text:
Wikipedia talk:Deletion of vanity articles

wording, opposition, comparison
The wording isn't very good. "Asserting" something means to me to say it plainly in the text. So articles would say "X is important because he..." I don't think articles actually should do this. You can argue that an article should make apparent the importance of their subject but it's nonsense to suggest they should assert it.

Also, there was a fair amount of opposition to this. Yes, it got roughly 74% support, but that's a long way from consensus -- not that anyone particularly cares about consensus in Wikipedia. More than 40 editors expressed opposition.

A comparison of porn models and senators is nonsense. I can name dozens of the former and only a handful of the latter (if we are talking about American senators; I don't think I could manage even one of the senators here in Australia). To me, the former are more notable.

This is the problem of allowing people to decide what is or what is not "important" or "significant". Clearly, I wouldn't delete American senators. But you might delete porn models because you do not know them, or entomologists, or viola players, even though they "assert their notability" in the prescribed way, under this criterion. Grace Note 04:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not many porn stars even wind up on VFD, and those that do, it is mainly a cut and paste job. Many of the NN people I see on VFD are students, friends and garage bands. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The wording and interpretation of this policy can of course be subject of debate. However, 74% is a clear consensus to the extent that consensus can be shown by a poll. The 70% line is the same as used in the earlier Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD, and is even higher than the 67% that is required for VFD and similar pages. Yes, 42 people opposed, but 120 people supported, and that is 22 votes more than would have been required. This is not a narrow margin. Radiant_ >|< 07:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * It is wrong to think in terms of fixed wording and then being happy that 70-75% support is sufficient. Much better to consider the possibility that a good wording could get greater support. Pcb21| Pete 09:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, true. I would be happy to hear and discuss suggestions for improving the proposal, its wording, and its examples. Radiant_ >|< 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * On the same note, we could also discuss proposal 3-C (about unremarkable bands) that got 69% support; most of the opposition was not to the idea of the proposal, but to the wording that required it to depend on the guideline page WP:MUSIC in order to work. Here, too, we could consider the possibility that a good wording would get greater support. Radiant_ >|< 14:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know there are some users who use MUSIC as their guide for voting, some users do not use it. Same thing with the Alexa and Google tests: some swear by it and some dispise it. Maybe, what it should say that some users can use the guidelines set at WP:MUSIC in making their judgement in if the article should be speedied or not. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion about WP:MUSIC has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. Radiant_ >|< 08:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * The voting on this was practically 3:1. A little bit more, and it would even have passed an RfA. Consensus is not unanimity; to come back and tell 3/4 users that they are not a consensus is a bit much. Anyway, as to the current discussion. I think the examples are helpful. But they have no place in the wording of the policy itself: it is inherently POV. The clarification provided in the first 3 bulletts is also useful and are no doubt strong enough that they can be cited in support of a VfU. The final bullet point has appeared miraculously: where and when did that come from? It's instruction creep and ought either to be policy or not.-Splash 21:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the fourth bullet should go.

Regarding consensus. I believe that this policy reached consensus, or I would not have added it to WP:CSD. Some of the objections were over the nature of the examples and the wording rather than to the policy itself. The wording and the employment of examples can and should be improved over the coming weeks and months, and is likely to get better is it becomes informed by examples and counterexamples. I also note that several of the oppose voters are people who steadfastly oppose deletion of any article for any reason, an extreme minority view that should not be permitted to hinder tweaks to the deletion rules.

I do not support the idea that 70% is a magic figure that represents consensus.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's nothing magical about 70%. But if it must go to a poll, there must necessarily be a predefined threshold (one of the reasons that polls are evil, imo) and a 3:1 ratio is pretty decisive. To play with the opposite argument: consensus doesn't require any particular figure; it would be easy enough to claim consensus at 50%+1vote, but we are not a democracy. We use consensus to avoid tyranny by the majority, but we can have tyranny by the minority too. -Splash 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Fourth bullet removed, by the good reasonings by Splash and Uninvited above. Radiant_ >|< 08:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

A comparison of porn models and senators is nonsense. - Grace Note. Correct. Firstly, there are probably more senators (in the USA alone there are thousands, then multiply by the very many other nations with senatorial institutions). Secondly, the comparison is odious both generally (the truism) and specifically, for its implies that a senatorial position is in itself important - which it is not - and that by definition a porn model could not be - which is false. Thirdly, the assumption that the definition of importance is so blindingly obvious that only common sense (to the author's standard) is the sole determining factor needed for the judgement says more about the author than it does about the definition.

It is good that the policy has moved to where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability...because this is more open. Notability cannot deride from only a title, except in exceptional circumstances. There are masses of professional/'white collar' titles held by whole armies of nonentities. I myself have held a variety of such pompous titles which either meant little then or nothing now. Let our perspective be a broad, deep and long-lasting. Extramural 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vanity page vs misguided user page vs minor noteworthiness
In terms of the rest of the discussion, all of this discussion about porn stars, senators and entomologists is a bit irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, published scientists, porn stars with a catalog of films and politicians of all levels are all worthy of an article (using Jimbo's 500 people worldwide rule). Many college professors are internationally famous in their limited field, and would easily pass the 500 person worldwide rule, based on their journal publications.

Several others are borderline - journalists for minor regional newspapers for example. These often have to go to VFD, and the final decision tends to rest on the quality of the article, rather than the noteworthiness. That's what VFD is for.

However the reality is, on a day to day basis, the majority of the articles we are trying to speedy with this policy are actually along the lines of "Mary Smith goes to Bogsville High School. She plays netball and likes watching TV", and the even worse "Jet-Thrush-Carrot-Killer are the most exciting band ever in Pine Nut, Arkansas...".

A couple of times I have had some well-meaning but over-zealous person list these pages on VFD, meaning we have to go through the BS of the 5-day thing. Most times we can simply move it to a user page, add a polite note to the creator and just move on. Manning 01:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Copying the text to the user's page leave us with the article still. That gets to keep all its history too, which can reappear with 4 mouse clicks (for mortals). We're not allowed to make redirects from article space to user space so that won't work either and would still leave the history. Once the article is created it must be deleted by an admin if that is what is wanted. Thus, a userfy vote is really a userfy and delete vote, and the delete part needs/needed to go to VfD. Moreover, most such blatant vanity is from anon IPs, so we can't userfy it even if we want to. And, until yesterday, the "well-meaning but over-zealous person" would have been the one putting speedy tags on vanity pages: they simply weren't speediable under the rules as they were. As for VfD "rest[ing] on the quality of the article", well, that just isn't the case: most nominations and votes say things like "delete, not-notable", "delete, not encyclopedic" etc rather than "nicely written vanity article, keep" or "important topic, but badly written so delete". VfD is for establishing whether the topic should have article, not if the article is well-written or not (and there are frequent, "keep but cleanup" votes, too, which says the content is bad but the topic good). -Splash 01:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I don't do this in every case, only if I think the user was genuinely trying to create a user page and is just a bit clueless. And I don't move the page (along with its history), I cut and paste the relevant text and add a comment. I think that's in line with Do not bite the newbie. Other times I delete on sight - it's a judgement call. I am just arguing the case for being a bit gentler on newbies.

 * Either way, I want these articles killed and I don't want to see them on VFD. Manning 02:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I see what you mean. Looking through your deletion log, though, I reckon a large number of the "vanity" or "no valid content" speedies would have had to have been undeleted if hauled to VfU because those two were not WP:CSD; just look at the amount of vanity that has/had to go through there. (Not an accusation, just an observation, and an unverifiable one as I can't view deleted pages.) I don't want them around any more than you do, but process is (or was) process. -Splash 04:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a candidate for Speedy?
Here is the text from a recent band entry. Please read it and say if you would delete it or keep it. My own vote is delete. My purpose is to set a benchmark of some sorts. I DID delete this by the way, but will resurrect it if needs be.

 * Stark (band)

 * 'Stark' are a rock band from northern Ireland which consist of four members: Daniel Leith-vocals, Jason Gibson-guitar, Ryan Jendoubi-bass, and Marty McCloskey-drums. The band began in the last few years and have since played in many successful gigs, including Queens Hall in Newtownards and Hamilton House in Bangor. A quick-selling CD was also released in 2004 which fully complemented the groups song-writing and musical capabilities that are highly impressive when one compares the teenagers to more 'well-known' or established pop and rock figures.

 * Recently the group has been seldom seen live, the last show being a private birthday party, and a second album does not seem too likely; however, each of the band members remain musically active, focusing on their solo careers.

 * Both Stark and No Offence But, another popular band from Northern Ireland, are under the record label Lead Badger Records which was created by the band member from Stark, Ryan Jendoubi. The bassist used his skills in design to create the symbol for the record label that can be seen on the bands' websites and albums.

