text:
User talk:CR7

 * Please feel free to leave messages here below existing ones, older discussions are achived. If you wish to resume the discussion, please open a new section here.

File permission problem with File:KennetBenHowe.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:KennetBenHowe.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File:SDP-Liberal Alliance.png needs authorship information.
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:SDP-Liberal Alliance.png appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template..

 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your pic of the 2007 floods at Thatcham
Hi

I want to use this pic to illustrate a article about the floods. The licence specifies that you must be credited as the author but I don't have your name. Please let me have this information or confirm that you are the author but don't wish to be credited. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomintoul (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:BritishBarnstar.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:KennetWheelerRobinson.png
Thanks for uploading File:KennetWheelerRobinson.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:KennetTerrenceEnright.png
Thanks for uploading File:KennetTerrenceEnright.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Defunct UK TOCs
Template:Defunct UK TOCs has been nominated for merging with Template:Current UK TOCs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello CR7! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II  talk  20:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed
Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you. Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

title: User talk:CR7


text:
Talk:List of films set in New York City

Untitled
Does War of the Worlds actually take place in New York? I know that the characters move from New Jersey to Boston, but even if they go through New York at one point, I don't recall them being there for too long and with nothing significant to actually list the film here. I maybe mistaken, which is why I ask, but I don't recall New York in the film. --Bacteria 09:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What I want to know is... when did New York appear in WALL-E? --Brad Rousse (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Dragon Ball Z series appears in this list of films?

We own the night is missing it was done in 2007 and takes place in NY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.185.177.55 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, Leon / The Professional (1994) is missing ... Natalie Portman / Gary Oldman / Jean Reno / Luc Besson HELLLLOOOOO?? step your game up folks, this is disappointing ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1nsaneamine (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

animation
I think this article should be split between live-action and animated.76.94.78.127 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

2012 film set in NYC
I saw New York City in the film already, and the scene of a city appeared during the presidential line of succession. Can you clarify this, because I want to add it into the article that includes the city was destroyed by a gigantic tsunami. -- Allen  (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 20:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

miss congeniality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1730:72B0:7D91:6BB:DC9D:6430 (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:List of films set in New York City


text:
Congress of Panama

The Congress of Panama (also referred to as the Amphictyonic Congress, in homage to the Amphictyonic League of Ancient Greece) was a congress organized by Simón Bolívar in 1826 with the goal of bringing together the new republics of Latin America to develop a unified policy towards the repudiated mother country Spain. Held in Panama City from 22 June to 15 July, it proposed creating a league of American republics, with a common military, a mutual defense pact, and a supranational parliamentary assembly.

Representatives
It was attended by representatives of Gran Colombia (comprising the modern-day nations of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela), Peru, the United Provinces of Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica), and Mexico. Chile and the United Provinces of South America (Argentina) declined to attend, out of mistrust of Bolívar's enormous influence. The Empire of Brazil did not send delegates, because it expected a hostile reception from its Hispanic neighbours due to its ongoing war with Argentina over modern Uruguay. The isolationist Paraguay (which refused previous delegates from Bolívar) was not invited.

British observer
Simón Bolívar also agreed to invite two European countries as observers, because of the commercial interests they had in Latin America: the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The invitation to the British government sought to stimulate assistance from Argentina and Chile, which had their main trading partner in that country. The United Kingdom accepted the proposal and sent an observer, Edward James Dawkins, but with precise orders from Minister George Canning: limit themselves to seeking trade agreements and dissuade Greater Colombia and Mexico from supporting expeditions to the islands of Cuba or Puerto Rico to make them independent of Spain.

Dutch observer
The observer for the Netherlands, Jan van Veer, was sent to propose Dutch mediation between the Spanish American republics and Spain, but he did not have the necessary accreditation. Added to this was the fact that the Dutch monarchy had not recognized the independence of any Spanish-American republic, which is why the Dutch delegate was received only as an individual.

Results
The grandly titled "Treaty of Union, League, and Perpetual Confederation" that emerged from the congress was ultimately ratified only by Gran Colombia, and Bolívar's dream soon foundered irretrievably with civil war in that nation, the disintegration of Central America, and the emergence of nationalism. The Congress of Panama also had political ramifications in the United States. President John Quincy Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay wanted the US to attend the congress, to which they had only been invited due to pressure on Bolívar. Since Hispanic America had mostly outlawed slavery, politicians from the Southern United States held up the mission by not approving funds or confirming the delegates. Despite their eventual departure, one of the two US delegates, Richard Clough Anderson Jr., died en route to Panama; and the other, John Sergeant, arrived only after the Congress had concluded its discussions.

The United Kingdom managed to acquire many favorable trade deals with Latin American countries at the Congress.

title: Congress of Panama


text:
Topple Tower

A Topple Tower is an amusement ride designed in 2001 by van Orsouw Amusement Rides Design Service of Berghem, Netherlands, vanorsouwridesdesign. The first design was rejected due to its difficult and heavy construction. After a re-design in 2002, a license agreement was closed, and the ride was produced in 2005 by Huss Maschinenfabrik GmbH, now HUSS Park Attractions. The first Topple Tower, El Volador, was placed in 2005 at Bellewaerde Park in Belgium.

Design and operation
The Topple Tower consists of a single 40-person circular gondola, centred on an 18-meter tower. Passengers sit in the gondola, facing outward. When the ride cycle is started, the gondola is raised towards the top of the tower, and begins to rotate at between 9 and 11 rpm. When the rotating gondola reaches the top of the tower, the tower itself begins to rock back and forth.

After the bankruptcy of the Huss Maschinenfabrik GmbH in July 2006, a lawsuit against the new Huss company, (Huss Park Attractions) was held in November 2008 at Düsseldorf court, in which the Design Company, van Orsouw Amusement Ride Design Service (van Orsouw ARDS) claimed all the rights of the design of the Topple Tower. There were rumours that van Orsouw ARDS was, in fact, a blind-trust company of another, until today unknown, Amusement Ride manufacturer. Following the conclusion of the trial, no noteworthy design activities of van Orsouw ARDS have been observed, though legally the company still exists. Future buyers of the Topple Tower, therefore, run the risk of the blind trust company becoming active again and resuming litigation.

Incidents
On June 16, 2007, the Topple Tower installation (known as Timber Tower) at Dollywood became stuck after a faulty safety sensor engaged. The tower was in an upright position with the gondola at the top. The safety system would not let operators override the sensor, leaving 40 passengers stranded on the ride, some for as many as 6 hours. As of the 2012 season, Dollywood has removed Timber Tower from the park, with a lawsuit between Huss and Dollywood resolved behind closed doors. In 2017, Dollywood opened a new ride in place of Timber Tower called Drop Line.

title: Topple Tower


text:
A2M

A2M may refer to:

 * The a2 Milk Company, an ASX listed company which sells dairy products, including baby formula
 * α2-Macroglobulin, a gene with the ability to inhibit all four classes of proteinases by a unique "trapping" mechanism
 * Artificial Mind and Movement, a Canadian games development company
 * Ass to mouth, a sexual act

title: A2M


text:
Davignon report

The Davignon report, also referred to as the Luxembourg report, published on 27 October 1970, was a report on the future foreign policy of European Economic Community member nations. It was written by a council chaired by Étienne Davignon of the Belgian Foreign Office. The committee was appointed by the Council of the European Communities to make proposals on political cooperation between the member states. It recommended that member states should try to speak with a single voice on international problems, a proposal that was approved by all six member governments. It resulted first in European Political Cooperation and later in the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy in 1992.

