could be achieved, I specifically informed the mediator that I had an unpleasant history with Willmcw and requested that the mediation between myself and Katefan be kept separate from mediation with other editors, including Willmcw. I believed that his inclusion in the main mediation section between myself and Katefan would lead to a similar pattern of agitation and deconstructive edits I had experienced from Willmcw previously, thus producing results that were counterproductive to the mediation as a whole. I described this concern at length here to the mediator and as a response it was decided that the mediation page would be conducted in two separated sections. The first would be open to only myself and katefan - the main two participants in the disagreement - and focus on resolving our differences. The second section would be open to all other editors who wished to participate, including Willmcw. This, I had hoped, would prevent the aforementioned problems.

The mediation began in a generally constructive manner with both myself and Katefan explaining our positions in great detail in the section that was explicitly designated for participation by only the two of us and the mediator. On June 14th Willmcw arrived and began adding comments to the second section of the mediation that largely resemble his RfC complaint here (he basically accused me of making "personal attacks" on him after I conveyed a message on another article to him that I objected to his stalking of me in the patterns evidenced above). I responded at the time that the dispute over his stalking behavior was not germane to the mediation itself then asked him to discuss it in a more appropriate place and to cease from doing it as well. He responded several times by pressing the issue.

Later that day Willmcw unilaterally decided that he should also be a participant in the closed mediation section that was specifically designated for myself and Katefan alone with instructions for no other editors to post. Acting without any authorization, Willmcw added a section for himself and his own extensive comments into this closed mediation and modified the mediation header to include himself in addition to the two of us. Upon discovering this I made note that it was an unauthorized activity and restored the original mediation's formatting by moving Willmcw's additions to the designated secondary mediation section. He immediately reverted this to once again place himself in the closed section. I have again restored the original formatting and subsequently posted notes on the mediation pages and to the mediator informing them of this highly inappropriate behavior. Furthermore, given our extensive and unpleasant history and given the general nature of Willmcw's involvement in this dispute and others, I may only conclude that the purpose of this action was more agitation directed towards me for the purpose of inflaming an already delicate and heavily contested rift on the Houston Chronicle article.

Solutions
As I noted in a recent post on my talk page, I believe the best solution to this ongoing and recurring problem would be for the two of us to minimize our direct interaction with each other on wikipedia. This solution is consistent with my desire that he cease and desist his wiki-stalking and seems to be the only means of ensuring civility. I am already content to pursue this route, given that my repeated and extensive attempts to communicate my objections with his editing practices against me to him have produced no result whether communicated politely, as I did for the first several months of our encounters, or in blunt and direct terms, as I had conveyed in the messages that Willmcw now misportrays as if they were some sort of unprovoked namecalling attack. Whether Willmcw desires a peaceful solution or not is ultimately up to him though, and right now the only solution I can see would be for us to go our separate ways and steer clear of each other wherever possible. Rangerdude 09:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment on claimed similarities between stalked page edits
The claim by Willmcw found at the header of this page - namely that each of the articles where Willmcw showed up shortly after my edits were made fall under three common categories - is a severe stretch by every sense of the word. His "list" where he purports all the articles to fit into 3 fields is a severe stretch by any sense of the word. It label such items as the Claremont Institute (a neo conservative thinktank), Thomas Krannawitter (an official at the Claremont Institute) and Essie Mae Washington-Williams (the african american daughter of Strom Thurmond) as "neo-confederate" when any such link to the purported category is so far removed from that category as to render the claim absurd. In a similar fashion, he labels the Walker Tariff of 1846 as "civil war" even though it preceded the war by some 15 years, was replaced by another tariff some 4 years before the war, and does not mention anything about the war in its article text. He also tosses in several general history articles such as Black Codes and Negrophobia - which pertain to decades upon decades of US history before and after the civil war, only touching upon it briefly.