Now in my opinion, this is a speedy delete. Am I going too far? Manning 04:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, yes, that would be too far: it would need VfD under prevailing procedure. It is (imo) unfortunate the new speedy-proposal for bands also failed, but it did. If it had passed, this would have been only barely speedy (the "many successful gigs" bit might qualify for WP:MUSIC point 2; they don't meet any others most importantly with one 'album' rather than the two demanded).

 * However, if it were on VfD I would check allmusic.com (find nothing) and Google (find no matching hits with things like: Stark "Daniel Leith"), cite WP:MUSIC at it (as a guideline) and then vote to throw it in the bin as non-notable bandcruft. I imagine it'd be pretty unanimous, which makes the failure of the CSD proposal all the more disappointing. If this came up on VfU, it being a highly procedural, non-content forum, I think it would have to be undeleted and return to VfD. At which point...(etc). Of course, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. -Splash 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally I would put this on VFD as well. It makes several claims to notability (succesful gig in Queens Hall, release of CD, and reference to the record label). These claims sound kind of overrated and unverifiable to me, but that's for VFD to decide. Radiant_ >|< 08:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would not delete this entry myself because I have no idea where "Queens Hall" and "Hamilton House" fall in the spectrum between 10,000 seat auditoriums and smokey clubs with two beat up sofas each. But I suspect that, whether it fits CSD or not, it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. The thing to bear in mind is that probably 1 in 25 people has been in a gigging band at some point in their life, and that such bands are not inherently notable. Even the more successful local bands like the Casablanca Orchestra are marginally notable, at best, because they are ephemeral and, by their very nature, follow existing musical styles rather than creating new ones. Thus they have no lasting effect on music history. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You seem to be forgetting a very important thing: The newly adopted criterion that allows deletion of vanity articles specifically states that the article should be about a "person". The wording used actually makes it impossible to delete any band article (or web page article, club article, school article, street article or book article) according to this paragraph. My personal opinion is that this might be unfortunate, but given the sensitive subject of speedy deletion and the rather narrow margin by which this passed, I think it is a bad idea to stretch it by analogy. (Rather, this limitation ought to be explicitly clarified.) Instead, I hope the discussion about a new "band clause" proposal can lead something with the possibility of reaching consensus.
 * (If, hypothetically, the current vanity clause would have allowed for non-person articles to be speedied, I would still say that claims of a "quick-selling CD" and "many successful gigs" do assert notability, so this specific article should have gone to VfD anyway.) / Alarm 15:13:23, 2005-07-23 (UTC)

Not much of a consensus
74% seems a tad low for such a radical proposal. I'll be watching events closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we always have talk page discussions, AN/I and RFC for people who abuse speedy deletion criteria. I have looked for and found very little of such abuse before the proposal, and do not expect the situation to change now. Radiant_ >|< 11:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the only real problem will be when a poor article on a valid topic is speedily deleted and when someone patrolling the deletion log attempts to put in a little stub instead, gets deleted as "recreated content". Pcb21| Pete 16:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a possibility. The proposed (and accepted) rewording of CSD#G4 was intended to lessen that problem. Radiant_ >|< 17:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Another example
David Persons was tagged for speedy deletion as vanity, and I removed the tag because I felt a clear assertion of notability was made. Was I wrong to remove the tag? Thanks — Pekinensis 05:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say you were absolutely right. Being "nationally recognized as one of the outstanding essayists" is clearly asserting notability. Radiant_ >|< 07:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you — Pekinensis 05:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

ericsson1_ >|< 16:02, October 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Was I wrong to remove the tag?  Dear Pekinensis, yes, you were. I and many I have discussed this with feel that you were wrong and deleting Dr. Persons was inappropriate censorship of a religious writer and leader, seemingly because he is a religious writer and leader. Doing a google search on "David Persons" or "Rev David Persons" turns up over 32 pages of hits on this writer. I am not that familar with his work, but it seems that many others are. One reason for deletion listed earlier was not many references on the web - this is clearly NOT the case - as I found page after page. Could it be that he is being deleted because he is a Christian that is unapologetic about the apologetics he writes about? This, as with many, Wikipedia deletions reflect a possible apparent bias of the Wikipedia editors against religious leaders and discussions much more than a concern about his viability as a person of importance. He is clearly a player in his particular field, and while that is not my field it seems that Wikipedia is censoring him, and many others, because they are not "serious" according to the narrow standards of Wikipeida editors. Wikipedia needs to stop censoring people that they do not agree with simply becuase they can. The current standard, as stated above, is not a standard at all, but rather, at least in my view, an excuse to censor and silence speech that Wikipedia disagrees with. That is both disappointing and disturbing. Dr. Persons is reflective of the growing "radical moderate" movement within the United Methodist Church and other mainline denominations, and his entry should be reinstated. I completely disagree with Radiant is his assertion that you "were absolutely right". Is Radiant aware of any of Dr. Persons words or work? Until he or she examines it, advocating removing anyone that is not "famous" or "important" according to the narrow standards of popular culture should be done carefully and with consideration of the whole picture. I know that the person who made the initial entry, one of Dr. Persons' many religion and philosophy students, is planning on resubmitting an article soon. I hope that Wikipedia will not be so quick to censor this author, and others, because they are not in the usual mainstream of popular culture. They are still important in their fields and their work influences many. His entry will be resubmitted and should be reinstated, and each reader should be allowed to decide for themselves if he, and others who face the same response from Wikipedia, are important or not. Then again, that is a recurring theme in the few things I have read that Dr. Persons has written - letting everyone be heard and each person deciding for themselves about which voices and ideas are true and important. Maybe THAT is why he was deleted, the fear that others might disagree with Wikipeida's assessment. Wikipedia needs standards; no one is arguing that. However, multiple pages of work on the internet, and elsewhere, should be enough to allow someone of his caliber to be listed and then for each reader to decide for themselves. This was not a case of someone simply wanting to see their name on the net (I doubt he even knew it was submitted) but rather of someone who had been positively influenced by someone's work, apparently one of many, adding his information to the debate and the body of knowledge that Wikipedia purports to represent. Please let it do so without undue censorship, or making submissions a popularity contest. Take care! — ericcson1

 * I believe you have misunderstood my action, which was a move against speedy deletion of the article. I did not remove the article, but the tag that marked the article as a candidate for speedy deletion.  — Pekinensis 23:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I stand corrected then. However, I am also a bit confused. Where is the article then? Was it deleted or not? And if so, how can it be reposted? Thanks for your quick reply, by the way. Keep up the good work you are doing on this site! — ericcson1 01:20 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Persons vs. person
Does the new July 2005 policy apply to multiple people / a group of people. i am using Anstice as an example. i'm tempted to speedy it cuz i'm tired of writing up the same explanation under VfD (i.e. non-notable, etc.) -- Bubbachuck 07:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I suppose this is a matter of common sense. If John Foo and Jane Bar are deletable under this rule, then arguably so would John Foo and Jane Bar be deletable. But it doesn't apply to clubs, groups, bands etc. Anstice definitely belongs on VFD; I'm tempted to CSD it under #A1, but there may be historical merit to its subject that just wasn't stated in the article. Radiant_ >|< 07:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

cleanup tags
The cleanup tag for potentially vanity articles is cleanup-importance. It should be noted that articles in the associated category are either candidates for deletion according to this policy, or one step from that situation. --Joy [shallot]   21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

clarification proposal
CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal during deletion and undeletion debates. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particularly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

expansion to businesses
Has anyone thought about having a similar policy for articles about non-notable businesses? -- SCZenz 00:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See WP:CORP -- W P  Talk  00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. I meant the speedy deletion option, which does not seem to exist on the page you referenced. -- SCZenz 00:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * There has been considerabel discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Spam. I oppose any such extension of speedy deletion, precisely becauae it is often a good idea to re-write an article about a buisness to remove promotion and PoV, and it is not easy to tell at a glance if a buisness is notable or not. DES (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info. I'll take my comments there. -- SCZenz 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Does A7 apply for bands?
Wile E. Heresiarch has said that A7 applies also for non-notable bands at Articles for deletion/Lost in fusion and accused a user who disputed the speedy for "wasting other people's time". Does A7 really apply for bands? I thought A7 only applied for indidvidual people or am I missing something? Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not, Sjakkalle. A7 applies to individual persons and individual persons only. Articles on bands, companies, the local grocery store, and similar institutions that do not "assert the notability" of their subjects are the province of AfD, where they are usually deleted for not being "notable," sometimes per WP:MUSIC or similar criteria.— enceph alon  10:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Encephalon is correct; however, given that the CSD proposal for bands fell just short of consensus for technical reasons, it would likely be a good idea to expand #A7 to include bands (or possibly groups of people in general, to include entirely-too-secret societies, and the club-of-me-and-the-neighbor's-kids). It could be worded just like #A7 only point to WP:MUSIC rather than here. Thoughts? Radiant_ >|< 13:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I voted against the band vanity speedy proposal, in part because I felt that there is a possibility, albeit a small one, that a band might be notable even if it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. What if there is a band that George W. Bush was a member of in his 20s? Some might argue that this would make the band notable even if it failed to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, then again others might argue it doesn't, but that is a thing for AFD and not CSD. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's true. How about a wording such as this...
 * An article about a band that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Assertions of importance include but are not limited to those listed at WP:MUSIC.
 * Radiant_ >|< 10:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I would have supported such a proposal, worded along the lines of A7 which I supported. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Scrap this policy as a reason for speedy deletion - AFD only
This is so obvious that I am tempted to just put the facts on the table and see where they land.