title: Davignon report


text:
User talk:Crakahman

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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 16:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Image:87191912.jpg
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 16:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Crakahman


text:
User talk:Karthik.ms

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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 16:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Image:86910029.JPG
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 16:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Karthik.ms


text:
Talk:Miscarriage of justice

Addition of Relevant Cases
I think important cases of exoneration should be featured in the article to connect the topic with real-world examples. The Central Park Five, Malcolm Alexander, and Levon Brooks would be a good place to start. Shan2434 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your list would be more impressive if it included some non-American cases. Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton would be an obvious one. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you raise a good point. I think that adding a new section briefly describing an important case or two (and their impact) and then linking to "List of miscarriage of justice cases" and "List of wrongful convictions in the United States" within the article itself will drive more traffic to those pages which have details from a large volume of cases in different countries. Currently, those important links are sitting at the bottom of the page under "specific cases" and are difficult to locate. Shan2434 (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Media
— Assignment last updated by Dmaccartney (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Miscarriage of justice


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aasis Vinayak

there should be some logic to delete this - i feel the source and article are authentic


text:
User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Old Words

While I'm certainly no Anu Garg, I will share an occasional word with people who choose to read this page:

apocryphal, adjective Of questionable authorship or authenticity.

peripatetic, noun and adjective 1. Walking about; itinerant. But especially the metonymic intellectual style. 2. Of or pertaining to the philosophy taught by Aristotle (who gave his instructions while walking in the Lyceum at Athens), or to his followers.

sophistry, noun A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

syncretic, adjective Combining elements that are archaic with those that are modern. Especially as in forms of religious observance, philosophical systems, or artistic creations. Sometimes uses less specifically to describe a general juxtaposition of divergent elements.

myrmecine, adjective Antlike. Specifically, pertaining to a genus, Myrmecia of mostly Australian ants. Also see, formecine

imbroglio, noun A complicated and embarrassing state of things; a serious misunderstanding.

Boorish, Adjective 1. behaving as a boor; rough in manners; rude; uncultured

title: User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Old Words


text:
User talk:Softtouch9

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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 16:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Image:916373vijay singh 090204.jpg
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 16:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Softtouch9


text:
User:Master Psychologist

Hi!

I am Viktor Oleynik, and I am a psychology student in field of gifted children.

I was contributing to Wikipedia as anon for a while, and now I've finally created an account.

Feel free to add everything :) at my Talk page.

title: User:Master Psychologist


text:
Anglican Church of Southern Africa

The Anglican Church of Southern Africa, known until 2006 as the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, is the province of the Anglican Communion in the southern part of Africa. The church has twenty-five dioceses, of which twenty-one are located in South Africa, and one each in Eswatini, Lesotho, Namibia and Saint Helena.

In the 2001 South African Census, there were a recorded 1.7 million Anglicans out of a total South African population of close to 45 million. No accurate census figures have been available since then. The Anglican Church of Southern Africa estimated in 2006 that there were between 3 and 4 million Anglicans across Angola, Lesotho, Swaziland, Mocambique, Namibia, South Africa and the island of St Helena. A study published in 2020 produced an estimated figure of 2.3 million (4%) Anglicans in South Africa as of 2015. Anglicans were estimated to make up around 7.4% of the population of Lesotho in 2021. The Diocese of Swaziland had 90000 members in 2021.

Up until September 2021 four dioceses in Mozambique and Angola (three in Mozambique and one in Angola) were part of Anglican Church of Southern Africa, these dioceses now form part of the Anglican Church of Mozambique and Angola.

The primate is the Archbishop of Cape Town. The current archbishop is Thabo Makgoba, who succeeded Njongonkulu Ndungane in 2006. From 1986 to 1996 the primate was Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu.

History

The first Anglican clergy to minister regularly at the Cape were military chaplains who accompanied the troops when the British occupied the Cape Colony in 1795 and then again in 1806. The second British occupation resulted in a growing influx of civil servants and settlers who were members of the Church of England, and so civil or colonial chaplains were appointed to minister to their needs. These were under the authority of the Governor.

The first missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel arrived in 1821. He was William Wright, a priest. He opened a church and school in Wynberg, a fashionable suburb of Cape Town. Allen Gardiner, a missionary of the Church Missionary Society went to Zululand, and arranged for a priest, Francis Owen to be sent to the royal residence of King Dingane. Owen witnessed the massacre of Piet Retief, the Voortrekker leader, and his companions, who had come to negotiate a land treaty with Dingane, and left soon afterwards.

The Anglican Church in Southern Africa was at that time under the Diocese of Calcutta, which effectively included the East Indies and the entire Southern Hemisphere. Bishops en route for Calcutta sometimes stopped at the Cape for confirmations, and occasionally ordination of clergy, but these visits were sporadic. It became apparent that a bishop was needed for South Africa, and in 1847 Robert Gray was consecrated as the first Bishop of Cape Town at Westminster Abbey. The new bishop landed in Cape Town in 1848.

Some Anglican parishes in the then-Cape Colony refused to join the Church of the Province of South Africa when it was constituted in 1870; these parishes constituted themselves as the Church of England in South Africa (CESA). CESA has subsequently renamed itself as the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa.

Desmond Tutu rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. Tutu was elected and ordained the first black South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town and primate of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, and the Magubela prize for liberty in 1986.

In 2006, the name Church of the Province of Southern Africa was dropped as the name was confusing to some people. The church was renamed the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.

In July 2012, Ellinah Wamukoya of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa became the bishop-elect of Swaziland and the first woman to be elected a bishop in any of the twelve Anglican provinces in Africa. She was consecrated on 17 November 2012 at All Saints Cathedral, Mbabane. On 19 January 2013, Margaret Vertue was consecrated the diocesan bishop of False Bay.

Organisation
The polity of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa is episcopal, like that of other Anglican churches. The church maintains a system of geographical parishes organized into dioceses. The province is divided into various dioceses, each led by its own bishop.

Angola and Mozambique
At its Autumn 2020 meeting the provincial standing committee approved a plan to form the dioceses which were part of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa in Mozambique and Angola into a separate autonomous province of the Anglican Communion, to be named the Anglican Church of Mozambique and Angola Igreja Anglicana de Moçambique e Angola (IAMA). The plans were also outlined to the Mozambique and Angola Anglican Association (MANNA) at its September 2020 annual general meeting.

The new province would be Portuguese-speaking, and would initially consist of twelve dioceses - four formed out of the existing diocese of Angola, plus eight formed out of the existing three dioceses in Mozambique. The plan has also received the consent of the bishops and diocesan synods of all four existing dioceses in the two nations.

The Anglican Church of Mozambique and Angola was formally inaugurated on 24 September 2021, in an online teleconference.

There are more than 800 Anglican church congregations in Angola and Mozambique, and the new province would have an initial membership of approximately half a million people.

Liturgy and prayer books
The Anglican Church in Southern Africa has used the following prayer books:

 * The 1662 English Book of Common Prayer

The Anglican church was a product of the English Reformation and political contexts of the sixteenth century. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, was instrumental in determining the form Anglicanism was to take, not by writing confessional statements or significant theological treaties, but through his authoring of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549 and 1552. All expressions of Anglicanism forever after defined itself in relation to the concept of the Prayer Book, whether being faithful to the Reformed tradition or seeking different approaches. Other denominations have found unity in confessional documents, or doctrinal formularies, or a systematically articulated theology, or the pronouncements of magisterial authorities.

When the work of revising the liturgy in the twentieth century was undertaken it was with the understanding that it was touching the nerve-centre of the Anglican ethos, since Anglican identity takes a more intangible form, deeply dependent upon the influence and binding effect of its liturgical worship. The most recent revision of the Prayer Book resulted in the publishing of An Anglican Prayer Book (1989). The Anglican Prayer Book stands alongside the South African Book of Common Prayer (1954). Both the 1989 and 1954 prayer books have the English 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a common source.