It is even difficult to believe his assertions on the articles that fall beyond Willmcw's 3 allegedly common "fields." The Clinton Administration Scandals category edits, for example, are alleged to have been discovered through the Jim Robinson article, as Robinson was a critic of Clinton however this is similarly trying as (1) the Robinson article said very little about his criticism of Clinton, and (2) critics of Clinton number in the millions. And so it is with so many of his stalker edits. They are not in fact similar category edits surrounding a similar topic but rather rationalizations developed after the fact to connect the various topics he stalked me to by extreme multi-degree separations, purportedly connecting each. By that same reasoning, edits to an article on George W. Bush are also "civil war related" because he occupies the same office Abe Lincoln once did and they're "neo-confederate related" because Ed Sebesta has called him one.

It's also of interesting note that two of the three purported "fields" of common topic - the Houston Chronicle and Civil War history - were arrived at by willmcw after my participation began there following our first encounter at the neo-confederate article. So not only did he follow me from edited page to edited page, often attempting to dismantle my work on each - he even followed me to two new "fields" of my interest where he had previously shown absolutely no inclination to edit on his own! Please note that wikipedia does not have features that permit a user to monitor edits made to articles with extremely tangential "6 degrees of separation" links to a common topic of interest. It does, however, permit users to watch the editor contributions page of other editors and follow them there, which Willmcw plainly did on dozens upon dozens of cases, among them the ones I have documented, evidenced, and detailed above. Rangerdude 02:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Applicable Policies and Guidelines

 * Assume good faith - stalking behavior described above constitutes a breach of the good faith assumption
 * Civility - stalking behavior described above is personal harassment
 * WP:POINT - stalking is disruptive to Wikipedia per precedent

Applicable Precedents
Case with "The Recycling Troll" (March 2005). In this case User:The Recycling Troll (TRT) was accused of stalking User:RickK. The stalking behavior consisted of TRT going to articles "last edited by Wikipedia administrator RickK and make minor changes--normally grammatical adjustments or wikilinking existing words and phrases." (See Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Recycling_Troll) Following an arbitration process over TRT's wiki-stalking and other allegations of his being a sockpupet or banned repeat user, intervention was finally sought and obtained from Jimbo Wales. Following the arbitration request Wales permanently blocked TRT, citing as a reason that "Recycling Troll was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK".

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

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

Rangerdude is gaming the system. All volunteers at Wikipedia must agree that their donated work will be "edited mercilessly", although some apparently expect an exemption from this. Ranger is demanding that Will not edit his contributions, and then bullying him for refusing.

Ranger should stop doing this, or be asked to take a week (or more) off from Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Uncle Ed 02:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view question
Question regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Willmwc refers to the Ludwig von Mises Institute as a "Neo-confederate related" field. Not knowing what "neo-confederate" is, nor if there is a wiki Category:Neo-confederate exists, perhaps further explaination is in order to this reference. Thank you. nobs 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That might be a good idea. Meantime, there's Neo-confederate. The Mises Institute has been called "neo-confederate" by two sources. -Willmcw 23:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * PS This RFC is not active- if you have any questions for me it would be better if you asked them on my talk page or the relevant article page. Thanks -Willmcw 23:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