Facts:
 * 1) The vast majority of people who vote do not research things before voting.
 * 2) An incorrect assertion by an earlier voter will influence 90% of later voters.
 * 3) A speedy delete case can be over in minutes.
 * 4) Whilst undeletions are theoretically possible, they are not really plausible.
 * 5) It is common (over 10%) that so-called vanity pages are actually about notable people.

Given that, the reality is that a significant proportion of vanity pages which are nominated for speedy delete will pass even if they are about a notable person.

One example was Absolute Boyfriend, claimed to be a speedy delete for vanity. In reality, it is a very popular published anime manga graphical comic, with at least 20 shops selling it and I counted 15 message forums and 50 fan sites devoted to it. Hardly vanity.

In that example, however, the first 4 votes (it was AFD) were for speedy delete. They claimed that the article was poorly written: it was. The article was describing the most recent episode (a short for it). Had Absolute Boyfriend already existed as an article, their addition would have been useful. They also made several assertions of notoriety within the article, linking to wikipedia articles that talk about it.

Now, given this kind of ridiculous decision, which is relatively common, and given the fact that it was probably seconds away from a speedy deletion when I saved it, we have to suggest that this policy, as a criteria for speedy deletion is wrong.

Keep it as a policy for deletion, but then encourage people to research these things.

Far too many so-called vanity pages are real. Zordrac 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence of these alleged facts. Radiant_ >|< 11:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You dispute these assertions? Do you not use the Vfd board? Zordrac 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * And also, you have your facts wrong. Absolute Boyfriend, in its initial stage, would be speedied for lack of context (because you couldn't infer from the article what it was actually about), not for being vanity. And second, the AFD did in fact come to the correct conclusion of keeping it. And third, none of those people who claimed it was a speedy were admins or indeed established users, so your assertion that the article was in danger is wrong. Radiant_ >|< 11:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will put it to you that, had I not intervened, the article would have been speedied. Zordrac 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed. None of the versions of this article were ever A7 (vanity biography) candidates, for the simple reason that they weren't "about a real person" (although the first ones were so nonsensical that one might be excused for thinking so).  The original versions were, however, clear speedy candidates under the A1 (insufficient context) criterion, and rightly so.  You may note that it took a complete rewrite from scratch to turn the article into something that makes sense; nothing from the original version survives.  That rewrite could just as well have been done after deletion.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The original article could have been included. I was just too lazy to get to the stage where that text could be included (to include it, I'd have to go to the laborious process of writing about the 5 episodes, and then get to the 6th which relates to that).  So I dispute your claims Zordrac 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I do follow AFD. But in particular, I dispute the following allegations:
 * The vast majority of people who vote do not research things before voting.
 * An incorrect assertion by an earlier voter will influence 90% of later voters.
 * Whilst undeletions are theoretically possible, they are not really plausible.
 * It is common (over 10%) that so-called vanity pages are actually about notable people.
 * You have cited no evidence of them whatsoever. I am inclined to believe #1 for some users, but based on my experience #2 is false. I am very active on WP:DRV so I can vouch for the incorrectness of #3. And #4 is citing a statistic of "over 10%" which seems to have been pulled out of thin air. Finally, I wish to point out that votes to "speedy delete" anything on AFD do not in fact allow for speedy deletion of anything. Radiant_ >|< 18:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, call them assertions of fact. And on AFD today there were many counts of where an article to be speedy deleted was speedy deleted. i.e. result: speedy delete.

Regardless, the policy is ridiculous and disrupts the normal flow of wikipedia. Zordrac 23:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm serious. Please point me to a page where this actually happens. AFD is huge, I'm not going to analyze all of this. Also please provide evidence of this policy "disrupting the normal flow of wikipedia". Allegations are not getting us anywhere. If there are problems with policy I would be happy to hear and correct them. But please indicate where they are, rather than in general terms. Radiant_ >|< 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, I did link to probably the most obvious example that you are ever going to get, and yet you guys don't seem to notice the problems with it. So if you can't follow links, well, there's not much more I can do about that. Zordrac 04:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you mean Absolute Boyfriend, it has been pointed out several times that it wasn't deleted on grounds of vanity but on grounds of lacking content and context. In other words, your claims are misguided. Radiant_ >|< 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also don't believe in "speedying articles" because:
 * We have an excellant "notibility" template.
 * Deleting an article may cause the original user to rereate i or even think of it as vandalism. It's natural to assume the speedy tag is in bad faith because no one want to see their articles deleted.
 * It often violates WP:NPOV

The course of action I take is: User:Can't sleep, Yankees will beat Red Sox (before you block me) 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Use the notibiliy tag
 * 2) Ask the author to verify the facts posted
 * 3) If that failed, use WP:AFD.

 * Congratulations on finding this policy page on your first day as a Wikipedia editor. Before scrapping this, I suggest you spend a week on newpage patrol.  Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of "remotely"
I have deleted the word "remotely" from the sentence:
 * Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion.

The word is redundant. Either something is plausible or it isn't. The only effect of having the word there is to undermine the balanced judgement of plausibility, by effectively suggesting something implausible should be given validity. Tyrenius 12:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Family Genealogy and Pedigrees
What are the guidelines for outlining a Family Pedigree, if none of the initial individuals contained within it are particularly notable?

The contributions to this wiki by all members worldwide could be a very useful research resource.

articles about spaghetti westerns and easterns
i wish to bring into notice that various articles concerning cheap films made in Hollywood and rest of the world are making their presence on wikipedia articles. i feel it is a wastage of resources,as most of the time they just duplicate from IMDB. i feel that at wikipedia, we can confine ourselves to define only those films that are notably known for their aesthetics and art values.

also, if there is common consensus, can we have a different criticism section for religious texts and practices, instead of defining their criticism on the main page itself.nids 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In Favor of Vanity Articles
Is there a wiki essay in favor of allowing Vanity Articles? I think they are requirement if we want wikipedia to break through further into the main stream. Social networking drives user generated websites. Mathiastck 13:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Established_Wikipedian established wikipedian really needs to be defined. Mathiastck 13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or better yet it should be here Established_Wikipedian

Avoiding use of the word "vanity"
Just added important note - we've had legal sword-rattling about this from people when a deleted article about them was called "vanity", and they're looking for someone to sue to remove this slight from their name. (And I get to calm a lot of them down. Wheee!) In normal discourse, calling an article "vanity" would be a defamatory assertion unless you can clearly show they were responsible for it. I ask people to discourage such usage where possible. - David Gerard 10:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're calling it "autobiography" now. Less inflammatory.--Atlantima 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay. Since this particular page is inactive and redundant, it's probably a good idea to deprecate it by redirecting it to e.g. WP:CSD instead of adding a warning to it.  > R a d i a n t <  10:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Having heard no objections, I've now redirected the page, since it was inactive, redundant and using the term "vanity" which we really don't approve of.  > R a d i a n t <  10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lori Wilde
This article seems to have originated from the authoress herself and anonymous IP's in her home town in Texas. Published pulp fiction yes (loads) but does she meet notability? A poster here is claiming to be her, is stating we have her real name wrong but their isn't any real bio around that one expects from a notable authoress – just Advertorials.--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


text:
Wright Amendment

The Wright Amendment of 1979 was a United States federal law that governed traffic at Dallas Love Field, an airport in Dallas, Texas, to protect Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) from competition. The amendment—enacted in reaction to the refusal of Southwest Airlines to vacate Love Field and move to DFW—prohibited carriers from operating full-size airliners between Love Field and destinations beyond Texas and its four neighboring states. Further amendments in 1997 and 2005 added new states and relaxed aircraft rules for longer range service. The law was partially repealed in 2006 and then fully repealed in 2014.