The work of the revision reflected the worldwide liturgical renewal, most notably in relation to the Roman Catholic Church as a result of decisions reached at its Second Vatican Council. Another influence was the charismatic renewal, which has had a marked impact on the Anglican Church of Southern Africa. Particular care was taken to meet evangelical concerns in a Province that is historically High Church rather than Low Church in its main emphasis. Theological breadth – catholic, evangelical, charismatic, and liberal – was aimed at in order to achieve balance and to accommodate these various convictions.

These sensitivities and influences are most evident in the Eucharistic liturgy. Four Eucharistic prayers are given to accommodate different theological preferences. Two are taken from the Church of England, one is borrowed with permission from the Roman Catholic Canon, and pride of place is given in the First Eucharistic Prayer to an indigenous product. The influence of the liturgical movement can be seen in the overall structure and language of the Eucharist, including seeking a sense of continuity with the early, apostolic church.

In tracing this line of continuity from the Lord's Table to the Communion Table, a prayer traditionally ascribed to Hippolytus (ca. 215), bishop of Rome, called the Apostolic Tradition, captured the imagination of contemporary liturgists and now appears in the modern liturgical books of different churches both Roman Catholic and Protestant. The opening lines of all four Eucharistic prayers closely mirror the wording of Hippolytus. The fourth Eucharistic prayer most closely maintains the link with the Hippolytus liturgy, but allows slight variation with respect to the wording of "we offer you" and "we bring before you" to accommodate different theological persuasions. This is an example of how the Anglican Church of Southern Africa in making revisions for the 1989 prayer book adopted a more conciliatory approach to the various ecclesiastical factions, foreshadowing the conciliatory context of South African politics in the early 90s in regard to political factions and political change.

Doctrine and practice
There are a wide range of beliefs among Anglicans, from Evangelical to Anglo-Catholic, from liberal to traditional, but what unites Anglicans is common prayer Lex orandi, lex credendi.

The centre of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa's teaching is the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The basic teachings of the church, (contained in the catechism), include:

 * Jesus died and was resurrected from the dead.
 * The Old and New Testaments of the Bible were written by people "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit". The Apocrypha are additional books that are used in Christian worship.
 * The two great and necessary sacraments are Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist
 * Other sacramental rites are confirmation, ordination, marriage, reconciliation of a penitent, and unction.

The threefold sources of authority in Anglicanism are scripture, tradition, and reason. These three sources uphold and critique each other in a dynamic way. This balance of scripture, tradition and reason is traced to the work of Richard Hooker, a sixteenth-century apologist. In Hooker's model, scripture is the primary means of arriving at doctrine and things stated plainly in scripture are accepted as true. Issues that are ambiguous are determined by tradition, which is checked by reason.

The Anglican Church of Southern Africa embraces three orders of ministry: deacon, priest, and bishop. A local variant of the Book of Common Prayer is used. The Church is known for having Anglo-Catholic leanings.

Ordination of women
The Anglican Church of Southern Africa is regarded as the most liberal Anglican province in Africa with respect to the ordination of women and homosexuality. The church ordained the first woman as a deacon in 1985 followed by ordaining three women to the priesthood in 1992. In 2012, the church consecrated Ellinah Wamukoya as the bishop of Swaziland. Later, the church consecrated Margaret Vertue as bishop of False Bay. In 2014, the church appointed the first woman to lead the provincial residential theological college. In 2021, Vicentia Kgabe was appointed as the bishop of Lesotho, making her the sixth woman to be an Anglican bishop for the continent of Africa.

Same-sex unions and LGBT clergy
The canon law of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa states that "marriage by divine institution is a lifelong and exclusive union partnership between one man and one woman." The church also does not have an official stance on homosexuality itself. The Church does not allow gay marriage or civil unions but does allow "same-sex relationships if they are celibate." In 2023, the Synod of Bishops agreed that they would "develop prayers of affirmation and acknowledgement" that may be said with same-sex couples. The Diocese of Saldanha Bay has approved of blessing rites for same-sex civil unions. Regarding ordination, the church does not have an official position on the ordination of clergy who identify as gay or lesbian. As examples, in 2003, Rowan Smith, a former dean of St. George's Cathedral, and Douglas Torr, from Johannesburg, came out as gay. An openly gay and celibate bishop, Mervyn Castle, was consecrated in Cape Town. Archbishop Emeritus Ndungane was supportive of the consecration of the first openly partnered gay bishop, Gene Robinson in 2003. Ndungane now supports same-sex marriage blessings. Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, affirmed same-sex marriages and church blessings. Thabo Makgoba, the current primate and archbishop, was quoted as being "one among few church leaders in Africa to support same-sex marriage."

The Diocese of Cape Town, after a synod in 2009, passed a resolution calling the bishops of the church to give pastoral guidelines for homosexual couples who lived in "covenanted relationships." The resolution agreed to "Affirming a pastoral response to same-sex partnerships of faithful commitment in our parish families." It also approved an amendment to the resolution that the guidelines give "due regard of the mind of the Anglican Communion." In 2009 the synod declared that "[g]ays and lesbians can be leaders within the Anglican Church of Southern Africa as long as they remain celibate". The Diocese of False Bay has also been supportive of LGBTI people celebrating the ministry of a gay priest. Mervyn Castle, who is openly gay, was consecrated as bishop of False Bay by Desmond Tutu, the then archbishop of Cape Town in 1994. The Diocese of False Bay removed a priest for anti-gay views in 2011. In 2013, the Provincial Synod, governing the church, adopted a resolution that "urged its bishops to provide guidelines for giving pastoral care to same-sex couples who have entered civil unions under South African law." The resolution "request[s] the Synod of Bishops to work towards finalising the Guidelines for pastoral ministry in response to Civil Unions as soon as possible." The resolution says that it "affirms" in "2.1 That God calls us to love and minister to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, while at the same time upholding God's standards of holiness; 2.2 That this is a highly complex and emotive area which affects many people deeply and has a far reaching impact on the mission of the Church."

In December 2015, Canon Mpho Tutu, the daughter of Desmond Tutu, married her female partner in a civil ceremony in the Netherlands. In 2016, the Revd Charlotte Bannister-Parker, a Church of England priest, presided with her bishop's permission over a service of celebration, and Archbishop Tutu was able to give a blessing for his daughter and her partner. Tutu decided to surrender her licence in South Africa to avoid controversy, but remained a priest of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington D.C. in the USA. Bishop Raphael Hess, of Saldanha Bay, supporting same-sex unions, is seeking to change church policy to allow her to serve. The bishops discussed the issue in February 2016. The official statement said that the church "cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same-sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same-gender unions". Makgoba also said "we also tried at the Synod of Bishops to draw up guidelines for clergy wanting to bless couples in same-sex unions, or who want to enter same-sex unions themselves...[but] on this issue, I had to report back...that we were not of one mind." The bishops also affirmed members in same-gender marriages as full and equal members of the Church. The message was "that gay, lesbian and transgendered members of our church share in full membership as baptised members of the Body of Christ." In August 2016, the Diocese of Saldanha Bay proposed that the church bless same-gender unions and permit LGBTI priests to marry. A motion to this effect was put the Provincial Synod meeting in September 2016; The voting was as follows:

Archbishop Makgoba "added that 'all is not lost.' He said the issue might hopefully be taken up again at the next Provincial Synod in 2019...He also said the issue could be discussed at the local level in parishes and dioceses." Makgoba further added "I was deeply pained by the outcome of the debate." After the vote, priests in Saldanha Bay declared they would bless same-gender marriages individually. At least one priest, who is in a same-sex relationship, has said the church ordained him knowing of his relationship.