Case seems pretty clearcut; it must have taken hours to assembly this type of work. I myself encountered such activity as this when I was a newbie on the Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1 page, where the Archived reference material had repeatedly be reworked to where User:Willmcw reverted his own signature, then some anonymous poster assumed my personal name (Rob) that a mediator there used onetime, and applied to all User:Willmcw postings on that page. The intent was clear, CYA & confuse the discussion, especially since User:Willmcw/(Rob) demonstrated no real interest in the facts under discussion. And that's not half the story. As a newbie, I was amazed such conduct was possible among Wiki Administrators, and still am. Thank you. Nobs01 18:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobs, could you please provide the "diffs" for the edits you are referring to? I checked and I don't see where I reverted my signature or any similar edits on Talk:Russell Tribunal, and I've never edited the archives. You may be confusing me with another editor. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing you provide them as well. Nice to see there are so many "Robs" in the house.  As for the discussions on the talk pages to which you provided links, nothing seems amiss.  Methinks you are suffering from a bit of reading comprehension difficulties. -Rob 20:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed Russell Tribunal Archives at & .  At the time of the discussion, I made a post to the effect that it was my belief that there were only three participants in that ongoing discussion.  The posting, as reconstructed from memory had three clauses, with (about) three words each, and should have read something like this:
 * "It's my blief, that this discussion, consists of 3 people"
 * Subsequent review conducted over this past weekend found no such posting. Also, at the time of that discussion, I became convinced that a user of sufficient skill could make revisions to a wikipage without it being reflected in the history, and thus being a newbie, I surmised that wiki history pages could not be relied upon as a factual basis for a future arguement.  There are possibly two reasons for this: (1) a user of sufficient technical skill can make an alteration, or (2) I'm an idiot and don't understand how these things work.
 * On a personal note, I have no interest whatsoever in getting into personal disputes with other users. I seek to contribute, and try to focus 99.9% of my attention on the substance of articles. I avoid POV/NPOV arguements like the plague, cause experience teaches me that when another user claims POV or lacks NPOV, it's usually the first sign their arguement has ran out of gas.  Either an arguements stands on its own, and doesn't need endless repetition, or very often it can't be defended so it's just easier to assault someone else's work. But most of all experience teaches me that I can be wrong. Nobs01 20:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that evaluation Nobs. So to recap, is it correct to say that this comment:
 * I myself encountered such activity as this when I was a newbie on the Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1 page, where the Archived reference material had repeatedly be reworked to where User:Willmcw reverted his own signature, then some anonymous poster assumed my personal name (Rob) that a mediator there used onetime, and applied to all User:Willmcw postings on that page.  The intent was clear, CYA & confuse the discussion, especially since User:Willmcw/(Rob) demonstrated no real interest in the facts under discussion.
 * is "no longer operative"? -Willmcw 20:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * partially yes. Nobs01 21:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok....which part? -Willmcw 21:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Final clarification: It is my impression that Willmcw & Anon-Rob are the same user, however I could be wrong. I have (1) no need to pursue it, I have (2) no wish to pursue it, I have (3) no way to pursue it, and hopefully now, I have (4) no reason to pursue it.Nobs01 21:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That information can be determined by a Developer. If you feel it is significant enough to concern his Requests for adminship/Willmcw, then it should be raised.     18:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who "Anon-Rob" is, but -Rob is not Willmcw. You'll both note that -Rob (that's me) has been editing that article months before either Nobs, Nobs01 or Willmcw made their first edit there (see old archives of Talk page). I believe the confusion stems from my re-signing a few of my latter edits on the discussion page with my handle -Rob per another editors request. -Rob 18:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I expect that it won't come up again. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are you guys still looking for Mediation? If so, let me know. Andre ( talk ) 20:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:Leo Frantz

Born in Humrun Malta, Frantz came to Canada in 1967. Throughout his years of schooling Leo's academic interests always curved towards the arts (theater, music, and art) taking just about any opportunity to display his vocal abilities many weeknights were spent attending weekly jam nights hosted by some known names like: Gordd Depp and Sandy Horne, Toronto's popular 80's band "The Spoons." Joe Passion, now performing in Essen Gemany as "Jerry Lee Lewis." "The Meteors," "Tom Barlow." to name a few. After years of attending the jam nights around town Frantz found himself invoved in many gigs with these fellow artists doing many bars, recreational centers, and corporate gigs for many different occassions. It was from these musical aquaintances that Leo had been referred to what soon became his first professional stint into the tribute business. A Tribute to The Backstreet Boys (Backstreets Back), which took him to many various locations across the United States, South America and Canada ( Hawaii, Panama, California, New York, Las Vegas, Winnipeg ) After two and a half years potraying Howie D,  the realization that his heart layed with a different era of music, soon became his new determination and focus. It has always been the interest of Leo to perform the hits of Billy Joel. "Music from the piano man are definite timeless classics." People would always say; “My God you resemble the piano man."   "You have his eyes.” Auditioning band members for what soon became the integral part of "Big Shot." With the looks and sounds of Billy Joel Audiences across Canada and The U.S.A.  have been delighted and amazed with Frantz rendition of the piano man. Leo say’s; “I’m not someone who wants to be Billy, I just love his music, and would like to play a part in keeping his music heard by audiences old and new. “My resemblance to Billy, adds to the illusion of my shows.” Leo is presently involved in a production called "Everybody Has A Dream" a thirty year retrospective of Billy Joels musical career, with nostalgic recreated moments of Joels musical history,and multimedia showcases this experience is sure to please the true Billy Joel fan as well as the novice fan. For more information on this show please go to www.hypeevents.ca to enquire.