Background
By the early 1960s, Love Field was reaching the limits of its terminal and parking capacity despite repeated expansion projects, and its runways were too short to accommodate new intercontinental jets. Greater Southwest International Airport (GSIA or GSW) had been constructed in Fort Worth in the 1950s, but efforts to share the new airport had proven unsuccessful due to the entrenched rivalry between the two cities. The situation was inefficient and hampered airline service to both cities, and in 1964, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) ordered Dallas and Fort Worth to find a site for a new joint regional airport. However, many Dallas residents remained satisfied with Love Field, and an attempt to establish an independent Dallas Fort Worth Regional Airport Authority—despite strong backing from the Dallas Chamber of Commerce and Dallas mayor J. Erik Jonsson—failed when Dallas voters rejected the proposal by a narrow margin. After further negotiation, the cities instead established an appointed airport board consisting of seven members from Dallas and four from Fort Worth, and were able to persuade all eight existing air carriers at Love and GSW to move to the new regional airport.

To protect the regional airport from competition and thereby protect bond investments, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth signed the Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance on 12 November 1968, which reads in part: "It is acknowledged and understood by the cities that they, in Love Field, Redbird, GSIA and Meacham Field, own and operate airports which by their nature are potentially competitive with the operation of the Regional Airport (...) Accordingly the cities (...) shall take such steps as may be necessary, appropriate and legally permissible, to provide for the orderly, efficient and effective phase-out at Love Field, Redbird, GSIA and Meacham Field, of any and all certified air carrier services, and to transfer such activities to the Regional Airport effective upon the beginning of operations at the Regional Airport." This effort culminated in the closure and ultimate demolition of GSW, the 1974 opening of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (originally named Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport, or DFW for short), the closure of Love Field to certified air carriers, and a corresponding effort to redevelop Love to be used primarily for corporate aviation.

Southwest Airlines (originally Air Southwest) was founded after the 1968 agreement between the airlines and cities to relocate to DFW; it was not a party to the agreement and felt that its business model, which emphasized convenience, would be hindered by a long drive to the new airport. Before DFW's opening, Southwest filed suit to remain at Love Field, claiming that no legal basis existed to close the airport to commercial service and that it was not bound by an agreement it did not sign. In 1971, Southwest obtained an operating certificate from the Texas Aeronautics Commission (TAC) for intrastate flights, claiming that the CAB had no authority over flights that did not cross state borders; however, Southwest was quickly sued by Dallas, Fort Worth, and the DFW Airport Board, who contested this assertion, claiming that the 1964 CAB ruling also applied to the new carrier. In 1973, a federal district court ruled that Southwest's proposed intrastate service fell outside of CAB jurisdiction, and so long as Love Field remained open, the City of Dallas could not preclude Southwest from operating there.

When DFW opened in 1974, every airline except Southwest moved to the new airport, drastically reducing commercial flights at Love Field.

Passage of the Wright Amendment
After the Airline Deregulation Act was enacted in 1978, Southwest Airlines announced plans to begin interstate service in 1979 with flights to New Orleans, a proposal that was quickly endorsed by the CAB. However, Texas officials—particularly those from Fort Worth—thought that increased traffic at Love Field could draw flights away from DFW Airport and threaten its financial stability. To protect the new airport, Jim Wright, member of the U.S. House of Representatives serving Fort Worth, sponsored and helped pass an amendment to the International Air Transportation Act of 1979 in Congress that restricted passenger air traffic at Love Field in the following ways:
 * Passenger service flown with larger mainline jet aircraft could be provided only to airports within Texas and its four neighboring U.S. states: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and Oklahoma. At the time, all existing and planned Southwest Airlines routes were contained within this region, so the law had no immediate effect on Southwest.
 * Flights to other states were allowed only on aircraft with 56 seats or fewer, in an attempt to prohibit mainline passenger service outside of the five-state region.
 * Airlines could not offer connecting flights, through service on another airline, or through ticketing beyond the five-state region.

While the law deterred major airlines from starting (or resuming) service out of Love Field, Southwest quickly expanded its Love Field operation by undercutting the high fares charged by legacy airlines to fly to smaller, underserved airports in the five-state region. This had the effect of increasing local traffic to non-Wright Amendment-impacted airports such as Houston/Hobby Airport, El Paso International Airport, Albuquerque International Sunport, and New Orleans International Airport.

The through-ticketing and connecting flight restrictions in the law were not seriously explored until Continental Airlines proposed in 1985 to begin service between Love Field and Houston. Dallas, Fort Worth, and the D/FW Airport Board attempted to bar the airline from Love Field on the grounds that it offered interline through-ticketing, a service not offered by Southwest. However, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) decreed that an airline was merely disallowed from through-ticketing flight segments to or from Love Field. Additionally, the USDOT ruled that selling a passenger a separate ticket on a connecting flight at another airport—a practice known as double ticketing—was perfectly legal provided that the airline was not "advertising, promoting, or otherwise affirmatively soliciting double ticketing passengers." An airline was thus allowed to sell a connecting ticket provided that it was requested by the traveler rather than being solicited by the ticket agent. Following this ruling, a sophisticated Southwest passenger could work the system and get around the Wright Amendment's restrictions by flying from Dallas to another airport in the five-state region, changing planes, and then flying on a separate ticket to any city Southwest served.

1989 alteration proposal
The Wright Amendment became controversial in Dallas; some argued that it unfairly restricted airline competition by discouraging carriers other than Southwest from serving Love Field, while others supported it to mitigate jet noise and protect property values near the airport. By late 1989, Dallas City Council member Jerry Bartos emerged as a leader of the effort to repeal Wright, gaining the backing of mayor Annette Strauss, and Kansas U.S. House Rep. Dan Glickman sponsored a bill calling for the amendment's repeal. In September of that year, the Dallas City Council approved a compromise resolution calling for the amendment's four-state limit to be changed to a 650 mi perimeter limit allowing direct flights to Denver and Nashville. By 1990, Southwest was supportive of the resolution, but it had galvanized opposition by local property owners, and DFW Airport supporters were alarmed by a declaration by American Airlines that it could cancel a proposed terminal project there and move many flights to Love. In early July, Texas members of the U.S. House Rules Committee blocked Glickman's bill, Strauss withdrew her support, and the City Council rescinded their 1989 vote.

Legend Airlines and Shelby Amendment
In 1996, Dallas aviation company Dalfort Aviation announced the launch of Legend Airlines, a new air carrier that would operate long-range flights from Love Field using jets with 56 seats—the maximum number allowed for long-haul flights under Wright. The new airline would be headed by T. Allan McArtor and would use refurbished McDonnell Douglas DC-9s or Boeing 727s—aircraft that normally carried 90 or more passengers—with an all-first class configuration and the excess space used for cargo. McArtor and Dalfort chief executive Bruce Leadbetter claimed that buying new regional jets with 56 or fewer seats was too expensive and would not provide Dalfort with much-needed overhaul business. However, the USDOT general counsel ruled in September 1996 that the 56-seat restriction applied to the "designed capacity" of an airliner rather than to the number of seats actually installed, prompting Legend to seek a change in the law; Texas Rep. Joe Barton was soon calling for the U.S. House to address the 56-seat requirement.

By July 1997, McArtor had enlisted the help of Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who proposed to change to Wright restrictions to allow Legend to start service using the refurbished planes; however, he was opposed by Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. On 7 October 1997, despite fierce opposition from Hutchison and Rep. Kay Granger of Fort Worth, Shelby's efforts culminated in the passage of a Senate funding bill that included his amendment to allow unrestricted flights to Alabama, Kansas, and Mississippi and to allow nationwide flights using aircraft reconfigured with 56 seats. On 9 October 1997, the U.S. House overwhelmingly approved the transportation funding bill containing the Shelby Amendment, with President Bill Clinton expected to promptly sign it into law.

Legal actions
The passage of the Shelby Amendment prompted a flurry of lawsuits. Within a month, Fort Worth and Dallas had sued each other, with Fort Worth arguing for upholding the 1968 bond agreement and Dallas arguing that it could no longer be enforced. A few months later, American Airlines joined Fort Worth in suing Dallas, and McArtor accused American of masterminding Fort Worth's original lawsuit to attain American's goal of stopping Legend. By February 1998, Mesa Airlines, which had begun intrastate service from Meacham Field in May 1997, had joined Fort Worth, and Southwest Airlines joined the Dallas lawsuit at the behest of Legend.

On 19 May 1998, Continental Airlines—a party to the original 1968 bond agreement—and its regional affiliate Continental Express sued both cities over their refusal to allow interstate service at Love Field using 50-seat Embraer ERJ-145s, which fit within the 56-seat restriction. The lawsuit argued that the cities no longer had the authority to block long-haul service that complied with federal law. This in turn prompted DFW Airport to preemptively sue American Airlines to prevent them from likewise operating from Love, even though the airline denied having plans to do so.