On 2 March 2017, the bench of bishops stated that they are working on "pastoral guidelines for ministry to those in same-sex relationships, which are still incomplete. [The bishops] asked Archbishop Thabo to set up a small group of bishops to work on completing them, together with others who could help the process." Archbishop Ndungane also advocated for a same-sex blessing rite. Archbishop Thabo Makgoba set up a working group ".... to amend Canon 34 which will enable ministry to those in Same Sex Unions and the LGBTI Community in the context in which ACSA operates in Southern Africa." In 2019, the Provincial Synod voted to establish a permanent commission on human sexuality and to send a report to dioceses, for "reflection and study," that recommends allowing each diocese to choose whether to offer services of prayer following a same-sex civil union during a trial period; a third motion to request that bishops develop guidelines for pastoral ministry to LGBTQ persons was deadlocked, and did not pass, in a vote of 75 in favour to 75 against. In 2022, the Bishops of the Dioceses of Lesotho, False Bay, and Saldanha Bay signed a statement expressing support for the inclusion of LGBTQ people in the Anglican Communion. In 2023, the Archbishop's Commission on Human Sexuality proposed allowing clergy to bless same-sex civil unions. In March, 2023, the Synod of Bishops rejected proposals to bless or marry same-sex couples, but they did agree to craft "prayers of affirmation and acknwoledgement for all faithful Anglicans who are in civil unions" that could be said pastorally with same-sex couples. On April 25, 2024, the church published the draft prayers to be said with couples in same-sex unions for study. The drafted prayers include both blessings for same-sex couples and prayers acknowledging disagreement with same-sex relationships.

Ecumenical relations
The Anglican Church of Southern Africa is a member of the ecumenical World Council of Churches.

Relation with the Anglican Communion conflicts and realignment
South Africa's Anglican church has a more liberal tradition that sets it apart from its more conservative African counterparts. The province has been associated with the most liberal Anglican provinces concerning homosexuality and the acceptance of same-sex unions, such as the United States, Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales and South India.

The Anglican Church of Southern Africa, despite being the most liberal Anglican province in Africa, is a member of the Global South, that unites the most theologically conservative provinces of the Anglican Communion. Moderate conservative Bishop Johannes Seoka, of the Anglican Diocese of Pretoria, represented the province at the Global South Fourth Encounter that took place in Singapore on 19–23 April 2010 and at their subsequent meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, on 18–20 July 2012. The ACSA adopted the Anglican Communion Covenant proposed by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, as a way to preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion at their provincial synod held in 2010 and ratified the decision at their following meeting in October 2013. At the same time, Archbishop Thabo Makgoba emphasised his province's role of "being at the heart of Anglican life, often acting as a bridge-builder, and drawing on its own experiences of living with considerable diversity and wrestling with difference."

Bethlehem Nopece, Bishop of Port Elizabeth, has been the leading name of the Anglican realignment in the province since he strongly opposed the consecration of partnered homosexual Gene Robinson as a bishop of the Episcopal Church in 2003. Nopece was the only bishop of the ACSA to have attended the Global Anglican Future Conference that took place in Jerusalem on 23–28 June 2008. He decided the following year to launch the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in South Africa after the resolution on 22 August 2009 of the Anglican Diocese of Cape Town to pass pastoral guidelines to members of the church who live in same-sex unions. Nopece presided at the launching of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans at St. John's Church, Port Elizabeth, on 3 September 2009, with the presence of a retired Anglican Archbishop of Kenya, Benjamin Nzimbi. The event was greeted with messages of support from some of the leading names of the Anglican realignment, archbishops Peter Akinola of the Church of Nigeria, Peter Jensen of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America and Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of the Church of England. Nopece led a 10 members delegation, which included Bishop Nathaniel Nakwatumbah of the Anglican Diocese of Namibia, to the GAFCON II that took place at Nairobi, Kenya, on 21–26 October 2013. Bishop Nopece led once again the province's delegation to GAFCON III, held in Jerusalem, on 17–22 June 2018, comprised by 18 members, 16 from South Africa, Bishop Vicente Msosa, of the Anglican Diocese of Niassa, as the only delegate from Mozambique, and another one from Namibia.

title: Anglican Church of Southern Africa


text:
Watch Hill, Rhode Island

Watch Hill is an affluent coastal neighborhood and census-designated place in the town of Westerly, Rhode Island. The population was 154 at the 2010 census. It sits at the most-southwestern point in Rhode Island. It came to prominence in the late 19th and early 20th century as an exclusive summer resort, with wealthy families building sprawling Victorian-style "cottages" along the peninsula. Watch Hill is characterized by The New York Times as a community "with a strong sense of privacy and of discreetly used wealth," in contrast with "the overpowering castles of the very rich" in nearby Newport.

History
The Watch Hill area was occupied by Niantic Indians in the 17th century, led by Harman Garrett. Colonists used the hill as an important lookout point during the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War, hence the community's name. Some landmarks in the village include the Watch Hill Lighthouse, the first of which was built in 1745; The Flying Horse Carousel, the oldest operating suspended-horse carousel in the United States and a National Historic Landmark; the Ocean House hotel; and the 1916 Olympia Tea Room.

One point of interest in Watch Hill is the ruins of Fort Mansfield, an old coastal artillery post situated at the end of Napatree Point. It was one of a series of such forts constructed to guard the eastern entrance to Long Island Sound as part of the coastal defense network for New York City during the Spanish–American War. It was in operation between 1901 and 1909, then was closed down over the course of several years. The land was sold in 1926, and all the government buildings were demolished during the winter of 1928–29. The three concrete gun emplacements were left behind and remain there today.

Fort Road connected Watch Hill to Fort Mansfield, but the hurricane of 1938 wiped it out and destroyed 39 houses, the Yacht and Beach Clubs, and a bathing pavilion. Fifteen people were killed and others survived by clinging to wreckage, as they were swept across the bay to Connecticut. Several breachways were created in Napatree Point after the hurricane passed. Sandy Point remains an island, rather than the northern extension of Napatree. The shortened Napatree Point is now a barrier beach without any roads or houses. It is open to the public, and offers bird watching and surf casting.

Geography
Watch Hill sits at the most southwestern point of Rhode Island on a stubby peninsula jutting into Block Island Sound. It includes a smaller peninsula known as Napatree Point, a 1.5 mi-long sandy spit that extends west from the Watch Hill business district, and Sandy Point, which was once attached to Napatree Point. Both Napatree and Sandy Point shelter Little Narragansett Bay and have made Watch Hill a popular harbor around which the business district has grown.

Watch Hill is a two-hour drive from Boston and a three-hour drive from New York City. On clear days, there are views of Montauk, New York to the south and Block Island, Rhode Island to the southeast.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP has a total area of 0.82 square miles (2.11 km$2$), of which 0.80 square miles (2.08 km$2$) is land and 0.014 square miles (0.036 km$2$) (1.72%) is water. The Watch Hill Historic District has area of 629 acre.

2020 census
The 2020 United States census counted 212 people, 94 households, and 41 families in Watch Hill. The population density was 264.3 per square mile (102.1/km$2$). There were 394 housing units at an average density of 491.3 per square mile (189.7/km$2$). The racial makeup was 97.17% (206) white or European American (96.23% non-Hispanic white), 0.0% (0) black or African-American, 0.0% (0) Native American or Alaska Native, 0.0% (0) Asian, 0.0% (0) Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, 0.0% (0) from other races, and 2.83% (6) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race was 1.42% (3) of the population.

Of the 94 households, 10.6% had children under the age of 18; 56.4% were married couples living together; 23.4% had a female householder with no spouse or partner present. 31.9% of households consisted of individuals and 21.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 1.7 and the average family size was 2.8. The percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher was estimated to be 25.5% of the population.

10.4% of the population was under the age of 18, 10.4% from 18 to 24, 13.2% from 25 to 44, 29.2% from 45 to 64, and 36.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 56.7 years. For every 100 females, the population had 118.6 males. For every 100 females ages 18 and older, there were 123.5 males.