Here are some of the venues Big Shot has played: Sarnia - Port Edward Charity Casino, Brantfort Slot and Race, Brantford Casino, New Orleans - Boloxy Mississipi (for Coca-Cola), Barrie - The Foundation, Rochester New York - Fat Moes, London Ontario - Wonderland Gardens, Alliston - Caspers, Rhode Island - Block Island South, Petawawa- Arena, Michigan- Bay City, Richmond hill - Mill Pond Park, Sault St. Marie Casino, Stage West Dinner Theatre - Mississauga, Ontario Canada, Ottawa - Chateau Laurier, Ohio - Vandahlia, and Blue Ash, Saskatoon, Regina - Casino Regina, Bramalea, Ontario - Ching Wing Ding, Pohattan, Kansas - Casino, Welland, Ontario - Food Festival,

Acting Studies: Leah Posluns Theatre - scene study - with acting coach Judy Silver (Keneau Reeves acting coach) Second City - improv comedy workshop Ryerson Polytechnical - acting workshop C.A.S.T. (Canadian Actors Study Toronto) - character acting

Vocal Coaching : Liberty Silver: R&B Vocal Techniques, Daniel West Eby (New York State Opera Company) Classical Training

title: User:Leo Frantz


text:
Talk:Chamfer

Clarification
Should the second "exterior" read "interior? If not, would someone please clarify
 * Thanks, I fixed it. Kappa 06:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

chamfer notation on engineering drawings
When a chamfer is annotated on an engineering drawing, does the length correspond to the hypotneuse or the two equal edges of the right triange formed?

The complete answer is actually fairly complex, since it gets into GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ). The short answer is that enough information must be shown to unambiguously describe the chamfer. Typically this is done by showing the lengths of the two non-hypotenuse sides of the triangle. Alternately, you could show the length of one such side as well as the angle formed between the chamfer and one of the sides of the object being chamfered. I have never seen a chamfer illustrated using the length of the hypotenuse; I suppose it could be done, but for GD&T reasons I won't get into, it's generally not a good way of doing it. Fasrad 16:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

is a fillet a chamfer?
quoted from article: "Chamfers may be both exterior (cutting off an external angle) and interior (filling in an internal angle). A fillet is the opposite, rounding off an interior corner."

The first sentence says that a fillet is a chamfer, as something that fills in an interior angle can be called a chamfer. The second sentece says that a fillet is the opposite of a chamfer, implying that something that fills in an interior angle is *not* a chamfer. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.139.211 (talk • contribs)

It is my opinion that the real difference between a "fillet" and a "chamfer" is that a fillet is curved, while a chamfer is straight. This is consistent with the nomenclature of AutoCAD, and so I will change the text to match my understanding. (Certainly it's ambiguous as it was!)

--jackhmo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhmo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * AutoCAD input syntax cannot be taken as any more authoritative than someone's opinion regarding mechanical engineering terms. A fillet eases an inside corner, and may be radiused or blobby, such as a welding bead, less often sharply defined like a chamfer, which eases an outside corner or arris. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I can't speak to the AutoCAD syntax, because sadly I've never yet had a chance to learn AutoCAD. But I can say that if you ask the guy on the shop floor, a fillet is what eases an inside corner and a chamfer is what eases an outside corner. That is, what Bill said. — ¾-10 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Okay, after further research, it is clear that fillet is only a rounded inside corner, as you said. A rounded OUTside corner is called a "round", although AutoCad still uses the "fillet" command to draw it.  I'll fix the wording. Jackhmo (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How does "chamfer" apply to a punch or rod?
While retreading a stripped bolt hole, the directions said "Punch or rod must have square end (no chamfer)." I am unclear from reading what I have so far how "chamfer" applies in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.206.3 (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Lark's tongue
I didn't propose this, but I support it because they are closed related concepts. Wizard191 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support The Lark's tongue article will probably never grow beyond the stub that it is now. Since all the info it contains is duplicated here, I would make it redirect to this Chamfer page, if not for the dab hatnote there. Is there a wiki-wizard watching who can help sort that out? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Word origin?
It seems like a rather unusual word - is it named after a specific person or thing? I know this isn't a dictionairy, but it would be nice if the article explained the word's origin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.85 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chamfer. Apparently, literally, "edge breaking". Cheers, — ¾-10 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop chamfer
In Australia these are universally called "Stop chamfers".