McArtor argued that Fort Worth was also violating the bond agreement by allowing Mesa and FedEx Express to operate from Meacham and the recently constructed Fort Worth Alliance Airport respectively. In October 1998, Legend sued Fort Worth, accusing the city of a "double standard" in its simultaneous support for Alliance and opposition to expansion at Love. However, State District Judge Bob McCoy dismissed the suit later that month on the grounds that Legend was not a party to the 1968 DFW bond agreement and thus lacked standing to sue.

New service starts
Dallas and Fort Worth's efforts to block Continental Express were unsuccessful; the carrier began intrastate flights between Love Field and George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston on 11 June 1998, becoming only the third airline to start new service at Love after the 1968 bond agreement, following Southwest and the defunct Muse Air. On 10 February 2000, a federal judge lifted an injunction against the airline's proposed interstate service to Cleveland, and the airline announced that the service would begin on 1 June.

On 5 April 2000, after further legal battles against Fort Worth and American Airlines and delays in gaining final approval from the FAA, Legend began the first long-haul service from Love Field since 1974 with a flight to Washington Dulles International Airport in a refurbished 56-seat McDonnell Douglas DC-9. Legend soon operated scheduled passenger service nonstop from Love Field to Los Angeles (LAX), New York LaGuardia Airport (LGA), Las Vegas (LAS), and Dulles (IAD). On 1 May 2000, American Airlines launched a direct challenge to Legend with its first flights from Love Field since 1974, starting service with Fokker 100s specially refitted with 56 first-class seats and offering flights to Chicago and Los Angeles.

On 29 June 2000, the United States Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court decision allowing long-haul flights from Love, effectively ending the last attempt by Fort Worth, the D/FW Airport Board, and American Airlines to stop such flights. Board officials stated that they would not pursue further legal action.

Despite the Shelby Amendment, Southwest did not add flights to the new states, citing a lack of demand.

Missouri added
In 2005, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri attached an amendment to a transportation spending bill to exempt his state from the Wright restrictions. Soon after the bill's passage, Southwest began nonstop flights from Love Field to St. Louis and Kansas City on 13 December 2005. The same day, American Airlines responded with an announcement that it would start service from Love Field to the same Missouri airports on 2 March 2006, along with flights to the Southwest strongholds of San Antonio and Austin, Texas.

Repeal efforts
In late 2004, Southwest Airlines announced its opposition to the Wright Amendment. Shortly thereafter, the company began trying to garner public support for the repeal of the Wright Amendment by launching a massive public relations campaign. Print media, the Internet, billboards, and TV spots were all used, directing the viewer or reader to visit the Set Love Free website, created by Southwest Airlines. In response, a group opposed to the repeal of the amendment, spearheaded by the DFW Airport Board and American Airlines, launched their own media campaign directing visitors to their Keep DFW Strong site.

Critics of the amendment asserted that the restrictions on long-haul travel from Dallas Love Field were anti-competitive. They asked for the "freedom to fly" from Love Field to any destination. They also argued that the restrictions on full use of Love Field artificially inflated fares at the DFW Airport. They believed that eliminating the amendment, and thus allowing any airline to fly long-haul service out of Love Field, would allow the so-called "Southwest effect" to occur, where new, inexpensive capacity will increase traffic at both airports (assuming that the market effect of low fares on flights into and out of Love Field will serve to drive down fares on corresponding routes at DFW); these projections are based upon historic results in other air travel markets in which low-fare carriers, most frequently, Southwest, have initiated service. Wright opponents also argued that DFW's main tenant, American Airlines, could charge high prices out of DFW because with AA controlling in excess of 80% of air carrier traffic at DFW, there was little competition on most routes, a problem that has recently been attributed to Delta Air Lines discontinuing its usage of DFW as a hub.

Supporters of the amendment said that DFW Airport is the economic engine of the metroplex area, and did not wish for a competing airport to either take traffic from DFW or drive the prices down there, although they did concede that American's fares are often higher than from other airports. DFW Airport had also completed construction of a $2.5-billion people mover system to transport passengers between terminal buildings. The DFW Airport Authority stated concerns that the financial burdens caused by large infrastructure projects such as the people mover project and the removal of Delta Air Lines' hub status would hamper airport profitability and sustainability if a direct competitor to DFW were introduced into the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. A primary concern of many in the DFW area was that American was the largest employer in the North Texas area and associates of DFW and American Airlines were reluctant to put any jobs at risk, especially when considering the chronic financial difficulties that modern airlines, other than Southwest, face. Another concern of people in the immediate area of the airport was that of noise and traffic; the area near Love Field, especially the incorporated "Park Cities" (University Park and Highland Park) and the "Uptown" section of Dallas, has become high-value real estate, and developers and residents feared that increased air and street traffic into the airport, and increased fuel loads for interstate flights requiring higher takeoff throttles and lower rates of ascent, would lessen the desirability and thus land values of the area.

Repeal compromise
On June 15, 2006, it was announced that American, Southwest, DFW Airport and the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth had all agreed to seek full repeal of the Wright Amendment, with several conditions. The ban on nonstop flights outside the Wright zone would stay in place until 2014; through-ticketing to domestic and foreign airports (allowing connecting flights to long-haul destinations without requiring the previous workaround of buying separate tickets) would be allowed immediately; Love Field's maximum gate capacity would be lowered from 32 to 20 gates; and Love would handle only domestic flights non-stop.

The proposed compromise was opposed by JetBlue Airways and other low-fare carriers, who argued that the gate reductions at Love would harm their ability to begin service there, and by area congressmen who opposed provisions of the deal that they believed would restrict competition in passenger service at other airports within an 80 mi radius of DFW and Love, including Collin County Regional Airport in the nearby city of McKinney. The compromise was also opposed by Love Field Terminal Partners, owners of the old Legend Airlines terminal. They claimed that the announcement of the compromise prevented them from selling the six gate terminal to Pinnacle Airlines who had shown interest in purchasing or leasing the gates and have several lawsuits to prevent the compromise's implementation.

On July 25, 2006, a leaked memorandum from an employee of the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division raised concerns about airline competition in North Texas and urged legislators to force a renegotiation of the deal. It also stated that the removal of gates and a cap of 20 gates for the airport would violate federal antitrust legislation. This capping of gates would affect the other airlines that might be attracted to getting gates at Dallas Love Field airport.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison responded to the memorandum by stating "They [Justice] are not taking a position at all on the legislation... That memo did not go through the channels. And it probably was one person's view, but it's not the Justice Department's."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner also had some complaints about the antitrust issues that he thought would arise from the proposed legislation since Southwest would be able to operate from 16 gates, American 2 gates, and Continental 2 gates without further gates available for other carriers.

After extensive negotiations with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the compromise bill passed both Houses of Congress on Friday, September 29, 2006, just before the 109th Congress adjourned for the November elections. Hutchison led the effort to pass the bill in the Senate while Rep. Kay Granger led a bipartisan Texas House coalition to see the bill through to a successful conclusion in the House. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 13, 2006, including the 20-gate cap. Southwest and American then required approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to begin one-stop flights from Love Field to destinations outside the Wright limits.

While non-stop flights were restricted until October 16, 2014, Southwest Airlines announced on October 17, 2006, that it would begin direct flight (same plane with one stop) and connecting service between Love Field and 25 destinations outside the Wright zone on October 19, 2006. American Airlines also made indirect connecting travel between Love Field and locations outside the Wright zone available by October 18, 2006.

Expiration
On October 13, 2014, the Wright Amendment domestic flight restrictions ended, allowing airlines to fly from Love Field to anywhere in the U.S. The event was marked by the arrival of Southwest Airlines Flight 1013 from Denver at 7:51 am that day.

Although the major restrictions on domestic flights were lifted, Love Field continues to be governed by the complex Five Party Agreement executed in 2006 between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, DFW Airport, Southwest Airlines, and American Airlines as a precondition of their mutual support for the amendment's repeal. The total number of gates at Love Field is restricted to only 20 and the city of Dallas agreed to formulate a new airport master plan and demolish all gates in excess of that number "as soon as practical"; Southwest and American were given preferential leases to the remaining gates. Dallas agreed to impose a noise curfew prohibiting airline flights at Love Field between 11 pm and 6 am local time. Until 2025, airlines may only operate international flights to the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex from DFW, and if Southwest Airlines or any of its codeshare agreement partners offer flights from any airport within an 80 mi radius of Love Field (which encompasses DFW Airport), Southwest must surrender Love Field gates. The parties agreed to oppose the initiation of passenger service from any other airport within the metroplex before that time.

The repeal of the amendment had an immediate and substantial effect on traffic at Love Field; emplanements at the airport rose sharply from 8.4 million in 2013 to 14.5 million in 2015.

Text of amendment
The original text of the Wright Amendment (from International Air Transportation Competition Act):

 * (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, nor any other officer or employee of the United States shall issue, reissue, amend, revise, or otherwise modify (either by action or inaction) any certificate or other authority to permit or otherwise authorize any person to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, as a common carrier for compensation or hire between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except (1) charter air transportation not to exceed ten flights per month, and (2) air transportation provided by commuter airlines operating aircraft with a passenger capacity of 56 passengers or less.