Culture
According to The New York Times, Watch Hill was historically home to "a select group of wealthy families" whose lives revolved around "golf and tennis at the Misquamicut Club, bathing and yachting at the Watch Hill Yacht Club, and tea and cocktails at Ocean House and Watch Hill's other grand hotels." Wealthy families built sprawling Victorian-style "cottages" along the peninsula. The village was known as "a somewhat staid and family-oriented community compared to glittering Newport, Rhode Island's other, more famous summer colony." Famous guests to the seaside resort included Albert Einstein, Douglas Fairbanks, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Groucho Marx, David Niven and Jean Harlow. Stephen Birmingham described Watch Hill as "an Andorra of Victoriana on the New England shore."

For several generations, the community has maintained its "old-money summer colony" atmosphere, even as traditional summer communities have developed, namely Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and the Hamptons. New England traditions are evident in the popular hobbies of its residents, such as golf, sailing, and tennis, as well as the "privacy-loving, multigenerational families tucked into century-old shingled houses", with the majority being passed down in families for several generations. The New York Times notes that "Watch Hill impresses visitors with a strong sense of privacy and of discreetly used wealth—the rambling, old-fashioned, turreted and gingerbreaded Victorian summer houses with piazzas and softly rolling lawns have little in common with the overpowering castles of the very rich in Newport, a place rarely mentioned in Watch Hill even though it is barely 30 miles distant."

The waterfront was once lined with huge Victorian hotels. However, fire and hurricanes destroyed almost all during the 20th century. The two remaining hotels are the Ocean House and the Watch Hill Inn; both went through major renovations during the 2000s. The Ocean House was originally opened in 1868; it was torn down in 2005, then completely rebuilt and reopened in 2010. The Ocean House today consists of both hotel rooms and condominiums. It is the only Forbes Five-Star and AAA Five Diamond Hotel in Rhode Island and has been described by The New York Times as a place which "conjures up another age, when women wore white gloves to tea and golf was a newfangled pastime." Celebrities have holidayed at the hotel, including Hugh Jackman and Regis Philbin.

The village is listed as a census-designated place. As a state-charted Fire District (1901), the Watch Hill area is authorized to tax residents to fund their volunteer fire department, but the bulk of property taxes go to the town to fund municipal services and schools. The most expensive private home in Rhode Island, the High Watch, is located in Watch Hill.

Watch Hill Historic District
The Watch Hill Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1985. It included 176 contributing buildings and two contributing objects on 629 acre. The area includes most of the neck which is known as Watch Hill. If the CDP is defined as the entire point beyond (to the west of) a line running north along Browning Rd. and Oak Wood Rd., from East Beach to Colonel Willie Cove, then the historic district can be understood as that area less one portion plus another portion. It excludes a portion west of that line on the north side including properties on Watch Hill Rd. approaching the Watch Hill Fire Department, the entire block within which the Fire Department stands, and all of W. Ridge Rd., Glen Way, Breen Rd., and Pasadena Avenue. It includes a portion to the east of that line, namely the area of the Misquamicut golf club and other property north of Ocean View Highway but not including Round Hill Rd.

Selected contributing buildings are:
 * Inglecote (c. 1733), on Westerly Road, originally the Foster family farmhouse, remodelled c. 1880 and c.1890 from a Colonial house to become a "Swiss Chalet";
 * the Misquamicut Inn (1778, 1896) on Misquamicut Road, originally the Potter family farmhouse, which was remodelled to become a hotel in 1896 and became the Misquamicut Inn in 1900;
 * Highwatch (1931), on Bluff Avenue, also known as Holiday Inn, on the summit of Watch Hill itself;
 * Echo Lodge (c.1886 et seq.), 4 Aquidneck Ave., a Queen Anne house with a three-story octagonal corner tower, a home from 1894 on of hymn-writer William H. Doane.

The two contributing objects are:
 * the Ridley Watts Memorial (1940), a drinking fountain with a cast-bronze sculpture titled "The Dreamer" by Sylvia Shaw Judson;
 * the Ninigret Statue (1911), a cast-bronze sculpture of Native american chief Ninigret by Enid Yandell, sculptor who was a student of Auguste Rodin, and founder Alexis Rudier, located in a waterfront park designed by Marian Coffin.

Notable people
Notable current and former residents of Watch Hill include:
 * Taylor Swift, singer-songwriter
 * Conan O'Brien, television host
 * Andrew Mellon (1855–1937), banker, industrialist and Secretary of the Treasury
 * Henry Ford (1863–1947), business magnate and founder of Ford Motor Company
 * Clark Gable (1901–1960), film actor
 * Rebekah Harkness (1915–1982), Standard Oil heiress and founder of the Harkness Ballet; former owner of Swift's residence

title: Watch Hill, Rhode Island


text: User talk:69.196.168.45

title: User talk:69.196.168.45


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Teenman

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP23:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pro Teenman
While the loss of a testicle might be devastating to an amateur porn star, the loss of this (probably vandalous) article would not be to Wikipedia. Denni ☯ 16:56, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * Delete, to be consistent with my previous speedy delete nomination. Mindmatrix 19:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would have been happy to speedy this one, but unfortunately, it is not a candidate. While it appears to be patent nonsense, and Googling for Pro Teenman nets nothing, it is still sufficiently coherent that it needs to pass through the VfD process. Denni ☯ 19:55, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was undecided between the two, and chose the faster method. Mindmatrix 19:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity--Sophitus 20:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Denni's summary made me laugh. --Xcali 01:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder

Case Opened on 17:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators worked on the proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * User:Njyoder
 * User:AlexR
 * User:Bishonen
 * User:Axon

Statement by AlexR
I request arbitration against Njyoder for persistent incivility and aggressiveness which poisons the climate on the pages he edits. He has in both Bisexuality and Gender (those are the two I was involved in; see other examples below) shown the same pattern - information he dislikes is deleted, and restoring it a "violation of policy" or POV or whatever, in any case, not allowed. Disagreeing with him is inevitably followed by personal attacks. His style is highly disruptive, and while he does occasionally have a valid point, those are drowned by his habit of deleting everything he doesn't like (instead of improving it) and becoming highly insulting if anybody suggests any other solution to the problem then deleting.

Since the matter on Bisexuality seems to be over, I'll concentrate on the Gender case for now; however, his behaviour is consistent and therefore references to Gender should only serve as the main example.

Gender and Talk:Gender
From Gender, Njyoder removed large parts of the content, on 15. May 2005, 16:49:. Edit comment was: "removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus" Given these rather questionable reasons, the fact that there was no explanation on the talk page, and his previous behaviour, I merely reverted that as "vandalism". There were a few more reverts on both sides, currently the article rests (in the Njyoder version) because of this Arbcom request - there seems to be absolutely no point in debating the matter any further. This is confirmed by the talk page:
 * 14:41, 17 May 2005 " Marking them as vandalism when they're not is a violation of Wikipedia policy."
 * 16:19, 17 May 2005 "I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before." (Well, he hadn't used it, either.)
 * Article went RfC on 21:15, 17 May 2005
 * 18:41, 18 May 2005 Claims that User:Arbor already explained his edits sufficiently on the talk page ; only, how can anybody know whether Arbor and Njyoder did indeed agree there? Also:
 * "He [AlexR]] took it to RfC without even bothering to make the slightest attempt to explain why he wrongfully reverted my edits as vandalism (a violation of wikipedia policy)." and the rather odd:
 * "Another POV etymological statemet: "Gender is also evolving in this usage from noun to adjective: it is increasingly being seen as an attribute (like color) rather than as a distinct entity in itself." is completely unsubstantiated. I've never heard anyone say "that color is male/female." A color being preferred by a gender doesn't make it a gender in itself. This usage is non-existant."