The word stop simply indicates the chamfer "stops" before the end of the piece (referred to a "larks tongue" in the article

A chamfer per se goes from one end of the piece to the other.

Oaec 124.182.33.54 (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I think that's universal. It's the article here that's the problem. It needs to clarify lark's tongues and lamb's tongues for one thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What would be the term, if the edge is rounded?
Most of the thing we use in daily life; such as pencil-box, mobile phones, smartphones, Road turns, corners and joints, and such and such; we found in most cases, the corner is blunted; but not exactly a planar chamfer; but a rounded, curved corner.

Is there any term/ wiki page for this structure/method ? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be called a bullnose. A woodworker might call a very small chamfer or bullnose "easing the edge" or "breaking" the edge. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Chamfering the curbs
Handicapped access is enabled when chamfering the curbs in urban settings and at highly-accessed sites (e.g. churches and houses of worship, downtown stores, urban curb corners, etc.). Could this be addressed in the article? MaynardClark (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chamfer


text:
User talk:Jeorgika

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Shiri — Talk 04:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

so called "moldovan" language and Romanian
Salut Jeorgika! Maybe you will like to check the recent dispute regarding to the Moldovan_language and take some support actions. Your help is wellcomed. There is no unitary Moldovan language. It seems that user Node deletes systematic an important part of the text. Plus, you may suppor the action to file a vandalism report as proposal of Dpotop []. Stay sharp.Impreuna suntem o forta. Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs
 * You may also check this out Transnistria. Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs

Alexander for Admin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007. I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs  14:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jeorgika


text:
Edward Jacobson

Edward "Eddie" Jacobson (June 17, 1891, New York City – October 25, 1955, Kansas City, Missouri) was an American Jewish businessman. He is best known as an Army comrade, business partner, and close friend of President Harry S. Truman.

Biography
Jacobson was born in New York City's Lower East Side. His parents, David (1851–1935) and Sarah Rubin Jacobson (1862–1941) were impoverished Jewish immigrants from Lithuania. Jacobson had three brothers and two sisters. The family moved to Kansas in 1893, settling in Leavenworth, before finally relocating to Kansas City, Missouri in 1905.

Jacobson met Truman in 1905, when both worked in downtown Kansas City. They renewed their acquaintance during World War I, when in 1917 they reported for basic training at Fort Sill, near Lawton, Oklahoma, with a unit of soldiers from the Kansas City area. They successfully managed a canteen together, and were thus inspired to open a haberdashery together after the war. The business failed as a result of the post-war recession and the resulting debts burdened both for many years. Jacobson spent the rest of his career as a traveling salesman, which enabled him periodically to visit Truman in Washington. According to David McCullough, Jacobson had open access to the Oval Office.

When Jacobson first heard about what was happening to the Jews in Germany before and during World War II, he took to discussing it with Truman. After he heard the post-war reports regarding the Holocaust and its survivors, his talks with Truman about how to help the Jewish people became more intense. Because Jewish leaders in the U.S. knew Jacobson was a friend of the President, they approached him to lobby Truman with even more fervor.

On March 13, 1948, Jacobson visited Truman at the White House, and persuaded him to meet with Zionist leader Dr. Chaim Weizmann. Truman had been increasingly irritated by lobbying from Zionists, and had issued instructions that he did not want to see any more Zionist spokesmen, but Jacobson reminded him about his admiration for Andrew Jackson. He said "Your hero is Andrew Jackson. I have a hero too. He's the greatest Jew alive. I'm talking about Chaim Weizmann. He's an old man and very sick, and he has traveled thousands of miles to see you. And now you're putting him off. This isn't like you, Harry.". Truman then agreed to meet with Weizmann. Partly as a result of Jacobson's efforts, the United States became the first nation to grant diplomatic recognition to the new state of Israel on May 14, 1948.