 * (b) Except as provided in subsections (a) and (c), notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any certificate or other authority heretofore or hereafter issued thereunder, no person shall provide or offer to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, for compensation or hire as a common carrier between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except that a person providing service to a point outside of Texas from Love Field on November 1, 1979 may continue to provide service to such point.

 * (c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect to, and it is found consistent with the public convenience and necessity to authorize, transportation of individuals, by air, on a flight between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points within the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas by an air carrier, if (1) such air carrier does not offer or provide any through service or ticketing with another air carrier or foreign air carrier, and (2) such air carrier does not offer for sale transportation to or from, and the flight or aircraft does not serve, any point which is outside any such State. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to give authority not otherwise provided by law to the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, any other officer or employee of the United States, or any other person.

 * (d) This section shall not take effect if enacted after the enactment of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979.

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

title: Wright Amendment


text:
Kumam dialect

Kumam is a language of the Southern Lwoo group spoken by the Kumam people of Uganda. It is estimated that the Kumam dialect has 82 percent lexical similarity with the Acholi dialect, 81 percent with the Lango dialect.

Consonants
Gemination can occur due to morphological processes, for example del 'skin' + -ná → dellá 'my skin'.

Vowels
Kumam has ten vowels, with a vowel harmony system based on presence or absence of advanced tongue root (ATR).

Vowels have no distinction in length, except due to some morphological processes, for instance compensatory lengthening that occurs when applying the transitive infinitive suffix -nɔ: ted- 'cook' + -ne → *ted-do → teedo 'to cook'.

Tone
There exist six tones: low, high, falling, rising, downstep high and double downstep high.

Tone sandhi
Kumam exhibits tone sandhi in two ways. The first is the spreading of high tonemes rightwards to the following words beginning with a low tonemes, as in ɑbúké 'eyelash' + waŋ 'eye' → abúké wâŋ 'eyelash'. The second is when a floating high toneme is followed by a word beginning in a low toneme, where the floating tone is assigned to the following word and not the word bearing the floating tone: cogó 'bone' + rac 'bad' → cogo râc 'The bone is bad.'

Valency
Transitive stems are constructed by applying the suffix -ɔ (yɛŋ 'be satisfied' → yɛŋ-ɔ 'satisfy'). A subset of transitive verbs can have the suffix -ɛ́rɛ́ applied to form what Hieda calls a 'middle form' (nɛ́n-ɔ → nɛ́!nɛ́rɛ́ 'be seen').

Basic lexicon
Hello – yoga How are you? –Itiye benyo (singular), Itiyenu benyo (plural) Fine, and you? – Atiye ber, arai bon yin? Fine – Atiye ber or just ber What is your name? – Nying in en Ngai? My name is ... – Nying ango en ... Name --- Nying Nice to see you. --- Apwoyo Neno in (also: Apwoyo Neno wun) See you again --- Oneno bobo Book – Itabo Because – Pi Ento

The first sentence in the bible can be translated as I ya gege, Rubanga ocweo wi polo kede piny ("In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth" ).

title: Kumam dialect


text: User talk:69.136.139.56

title: User talk:69.136.139.56


text:
Talk:Phone Losers of America

No more abuse
Don't post things like this: Anirak says TALK!
 * Like, no! --Rolf L. Mayo
 * Some jackass removed my secret message

There's a forum for that, provided you never post or talk.

Most of the information on this page is pointless. If you want a page, I'd suggest just sticking to a broader history or the "group". Listing the issues of your useless zines is pointless. It's nothing that anyone would really want to know, because nothing groundbreaking was ever covered in any of them. Try just stating that you started off writting a zine and keep it to that. --intelshoe

This isn't even ArtiCAL worthy. Tokechu was obviously smoking crack (The drug of the FUTURE!) when wrote this. Why not put up something a bit more polished and professional, eh? (This unsigned comment was added by 24.208.124.76).

Please sign your comments. --Tokachu 00:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the CNBC interview should be put back in place. --Murd0c516 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a link on CNBC's web site? Or any information that could prove that it even happened? --Tokachu 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you ever try looking on the fucking main page of phonelosers.org? It obviously happened. --Murd0c516 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then please post it. Thank you. --Tokachu 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cactus?

AFD debate link
This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Roy, New Mexico
Is the show really broadcast from Roy, New Mexico? -Chris Tomkinson. (cactus cactus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.135.161 (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they're broadcasting from the PLA Situation Room in Roy, New Mexico on Prank Call Nation! Source: "Rand al'Thor sponsors today's extremely short show, but the good news is that this will be the last show from outside the Situation Room in Roy, New Mexico! At least one more show will happen this week from the studio.  Woo hoo! " http://www.phonelosers.org/2014/08/snow-plow-show-august-25th-2014-inshedption/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.76.162 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Situation Room Location
The headquarters actually aren't in New Mexico. Stop changing it back from Albany. TheDaJakester'' 02:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

cactus.
cactus? yeah, cactus. 2601:601:1700:C0C0:1BC:F30:1DC2:85DE (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Phone Losers of America


text:
Talk:Sullivan Heights Secondary

Clearly not a speedy. If listed on VfD, it will almost certainly be kept. Perhaps admin will consider simply removing the notice. Grace Note 04:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.sullivanathletics.co.nr/
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Sullivan Heights Secondary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109065714/http://www.canada.com/surreynow/news/story.html?id=ad153da7-089a-40f6-b567-9a0780a5ddc6 to http://www.canada.com/surreynow/news/story.html?id=ad153da7-089a-40f6-b567-9a0780a5ddc6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sullivan Heights Secondary


text:
Rainbow Blue

Rainbow Blue was the 2004 American Harness Horse of the Year as well as the Canadian Harness Horse of the Year.

Racing at age two she won six or her seven starts including a division of the Debutante Stakes and the Molly Pitcher Pace. The filly won 20 of the 21 races she entered in 2004. Her only loss came when she went off stride in the Mistletoe Shalee. Her victory highlights included the $543,543 Fan Hanover Stakes final, the $222,500 Nadia Lobell Pace final, the Matron Stakes and the $610,000 Breeders Crown 3YO Filly Pace final. The bay filly is the daughter of Artiscape and Vesta Blue Chip. She retired with a lifetime mark of 1:49 2/5. Rainbow Blue was inducted into the United States Harness Racing Hall of Fame in 2012.

title: Rainbow Blue


text:
Ashley Greyson

Ashley Greyson (sometimes credited as Ash Greyson) is a film and music video director, cinematographer, editor, and producer, who usually works with the band Hanson. He attended the USC School of Cinematic Arts.

Greyson worked with Hanson on the documentary film Strong Enough To Break, about the $3 1/2$-year struggle the band went through to make a record. It documents meetings from 2000 to 2004 and the start of the band's record company, 3CG Records, along with the release and success of their album Underneath. The film was nominated for a 2006 Hollywood Film Festival award (Best Documentary).

Now living in Nashville Tennessee, Greyson, along with his wife, Mindy, have 7 children: Jax (born October 13, 2005) Catcher (born May 28, 2007) Finn (born February 1, 2009) LulaBelle (born September 13, 2010) Holiday (born November 24, 2012) Petunia (born 2014) and Rockford (born 2016).

Selected filmography

 * Life Happens (2010 - Director, Writer)
 * Bleed Into One: The Story of Christian Rock (2010 post-production - Director, Cinematographer)
 * Strong Enough to Break (2005 - Director, Producer, Cinematographer)
 * The Road to Albertane (1998 - Director, Producer)
 * Tulsa, Tokyo, and the Middle of Nowhere (1997 - Director, Cinematographer, Videographer, Editor)
 * Live From Albertane (Videographer, Director, Editor)
 * Live at the Fillmore (Videographer, Director, Editor)
 * Underneath Acoustic Live (Videographer, Director, Editor)
 * "Save Me" music video (Director)
 * "Go" music video  (Director)
 * "The Great Divide" (Director)

title: Ashley Greyson


text:
Oid

Oid or OID may refer to:

 * Oid, a 2005 album by Space Manoeuvres
 * Object identifier, an object used in computing to name an object
 * Oracle Internet Directory, a directory service produced by Oracle Corporation
 * OpenID, a shared identity service
 * Original issue discount, implicit interest on a discounted debt

title: Oid


text:
User talk:Miguelfp1

Welcome
Welcome!