 * 22:14, 19 May 2005 Reply to User:Axon: "Are you kidding me? ...  If you can't even acknowledge that, then you're ridiculously biased. ... All you're doing is reinforcing the fact that you don't want to cooperate and follow wikipedia guidelines in settling a dispute. Additionally, I don't have a history of "controversial edits." That's completely disingenuous to say. ...  Please keep on making yourself look bad."
 * 22:27, 19 May 2005 Reply to me:
 * "You're deliberately ignoring what people have already reached a general consensus on, please stop lying to make a point." and
 * "One might oppose a certain analysis of gender, but I've never heard of anyone actually opposing the concept except those from exremist left-wing branches of feminism, the types oh zealously believe that we should use gender neutral terms like "zie" and "zir." Your assertion is not only wrong, it's the opposite of the way it is." (compare gender-neutral pronoun) and
 * "Instead, in bad faith, you iniated an RfC against me as a hissy fit. The general consensus is AGAINST you, accept it and stop inserting your POV everywhere."

 * 05:54, 24 May 2005
 * "This is why I think he should just be banned from gender and sexuality articles, he refueses to conceded even the most blatantly obvious cases of POV."
 * "I've tried this with him in the past, whenever I call him on absurd factual errors, he cries and whines and refuses to provide sources. He's probably the single biggest POV pusher in gender related articles." (compare )

Attempts by Njyoder to actually answer the questions brought up cannot be found.

Bisexuality
My initial RfC on 28. April 2005 changed by Njyoder on 29. April. Given that his initial removal of the Kinsey statistics followed a debate with me and others on #wikipedia, I was under the misapprehension that this was a somewhat personal matter, hence the wording of my initial RfC.

At any rate, same pattern - deleted what he didn't like, became highly insulting when the deletion was reverted, and was nowhere willing to compromise. I kept out of the debate somewhat, since I still did not want to fuel it by what is maybe a personal conflict. (Although since he treats everybody who disagrees with him the same way, maybe this is less personal than I fear.)

For the complete debate, see Talk:Bisexuality and Talk:Bisexuality.

Third gender
On Talk:Third gender he also claimed that it had a "POV-bias" and that the article was "non-notable", although so far he has refrained from editing the article itself. The comment includes this rather ... surprising ... statement:
 * "Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article."

(Talk page conists only of three edits, hence no use in providing diffs)

Other pages showing Njyoder's less than mature behaviour:

 * Talk:Vole - completely unrelated topic, same style, see for example . Also calling 10k of hits "not notable in the slightest"
 * User:Njyoder/bishonen
 * Talk:Circumcision; for example from Talk:Circumcision/Archive 5, :
 * "I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized."
 * "...proceeds to incorrectly call anti-circumcision people a "minority" fringe group despite the majority of the world not practicing ritual circumcision."

Comments regarding his statement
Regarding the alleged "tag-team": This "tag-team" does not exist - I only became aware of User:Axon during the debate on talk:bisexuality at all. (I have a terrible memory for names, though, so we may have met before.) I dunno, two articles in about two weeks hardly do make a "tag-team", do they? Besides, it seems we are thrown together here simply because both of us, independantly, disagreed with Njyoder on his handling of those two articles. So I am asking Njyoder for more evidence on this "tag-teaming". -- AlexR 16:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "see talk page": Taken directly from the histories of gender and talk:gender, edits by others omnitted for brevity. All times shown are MEST, UTC +2 Given that the statements have become very lenghty in parts, it would be perfectly OK to move some of them to the evidence page, once it is opened. -- AlexR 16:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Article: 16:33, 15 May 2005 Njyoder
 * Article: 16:49, 15 May 2005 Njyoder (removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus)
 * Article: 20:31, 15 May 2005 AlexR (Revert from vandalism)
 * Article: 14:45, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (rv to my previous version (plus included minor edit) which is not at all vandalism -- see talk page )
 * Talk: 14:41, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (Do not revert non-vandalism as vandalism)
 * Talk: 15:30, 17 May 2005 Arbor (→Do not revert non-vandalism as vandalism) That is the edit in which Arbor tries to explain Njyoder's edits [AR]
 * Article: 15:56, 17 May 2005 AlexR (Revert widespread removal of content)
 * Article: 16:15, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (rv - what part of "see talk page" don't you understand? - stop pushing your POV everywhere through misleading edits and refusing to be civil unless you want to be reported for wikipedia policy violati)

Statement by Bishonen
Njyoder's debating style on Talk:Gender won't come as a surprise to anybody who saw his personal attacks at my request for adminship, 1 May to 8 May 2005. Njyoder's interest in my unworthiness to be an admin subsided after the vote, so the matter wouldn't be worth bringing to the ArbCom's attention for its own sake, but I'm submitting this statement to widen the scope of the point AlexR is making about general incivility. (Although now that I've seen Njyoder's response to Snowspinner's offer of mediation, I reckon that's the entire RFAr right there.) I don't know why I was singled out, as I'd had no contact with him previously. I took him to be trolling, rather than airing any grievance against me personally, and following this perception, I didn't respond to his posts. (Anybody who did jump in to defend me got more aggression from him.) The only factual basis for animosity from Njyoder towards me that I know of is that I made fun of him on #wikipedia (briefly and, as I think, mildly) during an IRC session where his behavior got him kicked and eventually banned from the channel. OTOH, that was well after Njyoder had begun his crusade against me. (I'll be happy to quote these IRC remarks of mine, if it's proper to quote #wikipedia on Wikipedia at all). I supply a few egregious diffs below, but arbitrators can get the flavor of Njyoder's "debating" style more simply by taking a look at the talk page for my RFA, which is dominated by Njyoder and which gives a context of polite editors making reasoned appeals to him.

 * 14:05, May 1, "humorous" RFA vote: Njyoder votes Strong 'Oppose to my RFA, giving as the reason: "She raped me with a series of rolled up Wikipedia print-outs :-(". . Many users on #wikipedia IRC ask him to remove the sentence about rape. He refuses repeatedly, and User:Sj removes the sentence after a few minutes.
 * 20:43, May 3, posting #wikipedia logs: Njyoder creates the talk page for my RFA and pastes in extracts from the #wikipedia log claimed to "further incriminate her ... decides to go offline in a private medium with kim to spew vitriol so that she doesn't further incriminate herself." (I quite often often talk privately with Kim Bruning on IRC—Njyoder wasn't on that occasion, or ever, a subject between us.) ,
 * 21:27, May 3, aggression: Sannse politely asks Njyoder not to post extracts from the #wikipedia log: "You probably missed my comment earlier on channel—posting logs from #wikipedia is against the channel policy", and he responds: "Sannse, I suggest you take your POV, and dishonest pro-censorship behavior elsewhere... I suggest you read the Wikiquette, Wikilove and NPOV articles so you can better understand the wikipedia policies that you are violating...if you continue this ridiculous childish retaliatory behavior on both IRC and Wikipedia, I'll get a comitte to come in and review you to have your admin status revoked."
 * 19:08, May 7, accuses me of kissing my own ass: "Why the heck should she 'get credit' simply for her ability to garner votes? ... Somehow, I don't think kissing your ass to the top is a valid qualifier for being an admin." (I deny being capable of this acrobatic position.)
 * May 27: addendum put in after Njyoder added his statement below. 1) Since Njyoder continues to insist that the #wikipedia log from early May "incriminates" me, I would really appreciate it if the arbitrators read what I say on it—I'm sure they have access to the full log. My nicks were bishonen, bish, and bishfreak, as far as I can remember, maybe bishzilla also. I know that #wikipedia isn't supposed to be posted or used in "evidence" on wikipedia, but if Njyoder's statements on this page are going to create a suggestion in anybody's mind that I abused him on IRC, I think it's fair my actual words should be read. 2) Njyoder now claims two "jokes" against me. There's his Oppose vote because I "raped him with a series of wikipedia printouts" (this diff shows it—please note that the sentence is no longer visible on the page, having been removed, not by Njyoder, as being too offensive). And now me auto-ass-kissing my way "to the top" is claimed to be "literally a joke" also. Never mind the injunction against personal attacks (David Gerard below), can I please have an injunction against jokes from Njyoder? Bishonen | talk 19:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Axon
I have found Njyoder to be a highly combative and uncivil POV pusher whose hostile attitude on talk pages does not encourage civil discourse or resolution of the various edit wars (see above) he is frequently party to. Rather than attempt to resolve issues he prefers to make threats and accusations of POV. It is particularly strange he seems to quick to attack me as I've only edited the pages infrequently, mainly keeping my contributions to the talk pages. Nyoder seems to find even the expression of a dissenting view intolerable.