In 1949, Jacobson visited Israel, where he met with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and President Weizmann. One Kansas City rabbi told reporters that Jacobson should become President of Israel, and Truman wrote him that while Israel "couldn't nominate a better man, I sincerely hope you won't take it." Jacobson rejected the suggestion, saying that it was just "a silly dream of a very emotional rabbi", and that he was "too proud of my American citizenship to trade it for any office in the world."

After Truman's retirement in 1953, Jacobson had wanted to be his escort for his first visit to Israel. However, before he had the chance, he died of a heart attack in 1955.

Timeline

 * 1893: Moved with his family to Leavenworth, Kansas
 * 1905: Moved with his family to Kansas City, Missouri
 * 19-teens: Worked as a clerk in a Kansas City clothing store
 * 1917–1919: Served as a private in Supply Company, 129th Field Artillery, 60th Brigade, 35th Division, U.S. Army
 * 1919–1922: Partnered with Harry S. Truman in the Truman & Jacobson haberdashery, 104 West 12th St., Kansas City, Missouri
 * 1922–1945: Traveling salesman in the clothing business
 * 1945–1955: Proprietor, Eddie Jacobson's Westport Menswear, Kansas City, Missouri
 * 1947–1948: Urged President Truman to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in the British Mandate of Palestine – now Israel

title: Edward Jacobson


text: User talk:67.140.156.149

title: User talk:67.140.156.149


text:
Salton Sea State Recreation Area

The Salton Sea State Recreation Area offers hunting, fishing, swimming, and camping to visitors on the northeastern side of the Salton Sea.

Recreation
The Salton Sea State Recreation Area is run by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

The Visitors Center is located in the north side of the park, at 33.50444°N, -115.91472°W, on California State Route 111. The Corvina Beach Campground, near the center of the park, is located at 33.47417°N, -115.88889°W.

The Recreation Area was one of the 48 California state parks proposed for closure in January 2008 by California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of a deficit reduction program, not enacted then. The Recreation Area continues to be open to the public.

Flora and fauna
The Salton Sea Recreation Area is in the Colorado Desert section of the Sonoran Desert, in the Lower Colorado River Valley geographic region. The Salton Sea is a stop on a major flyway for migrating birds.
 * List of flora of the Sonoran Desert Region by common name

title: Salton Sea State Recreation Area


text:
File:Safe At Home (The International Submarine Band album - cover art).jpg

Summary
Cover of the International Submarine Band's 1968 album "Safe at Home".


text:
Tainter Lake

Tainter Lake is a small reservoir in north central Dunn County, Wisconsin, on the Red Cedar River at its confluence with the Hay River. The lake was created by a hydroelectric dam (about 3 mi downstream on the Red Cedar at Cedar Falls. The lake, a popular resort and fishing spot, has a surface area of approximately 2 sqmi.

History
Before the installation of the dam at Cedar Falls (Kakabika Falls), Tainter Lake did not exist. The decision to build the mill and dam came from Andrew Tainter (1823 - 1899), a wealthy lumber baron who was a partner in Knapp, Stout and Company, the largest lumber mill in the country during the 1870s. It was reported that they owned 115000 acre of pine land and employed 1,200 men. By that time the company had logging camps on nearly every stream leading to the Red Cedar and controlled almost all of the Red Cedar River and its tributaries. The company's largest mill operation was on the Menomonee River (what the Red Cedar was commonly called) where the lumber settlement became known as the "mills of Menomonie" or "Menomonie Mills" and finally Menomonie, now the county seat of Dunn. The firm continued to log until 1899 when the forests were exhausted and competition keen. The mill at Cedar Falls closed in 1901.

During those productive years of logging, acres of forest land near and next to the Red Cedar River were cleared. While the company owned a number of farms to provide food and meat for the loggers, pioneer farmers also moved to the area, removed stumps and began farming. Most of the newly created farm land sloped, or had access, to the river as it had been so efficient for logging. Decades later this same watershed, and the farming industry, would mean trouble for Tainter Lake. Vegetation maps of the mid-1880s show that the area was 90% forest and 10% native grasses. Maps of the early 1980s indicate that the basin area is less than 50% forest and 40% agricultural land. These are the historical issues that affect the area today, contributing to the excessive algae in Lake Tainter.