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

I have to admit what's anyway pretty obvious: the above text is all just boilerplate. Actually it seems you're already enjoying editing here, and doing good stuff. Maybe this is just a new user ID for you, and you honed your skills previously as an anonymous IP number. But whatever route you took to get here, please keep up the good work. -- Hoary 04:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hoary, your comments and help is greatly appreciated by this newcomer. Miguelfp1 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Hola boricua! q bueno ver mas puertorriquenos en wikipedia, contactame cualquier cosa!!<> 06:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Help
Hi boricua i'm just  writing  you if  you can  help  me  to  translate the  nicky cruz page  to  spanish and fix the yiye avila's to  make  it  better if  you think  you can  help me i  thnak you --Teknomegisto 07:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I need your help. It seems that someone wants to delete my article on Carlos Lozada, one of four Puerto Ricans to have been awarded the Medal of Honor. You can help fight this injustice by voting against deletion here: | VfD. Please participate. Your friend Tony the Marine 05:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Gracias Boricua
Thank you for your kind words and for your support of Carlos Lozada. We must stick together to fight against any injustices here in Wiki. I'm glad to have met you via Wiki and I hope that you consider me among your friends. Tony the Marine 02:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians/Puerto Rico page as living in or being associated with Puerto Rico. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Puerto Rico for instructions.--Rmky87 02:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Felix Navidad

''' O.K. Miguelfp1, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 04:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)'''

Happy New Year
(Feliz Año Nuevo)

'''I wish you all the happiness in the world and remember, if an injustice is ever committed against you or one of your articles, I will always be by your side. Your friend Tony the Marine'''

WikiProject Puerto Rico
Hola Miguel. How's it going? I wanted to invite you to become a member of the new project about our pais. If you want to, just click there and list your name where it has the list of writers on the project. As you can see, the page is poorly formatted. I don't know how to build a country-box, but we'll work on it :)

I hope I can see your name there soon! Thanks and God bless you!

Your wikifriend, Antonio Chiquitito Martin

Did You Know, Puerto Rico?
Hey Amigo, I was thinking of adding a Did You Know? section to the article Puerto Rico. In that section we could post little known interesting facts about our island and our people. It would be serve as an educational tool that would motivate others to read about our island. An example of what I plan is this:

Did You Know?

 * 1) That the first shot fired by the United States in World Wae I was in Puerto Rico and not in Europe? It was fired by Lt. Teofilo Marxuach.

 * 1) That the first opera in history to be recorded was recorded by tenor Antonio Paoli?

 * 1) That Puerto Rico once had a President? His name was Francisco Ramirez Medina.

I want to consult with you and my other Boricua Panas. I would like to receive any input. Tu Amigo Tony the Marine 19:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Puerto Rico's 'Did you know?'"
Somebody nominated "Did You Know?-Puerto Rico" for deletion. You could express your opinion here: Articles for deletion/Did You Know - Puerto Rico. Thank you, Tony the Marine 01:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know? - Puerto Rico
Hola Amigo, while the debate on wheather the "Did You Know - Puerto Rico" article should or shouldn't be deleted goes on, I've transferred it's contents here WikiProject Puerto Rico/Did you know where it will be save and you can continue to contribute. Tu Amigo, Tony the Marine 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Daddy Yankee
Thank you for those kinds words. I would like to bring to your attenttion that I created the Category:Puerto Rican reggaeton artists so we can better classify reggaeton artists. Also drop by Puerto Rico Project and add place your thoughts and ideas there. Maybe we can work on standarizing the articles on reggaeton artists. See you around. Joelito 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Don omar.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Don omar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Barrio Fino cover.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Barrio Fino cover.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Miguelfp1


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reconquista (Mexico)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Reconquista (Mexico)
Neologism / inaccurate agitprop. MEChA as an organization does not seek what the article claims, even though it has members who believe that it should. See Gazpacho 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This article needs to be edited for POV content. A type of article that should be included in Wikipedia, or merged with any similar articles about  hispanic separatist movements.Hamster Sandwich 06:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Info should be added to MEChA article.  However, if the organization disputes that this is one of their policies, then I don't think there should be a redirect.  Dcarrano 12:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — The existence of the radical Reconquista philosophy is a fact and is notable. Article needs editing for neutrality, not deleting. — RJH 15:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge if someone who knows where to look can find where to merge it to. Reconquista mexico gets 100,000 Googles which is enough for me. -Splash 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per RJH. This is a notable component of MEChA philosophy, albeit one lacking any official sanction at the present time. I think it can be developed further. Binadot 21:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.  Article needs expansion/cleanup. Kaibabsquirrel 02:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable,but needs expansion. Salsb 00:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Mark Kerr (fighter)

Mark Kerr (born December 21, 1968) is an American former wrestler and mixed martial artist. During his MMA career, he was a two-time UFC Heavyweight Tournament Champion, World Vale Tudo Championship tournament winner, and a PRIDE FC competitor. In collegiate wrestling, Kerr was a NCAA Division I champion. In freestyle wrestling, he won gold and silver medals at the World Cup and silver at the Pan American Games. In submission wrestling, Kerr is a four-time ADCC World Champion, winning his weightclass twice along with the absolute division and the Superfight Championship.

In 2002, Kerr was the subject of an HBO documentary titled The Smashing Machine, which detailed his MMA career fighting in Vale Tudo, the UFC and PRIDE. The Smashing Machine also focused on Kerr's struggle with substance abuse, his relationships with his then-girlfriend, various training partners, and friendship with Mark Coleman.

Early life
Mark Kerr was born in Toledo, Ohio to Tom and Mary Kerr. His father was Irish, and his mother was Puerto Rican. From early childhood, he would dream of being in the World Wrestling Federation and would hold mock fights with his younger siblings in the back yard.

In 1983, Kerr began his wrestling career in Bettendorf, Iowa as a freshman at Bettendorf High School where he shared the wrestling room with another future MMA champion Pat Miletich, a senior at the time. After his freshman year at Bettendorf, Kerr and his family moved to Toledo, Ohio where he became a high school state champion for Toledo Waite.

College and post-graduate career
At Syracuse University, Kerr was the Division I champion at 190 pounds and an All-American in 1992, defeating Randy Couture 12-4 in the final. He was also a three-time EIWA champion at 190 lbs (1989, 1991, 1992) and a runner-up in 1988, and won the Fletcher Award for scoring the most team points in 1991 and 1992. In 1992, Kerr came second at the World Cup, ahead of Kurt Angle. Kerr won the USA World Team Trials in 1993 and 1994, finishing 7th at the 1993 World Championships. In 1994, he won gold at the World Cup in Edmonton along with the USA Senior Freestyle Championship but did not medal at the World Championships. Kerr won silver in freestyle at the 1995 Pan American Games. After missing out on the 1996 Olympics, Kerr decided to focus on MMA.

Mixed martial arts career
While training as an amateur wrestler, Kerr became interested in mixed martial arts as a way to earn money. He, his long-time friend and training partner Mark Coleman and Tom Erikson were initially scouted by Richard Hamilton, who had managed Ultimate Fighting Championship fighter Don Frye until a falling out and was now offering a place in UFC 10 against him. However, nothing came from it, and Coleman ended up hunting down the chance. Eventually, Kerr and Hamilton arranged for the former to train with Coleman and fight at the Brazilian event World Vale Tudo Championship 3 in January 1997. His appearance was highly anticipated, as other wrestlers like Coleman or Erikson were already known in the MMA community, though there were doubts about Kerr's true skills. Kerr himself was doubtful about it, to the point Hamilton had to force him to fight under the threat the Brazilian crowd might riot and kill him if he didn't show up.

World Vale Tudo Championship
Kerr made his debut in MMA at WVC 3 against UFC veteran Paul Varelans. The bout lasted two minutes, with Kerr slamming Varelans with a takedown, mounting him and landing punches and knee strikes for the stoppage. The same happened to his next opponent, Mestre Hulk, a capoeira police teacher who had become known for besting Brazilian jiu-jitsu fighter Amaury Bitteti. After losing two teeth to Kerr's ground and pound, Hulk crawled out of the ring, getting disqualified. Kerr then reached the finals, where he was pitted against jiu-jitsu fighter Fabio Gurgel. Again, the fight would bring echoes, this time those of the bout between Erikson and Gurgel's teammate Murilo Bustamante, which happened the same year.

Kerr went to the fight with a broken hand from the Hulk fight, but he had 50 pounds over Gurgel. He took Gurgel down, passed his guard with ease and bloodied him with multiple kinds of strikes. The situation prolonged itself by 19 minutes, with the Brazilian trying armlocks and triangle chokes from the bottom, but Kerr avoided them and kept landing punishment. The fight had no time limit, but at the 30 minute mark, seeing that Gurgel was unable to defend anymore, the judges stopped the fight and gave Kerr the win.