"Tag Teaming"
I would just like to add the following statement of Nathan's accusation of "tag teaming" and "wikibullying" he has made against AlexR and I. Firstly, the invented "crime" of "tag teaming" is not actually against wikipedia policy (unlike personal attacks and incivility) - any discussion is permitted on talk pages so long as the principals of civil discourse and wikiquette are met and it is relevant to the topic of the article.

Secondly, the accusation of "wikibullying" seems unfounded given that I've only ever really edited the talk pages in question. I originally encountered Nathan on Bisexuality where is terse and belligerent remarks naturally caught my attention. More recently, I noticed the Gender and Third gender page had been listed on the LGBT notice board (a perfectly valid wikipedia project for anyone interested in LGBT topics, both for and against, on Wikipedia) so I went along to add my own remarks and comments to help with the discussion. I'm not sure what in the above constitutes "bullying".

If Nathan has any evidence of incivility of personal attacks I or AlexR have made against him he should present them on the evidence page instead of making vague accusations of "wikibullying". Axon 09:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by njyoder
Why so hasty to reach arbitration? I find it a bit silly that aribtration was jumped to so quickly. Basically, there was an RFC on one article that is still being worked on by several people (gender). There are parties other than myself, AlexR and Axon working on it, so I don't see why that would even be necessary to mention.

Yes, I was given a request for mediation when I initially edited the gendern article (IIRC). I denied the request because I simply don't see the point of it. The only edit I've made that has actually stuck in any of those articles was the single edit I made in gender, that's it. So in other words, he launched a request for arbitration over a single article which is still being worked on.

Why was bishonen even included? Another thing that is bothersome is that somehow Bishonen became a party in this. I stopped talking to her for weeks, so the only conceivable reason that she became a part of this was out of a personal vendetta. My only involvement with her was on her RFC, where I voted against her. Considering that I've never so much as bothered with her since, it's a absurd that she's even included.

Am I being blamed for not having all the time in the world? In any case, I'm only replying to this because I've been busy lately and just want to make this statement. This request for arbitration was actually made after I had stopped editing for a while. Unlike AlexR and Axon, I don't have all the time in the world to do stuff like this.

AlexR and Axon are well known for tag-teaming gender and sexuality related articles and they frequently engage in wikibullying to shut out others' views. If you look at any gender/sexuality article, you'll notice they're some of the biggest POV defenders there, trying to keep an obvious extreme left-wing bias in the articles.

So basically, they've taken advantage of the fact that people like me don't have the time for all of this. If I had the time and motivation to do so, I'd bring an request for arbitration against both AlexR and Axon for this tag teaming nonsense. Of course I don't and they know that, which is why they can actually get away with one against me. It even took a while for me to reply to this and I'm just doing it to get this absurdity out of the way.

It seems they also dug back quite a bit, even into old archives of articles, which suggests these guys have way too much time on their hands. If that isn't indicative of something, I don't know what is.

A lot of this "evidence" is just plain absurd

AlexR

He makes various misleading and lies statements: I was referring to him reverting an edit I made as 'vandalism.' I made an edit on the gender page which clearly did not fall under any definition of vandalism (he was the ONLY one there who thought it was--everyone else realized it was not) and he reverted it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't deliberately reverting an edit as vandalism when it's not against policy? At the very least that would qualify as bad faith. This is flatly wrong, there WAS an explanation on a talk page, it was just provided by another user and not me. Someone else (arbor) had provided a good explanation, so I didn't see reason to provide one of my own. Instead of reply to arbor's explanation on the talk page, AlexR just reverted it again. Again, this is an act of bad faith. He quotes me saying that, I don't see what's wrong with me saying that. He reverted an edit I made as vandalism, when it clearly wasn't. How does that even count as evidence agains me? See above about the talk page. I don't even see how this is valid complaint. Given that I told him to see the talk page, isn't it IMPLIED that I agree with the statements already made? The fact of the matter is SOMEONE gave an explanation. It dosn't matter that it's not me personally. He refused to reply to that explanation until after I reverted and point him back to it again. Refusing to reply to an explanation on the talk page just because I didn't write it is silly and childish. THis is some fine backpedalling on his part. He started an RfC using a VERY POV statement suggesting this was some kind of personal battle. I actually went back to the RfC and de-POVed it. The fact that he thought it was a personal war to begin with suggests that he was acting in bad faith. That's nice that he quoted that, but I don't see how it's relevent in the slightest. It is my opinion that the article should be merged and redirected, what's wrong with that? Ok, so I don't think 10k hits are notable.... So what? There's no official metric of what makes something notable, so he's just arguing over an opinion. Ok, this one is priceless. He dug back months into archives from circumcision to find this and worst of all, he found something that I was totally right aobut. The person I was referring to ended up being banned from all sex/sexuality related articles for one year. The guy I was referring to was known as "friend of robert," "Robert the bruce" and through other usernames. PRactically everyone agreed that he should be banned, including the admins who banned him. If it's a crime to be right, then lock me up. I have no idea what he's saying here. What questions haven't I answered? I address everything that is said when it's asked. Unless he's referring to the absolutely most recent set of NEW questions asked, this is baseless. I haven't edited the gender article in a few days because, well, I'm busy and don't have all the time in the world to reply to the numerous stuff that's in there.
 * information he dislikes is deleted, and restoring it a "violation of policy" or POV or whatever, in any case, not allowed.
 * the fact that there was no explanation on the talk page
 * Marking them as vandalism when they're not is a violation of Wikipedia policy.
 * I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before." (Well, he hadn't used it, either.)
 * Claims that User:Arbor already explained his edits sufficiently on the talk page ( [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender&oldid=13835017)); only, how can anybody know whether Arbor and Njyoder did indeed agree there?
 *  I was under the misapprehension that this was a somewhat personal matter, hence the wording of my initial RfC.
 * "Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article."
 * calling 10k of hits "not notable in the slightest"
 * I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized.
 * Attempts by Njyoder to actually answer the questions brought up cannot be found.
 * The rest of them are just me pointing out his POV, which hardly warrant arbitration. Basically, general consensus had already been reached, with the help of the consensus of all the major dictionaries, that the use of the word gender to mean sex was a valid usage.  AlexR was defending someone's POV statements in the aritcle that said that gender is used incorrectly as sex and that "to dismay" it's a popular usage (which is kind of a contradiction anyway).  AlexR refuses to acknowledge that that was a POV statement and refuses to acknowledge the general consensus reached on gender=sex.  That reeks of POV pushing.

Bishonen Look at this one from Bishonen, which is literally a joke:

She even hypocritically used evidence of something I did on IRC against me, while simultaneously condemning me from using evidence from IRC (which is not against policy in the first place). Bishonen is only complaining because I found incriminating quotes from IRC that made her look bad.

Axon

This just seems to be him complaining that I made personal attacks, I don't see why that's arbitration worthy. I'm also tired of writing this out, so I'll stop here.

Additions

It seems Bishonen is playing a game she played before online, the "lets deliberately misunderstand people and play dumb to get out myself out of it" game. I was referring to the fact that Bishonen took a comment of mine about her kissing the ass of other (shocker--that requires arbitration!) and responding to it with a joke of her own about not being able to kiss her own ass (not sure why she'd do that since clearly I wasn't referring to her doing that). Yes, since she is so insistent on making jokes here, I'm sure she's taking it seriously. AGain I ask, why is she even listed on this in the first place? Aren't arbitrations supposed to be about settling disputes? Considering I stopped talking to her the instant her nomination was over, I don't see what the dispute is exactly.