Geography
Tainter Lake is located in the Town of Tainter in northern Dunn County, Wisconsin. A small channel divides the lake into North and South regions. the channel creates some of the narrowest parts of the lake (50 ft) and also contains the deepest part of the lake (35 ft). The average depth of the lake is 20 ft.

A few very small resorts are situated on the shores, although the lake is not known for its large fish populations. North Tainter is better known for its fishing than the southern part. This is because the north has multiple fish cribs that were planted over the last 20 years, is significantly shallower than the southern part of the lake, and has many species of fish that spawn in the shallow slow moving water.

North Tainter Lake is fed primarily by the Red Cedar River, but also by the Hay River. Both rivers drain the farm fields north of Lake Tainter. The TMLIA (Tainter Menomin Lake Improvement Association) has been diligently working on an algae problem for the last several years. With their increased participation; hopefully the lake will continue to see some improvement. The Red Cedar River south of the Cedar Falls dam creates flows for about three miles (5 km) until it reaches Lake Menomin, which was also created by a dam on the Red Cedar. Because the Lake Menomin dam is the last one on the Red Cedar River before the Mississippi, it is legal to fish that part of the river out of season.

Fishing
Common species of fish in Tainter Lake include walleye, black crappie, and bluegill. Somewhat common species include yellow perch, northern pike, common carp, white bass, and bowfin. Water quality is an issue for fishing in August; as algae blooms can decrease water visibility. Walleye are heavily pressured by fishermen year round and have an average length of less than 15 inches. Walleye from 20 inches to 24 inches cannot be kept.

Cedar Falls hydroelectric project
Xcel Energy operates the Cedar Falls Hydroelectric Project, which impounds Tainter Lake. The project consists of a 510 ft long 50 ft high dam located near Cedar Falls, Wisconsin. Its powerhouse contains three 2,000 kW electrical generators with a total capacity of 7.1 MW. The facility can produce over 33.6 million kilowatt hours of electricity each year. It is a modified run-of-the-river hydroelectricity project. The Cedar Falls dam was originally a timber dam and was replaced with a concrete dam in 1910. New generators were added in 1912 and 1915 and the project has changed little since that time. In 2005 the dam's gates were upgraded to include Obermeyer spillway gates with inflatable rubber bladders that allow more consistent water levels on the lake through the year. Before the installation of the inflatable gates, the dam featured gates made of plywood that were designed to break as the ice melted. During the installation of the inflatable gates the water level of the lake dropped about 5 or 6 ft. This caused the water to erode some of the land that people put their docks on. When the water level returned to normal residents living on the lake with docks had to shorten the length of their dock because the water had become significantly deeper.

title: Tainter Lake


text:
Country Club, Bronx

Country Club is a residential neighborhood located in the East Bronx in New York City. The neighborhood's boundaries are Middletown Road and Watt Avenue to the north, Eastchester Bay to the east, Layton Avenue and the Throggs Neck neighborhood to the south, and the New England Thruway and Pelham Bay neighborhood to the west. Pelham Bay Park (including Orchard Beach), the largest public park in New York City, is located just north of Country Club.

The neighborhood is part of Bronx Community Board 10, and its ZIP Code is 10465. The area is policed by the 45th Precinct of the New York City Police Department. Country Club contains a large Italian-American population.

Demographics
Country Club has a population of around 7,500 people. It is a predominantly white neighborhood with around 73.0% of the population being non-Hispanic white, while approximately 22.3% are Hispanic or Latino, 3.5% are Asian, and the remaining are black, two or more races, or another race. Country Club also has a sizable Italian-American community with many family owned Italian specialty stores and delicatessens.

The entirety of Community District 10, which comprises Country Club, City Island, Co-op City, Pelham Bay, Schuylerville, Throgs Neck, and Westchester Square, had 121,868 inhabitants as of NYC Health's 2018 Community Health Profile, with an average life expectancy of 81.1 years. This is about the same as the median life expectancy of 81.2 for all New York City neighborhoods. Most inhabitants are youth and middle-aged adults: 20% are between the ages of between 0–17, 26% between 25 and 44, and 27% between 45 and 64. The proportion of college-aged and elderly residents was lower, at 9% and 18% respectively.