AlexR wants evidence of tag teaming? Every single gender/sexuality related article I've edited the main page or talk page of, they've been there. That's bisexualty, Third gender and Gender. From looking at their list it seems they also have Homosexuality and LGBT_notice_board in common as well (the later was used as a recruitmet point). If you actually look at the talk pages of bisexuality and gender, you'll notice that all AlexR and Axon do is basically repeat eachother's statements, somewhat rephrased to express I agreement. If I or someone else doesn't reply to them both, no matter how redundant and annoying, then it's seen as being non-cooperative. And even then they still repeat themselves after I've clarified myself, there is no winning with them. Either you agree with their stubborn, unchanging and irrational view points, or something is wrong with you.

-Nathan J. Yoder 10:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)

 * Accept. This is stupidly obnoxious behaviour. I'll be moving for a temp injunction against personal attacks if it's accepted as well - David Gerard 23:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse. -- sannse (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept as DG. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:30, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
 * Accept. Neutralitytalk 03:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Ambi 06:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 10:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
1) If Njyoder makes an edit that any administrator considers constitutes a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

 * ''Passed 5 to 0 at 21:28, 2005 May 29 (UTC).

=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and organize established knowledge in a usable form.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Role of Wikipedia editors
2) The role of a Wikipedia editor is to find knowledge in published references, including alternative versions, and include them in appropriate Wikipedia articles.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Governance
3) In addition to gathering information and editing articles Wikipedia editors participate in governance of Wikipedia selecting editors to serve as administrators who discharge routine duties involving editing and participation in Wikipedia.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

The pursuit of truth
4) The establishment of truth is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia which merely attributes the knowledge it contains to published sources.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Editing of controversial articles
6) Wholesale changes to controversial articles are unproductive as the only likely response is reversion. It is much more desirable to make small changes and couple them with discussion on the talk page of the article.
 * Passed 5 to 1 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Original research
7) Material which originates with a Wikipedia editor, however well crafted, may be removed from an article.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Cite your sources
8) Material which has no source associated with it may be removed from a Wikipedia article pending production of a source.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Disruption
9) It is unacceptable to disrupt either the editing or the governance of Wikipedia by making provocative edits or by persisting either through editing the article or by continued discussion on talk pages in ways which substantially diverge with the purposes of Wikipedia.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Relationship of IRC to Wikipedia for purposes of dispute resolution
10.1) Wikipedia users' activities on IRC channels are not considered relevant in the resolution of disputes between Wikipedia users.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies
11) Wikipedia editors and administrators are expected to follow present Wikipedia policies.  These policies are used as the basis of dispute resolution.
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Change in policy
11.1) It is acceptable to comment on Wikipedia policies and to advocate change in policies. It is not acceptable to repeatedly insist that editors or administrator ignore or overturn established Wikipedia policies on the grounds that they are obviously wrong or irrational. Most Wikipedia policies are a work in progress and can be improved though a process of discussion and consensus. They are nevertheless, for the moment, the policies in place.
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Subtle matter
12) As a compendium of all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains subject matter which is the provence of various subcultures (as applied to the instant case, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered (LGBT) communities.)
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Competency
12.1) Editing specialized subject matter requires familiarity with those areas and the specialized language and information resources which concern them. The assertion that something "makes no sense" or is limited to a subculture (in the instant case " 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites") is not grounds for a subject's exclusion from Wikipedia. The solution is rather to study the matter until is familiar to you before you engage in extensive or aggressive editing or to edit in other areas
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Disruptive edits with respect to Bishonen's RfA
1) On May 1, 2005 User:Njyoder added a humorous vote and comment to Requests for adminship/Bishonen . This was followed up with additional humorous "Oppose" votes, which related to User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder, a spoof article. A large number of support votes followed, but meantime Njyoder got crossways with Bishonen on the IRC channel #Wikidedia and followed up with a confirmation of his oppose vote and a denunciation of the role played by IRC participants in supporting a popular IRC participant, describing it as a "circle jerk." This was accompanied by extensive posting of IRC logs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bishonen (This posting includes the following statement, "Comments bishonen made in response to my comments on her RFA which further incriminate her -- she seeks validation with the IRC herd),, , see also
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Posting of IRC logs
1.1) User:Njyoder posted IRC logs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bishonen (This posting includes the following statement, "Comments bishonen made in response to my comments on her RFA which further incriminate her -- she seeks validation with the IRC herd), ,
 * Passed 6 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Edits to Gender
2) On May 15, 2005 User:Njyoder made an extensive edit to Gender with the following comment, "removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus." This edit removed most material in the article, reducing it to a stub. An extended discussion followed on the talk page, Talk:Gender and a Request for Comment regarding the article was filed  which complained, "Large parts of the article keep getting removed, among other "''removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary)."
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

References cited for information in the article gender
2.2) No references were cited for any information added or removed from the article Gender.
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Fallout of the dispute
2.3) Following User:Njyoder entry into the article extensive discussion began on Talk:Gender with User:Arbor supporting Njyoder and taking the lead in reorganizing the article, see User:Arbor/gender while User:AlexR continues to advance a version based on the pre-Njyoder version at User:AlexR/gender. Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Regarding third gender
3) With respect to third gender Njyoder has not edited the article but has added a proposal that the article be merged with gender, see Talk:Third gender. His basic argument is that although there are about 20K google hits for "third gender" 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites and the term is not used or comprehensible among the general population.
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Njyoder's style and intensity of argument
3.1) Nyjoder's discussion on Talk:Third gender regarding merger of the article is intense and marked by repetitive plowing of the same ground over and over. The basic theme is that as a subcultural concept the subject does not deserve its own article.
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Dispute regarding Kinsey on Bisexuality
4) Njyoder was involved in a dispute with respect to the article bisexuality regarding the accuracy of reports published by Alfred C. Kinsey, see  and . Yjyoder's removal of Kinsey report material remarking "removed dubious kinsey statistics -- see talk page." An edit war followed, ,  Njyoder then inserted a NPOV notice , with the comment. "NPOV notice -- this is NPOV as a matter of FACT -- do not childishly revert." He then removed the NPOV notice and replaced it with.
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Basis of dispute
4.1) Njyoder's edit removing the material derived from Kinsey's work was based on his assertion that it was "junk science" Talk:Bisexuality and cites a number of alleged defects with Kinsey's methodology. Later he makes the statement, "Are you seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter if Wikipedia articles contain accurate information? His information HAS NOT been verified, his methods WERE NOT sound. The information is inaccurate and junk science. If you want unscientific information in a wiki article, take it to a different wiki." . Extensive attempts by other editors to explain that the talk page was not an appropriate venue for extended discussion of the "truth" of a particular reference were ineffective.
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Njyoder banned from gender and sex related articles
1) User:Njyoder is banned for one year from editing articles related to gender or sexuality.
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:35 (UTC)

Personal attack parole
2) User:Njyoder is placed under a one-year personal attack parole, and specifically warned against ruleslawyering in this area. Should any administrator consider one of his edits a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.
 * Passed 5 to 0 June 30, 2005 12:35 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

 * Informed Njyoder:
 * Confirmation that he saw it (in true style):

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

 * RfC on gender on 17. May 2005
 * Njyoder refused a mediation offer from Snowspinner :
 * Quote: "I suggest you ask AlexR WHY he is violating wikipedia policies and bullying people out of articles instead of letting him whine and blow this out of proportion because little baby didn't get his way. Frankly, the best solution would be to simply ban him from all gender articles, since he's obviously not interested in abiding by wikipedia policies and guidelines,".