Health
, preterm births are more common in Community District 10, which comprises Country Club, City Island, Co-op City, Pelham Bay, Schuylerville, Throgs Neck, and Westchester Square, than in other places citywide, though births to teenage mothers are less common. In Community District 10, there were 110 preterm births per 1,000 live births (compared to 87 per 1,000 citywide), and 10.3 births to teenage mothers per 1,000 live births (compared to 19.3 per 1,000 citywide). Community District 10 has a low population of residents who are uninsured. In 2018, this population of uninsured residents was estimated to be 7%, lower than the citywide rate of 14%, though this was based on a small sample size.

The concentration of fine particulate matter, the deadliest type of air pollutant, in Community District 10 is 0.0075 mg/m3, the same as the city average. Fourteen percent of Community District 10 residents are smokers, which is the same as the city average of 14% of residents being smokers. In Community District 10, 24% of residents are obese, 13% are diabetic, and 37% have high blood pressure—compared to the citywide averages of 24%, 11%, and 28% respectively. In addition, 25% of children are obese, compared to the citywide average of 20%.

Eighty-seven percent of residents eat some fruits and vegetables every day, which is the same as the city's average of 87%. In 2018, 77% of residents described their health as "good", "very good", or "excellent", about the same as the city's average of 78%. For every supermarket in Community District 10, there are 7 bodegas.

Post Office and ZIP Code
Country Club is located within ZIP Code 10465. The closest post offices are the Throggs Neck Post Office at 3630 East Tremont Avenue and the Pilgrim Post Office at 1545 Crosby Avenue, both operated by the United States Postal Service.

Education
Country Club has a private primary educational institution within its borders, Villa Maria Academy, operated by the Congregation of Notre Dame of Montreal. The two zoned public elementary schools are PS 71 (zoned for residents above Waterbury Avenue), and PS 14  (zoned for residents below Waterbury Avenue), both in nearby Pelham Bay in the New York City Department of Education's District 8. The zoned middle school is the Urban Institute of Mathematics.

Police and crime
Country Club is patrolled by the 45th Precinct of the NYPD, located at 2877 Barkley Avenue in Throggs Neck. The 45th Precinct ranked 28th safest out of 69 patrol areas for per-capita crime in 2010. , with a non-fatal assault rate of 53 per 100,000 people, the 45th Precinct's rate of violent crimes per capita is less than that of the city as a whole. The Community District 10 incarceration rate of 243 per 100,000 people is lower than that of the city as a whole.

The 45th Precinct has a lower crime rate than in the 1990s, with crimes across all categories having decreased by 67% between 1990 and 2022. The precinct reported five murders, 13 rapes, 235 robberies, 265 felony assaults, 108 burglaries, 609 grand larcenies, and 323 grand larcenies auto in 2022.

Fire safety
Country Club is served by the New York City Fire Department (FDNY)'s Engine Co. 89/Ladder Co. 50 is located at 2924 Bruckner Boulevard.

Transportation
Country Club is close to I-95 as well as to major bridges such as the Throgs Neck Bridge. There are two New York City Subway stations nearby: Pelham Bay Park and Buhre Avenue, both on the, are located to the northwest in the Pelham Bay neighborhood. Additionally, the community is the home of the Evers Marina and Seaplane Base on the west bank of Eastchester Bay at Outlook Point.

The following MTA Regional Bus Operations bus routes serve Country Club:
 * Bx8: to Locust Point or Williamsbridge via Throgs Neck Boulevard, Crosby Avenue, Williamsbridge Road, and Bronxwood Avenue
 * Bx24: to Hutchinson Metro Center via Marconi Street, Westchester Avenue, Bruckner Boulevard, and Country Club Road
 * BxM8: to Pelham Bay or Midtown Manhattan via Bruckner Expressway
 * BxM9: to Throgs Neck or Midtown Manhattan via Bruckner Expressway

title: Country Club, Bronx