Ultimate Fighting Championship
Following his success in Brazil, Mark Kerr was invited to fight in the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Kerr had previously been told of the event by Coleman, who was himself a UFC tournament winner and champion by this point. Kerr's first bout in the UFC came at UFC 14 where he fought in the heavyweight tournament. His first fight was against krav maga representative Moti Horenstein, and Kerr defeated his opponent by technical knockout at 2:22 of the first round. With this win Kerr advanced to the finals of the tournament where he beat Dan Bobish with a submission (chin to the eye) at 1:38 of the first round; Kerr's win over Bobish earned him the UFC 14 Heavyweight tournament title.

Following his success at UFC 14, Kerr was invited to compete at the next UFC tournament — UFC 15. In this tournament, Kerr's first opponent was Greg Stott whom he defeated in 17 seconds from the opening of the fight, winning by way of knockout with a knee to his opponent's head. Advancing to the finals, Kerr fought Dwayne Cason and finished his opponent within the first minute of the opening round, winning the UFC 15 Heavyweight tournament. Kerr's winning of the UFC 15 tournament was his last fight for the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Following his win of UFC 15, Kerr decided to fight in Japan for the Pride Fighting Championships due to the UFC's promotional difficulties and Pride's larger paychecks.

Pride Fighting Championships
After considering an offer from Japanese promotion Shooto, Kerr signed up with Pride for a matchup against fellow UFC champion Royce Gracie at Pride 2 in 1998. The match, as per Gracie's demands, would have been without time limits or referee stoppages. However, Royce pulled out after the fight had been advertised. Kerr was then slated to fight Branco Cikatic. Kerr utilized the same ground-and-pound fighting style from his previous fights, taking his opponent onto the mat and then using strikes and submissions to try to finish the fight. Kerr was said to be an improved version of Mark Coleman because he was proficient in wrestling, submissions, and take downs, with good cardio and an ever-improving striking game under his tutelage with Bas Rutten. Around the time that Kerr entered PRIDE, many considered Kerr to be one of the top MMA Heavyweight fighters in the world.

Kerr won four bouts between Pride 2 and Pride 6. However, his status was soon questioned after his first bout with Igor Vovchanchyn at Pride 7, in which he was knocked out by illegal knee strikes. Even though the loss was overturned and changed to a "No Contest" ruling, Kerr admitted that the initial loss had been a difficult decision for him to face. Following his fight against Vovchanchyn, Kerr fought in the Pride Grand Prix 2000 Opening Round and won over Enson Inoue. His win against Inoue earned him a place at the Pride Grand Prix 2000 Finals, where he fought Kazuyuki Fujita and lost by decision. At Pride 10 - Return of the Warriors Kerr defeated Igor Borisov by submission. Four months later, at Pride 12 - Cold Fury, he lost by decision in the rematch with Vovchanchyn. Kerr then lost to Heath Herring at Pride 15 via TKO. With his second loss in a row, Kerr decided to take time away from MMA.

In 2004, Kerr returned to PRIDE, fighting Yoshisha Yamamoto at Pride 27. Just 40 seconds into the fight, Kerr attempted a double leg takedown, but accidentally spiked his head into the canvas, stunning him with Yamamoto quickly following up with punches to end the fight. With his third straight loss under the PRIDE FC banner, Kerr quit PRIDE.

Speaking of Kerr's time fighting in Japan, Mark Coleman said, "Every time a fight came around he was pretty scared. He was intimidated by the whole situation and that is probably what led to him using pain killers."

Later career
After his loss to Yoshihisa Yamamoto, Kerr was supposed to make his comeback against Wes Sims in the American Championship Fighting (ACF) on May 6, 2006 at the Denver Coliseum, but was not medically cleared to fight due to a hand injury.

On February 11, 2007, Kerr fought Mustafa Al Turk at Cage Rage 20: 'Born 2 Fight'. Kerr lost his footing after an attempted roundhouse kick and he was mounted, stunned with a series of blows and submitted within the first round. Kerr was supposed to fight Sean O'Haire on August 17 in the Global Fighting Championships first show at the Mohegan Sun Arena but was cancelled due to his high blood pressure and his license was suspended indefinitely.

Mark Kerr fought in the World Cage Fighting Organization (WCO) in November 2007, winning his bout against Steve Gavin by Americana after 1:39 of the first round.

In 2008, Kerr launched a comeback. In March, Mark beat Chuck Huus by Submission (Keylock/Americana) at CCCF – Battle on the Border. In April, he lost to Oleg Taktarov in one round by kneebar. Two months later, Kerr was choked out in the opening round by deaf fighter Tracy Willis at a C-3 Fights show in Cocho, Oklahoma. On July 26, Ralph Kelly stopped Kerr in the first round at Xp3. On September 27, 2008 Kerr lost to fellow heavyweight Jeff Monson by rear-naked choke, in a battle of former ADCC champions.

On August 28, 2009, Kerr faced fellow wrestler Muhammed Lawal at an M-1 Global event. Kerr was taken down and subsequently pounded into unconsciousness in just 25 seconds, receiving several blows to the head after he was clearly unable to defend himself. This led the event's TV commentators to openly speculate that Kerr's fighting career was over. Guy Mezger, in the post-fight discussion, suggested that it was time for Kerr to "find another vocation". Kerr only won four of his 15 fights since 2000 and lost his last five fights.

Submission wrestling career
Kerr was very successful at the ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championships. At the 1999 tournament, he won the +99 kg division by defeating Carlos Barreto, Josh Barnett, Chris Haseman, and Sean Alvarez. Kerr returned for the 2000 tournament, winning the +99 kg division again as well as the absolute division. In the +99 kg division, he defeated Josh Barnett again, Anthony Netzler, Rigan Machado, and Ricco Rodriguez. In the absolute division, he defeated Léo Vieira, Mike van Arsdale, Ricardo Almeida, and Sean Alvarez again. This earned him a Superfight Championship match in 2001 against Mário Sperry, which Kerr won. He lost the Superfight Championship to Ricardo Arona at the 2003 edition.

In recognition of his accomplishments, Kerr was one of the inaugural inductees into the ADCC Hall of Fame in 2022.

HBO's The Smashing Machine
In 2002, HBO aired a documentary titled The Smashing Machine, directed by John Hyams, which dealt with the life and career of Mark Kerr. The program chronicles Kerr's addiction to painkillers and the "no holds barred" aspect of early mixed martial arts competition. Kerr's then-girlfriend, Dawn Staples, and mixed-martial artists Bas Rutten, Kevin Randleman and Mark Coleman also appear in the film. Bas Rutten states clearly during the documentary that due to Kerr's ability to end fights quickly, the Pride tournament directors were removing all of Kerr's 'weapons' (notably head-butts and knees to the head of a grounded opponent) in an attempt to make the fights last longer for television and crowd satisfaction.

On December 13, 2023, it was announced that A24 will produce a biopic of Kerr, borrowing its title from the HBO documentary. Dwayne Johnson is set to star as Kerr, and Benny Safdie is set to direct.

Personal life
Kerr is an avid powerlifter, reportedly able to bench press 425 lb (192.5 kg) and squat 550 lb (250 kg).

As of 2010, Kerr considered himself "99.9 percent retired" and was pursuing a degree with an eye on pharmaceutical sales. As of 2015, he was working at a Toyota dealership.

In June 2019 on a GoFundMe page, Kerr revealed that he had been battling peripheral neuropathy since 2016.

Collegiate wrestling

 * National Collegiate Athletic Association
 * NCAA Division I Champion - 1992 at 190 lbs out of Syracuse University
 * Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association
 * Champion - 1989, 1991, 1992 at 190 lbs out of Syracuse University
 * Runner-up - 1988 at 190 lbs out of Syracuse University
 * Fletcher Award - 1991, 1992 for scoring the most team points

Freestyle wrestling

 * United World Wrestling (FILA)
 * 1992 World Cup - Silver medalist at 100 kg
 * 1994 World Cup - Gold medalist at 100 kg
 * 1995 Pan American Games - Silver medalist at 100 kg
 * USA Wrestling
 * 1993 World Team Trials - Winner at 100 kg
 * 1994 World Team Trials - Winner at 100 kg
 * 1994 Senior Freestyle Championship - Winner at 100 kg

Mixed martial arts

 * Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)
 * UFC 14 Heavyweight Tournament Champion
 * UFC 15 Heavyweight Tournament Champion
 * World Vale Tudo Championship
 * WVC 3 Heavyweight Tournament Champion

Submission wrestling

 * ADCC World Championships
 * Champion - 1999 at +99 kg
 * Champion - 2000 at +99 kg
 * Champion - 2000 at Absolute
 * Superfight Champion, defeated Mario Sperry
 * ADCC Hall of Fame - 2022, inaugural class

title: Mark Kerr (fighter)


text:
Nagara, Karnataka

Nagara is a historic village in the Shivamogga district of the state of Karnataka, India. It is 17 km from Hosanagara or 84 km from Shivamogga. This was called Bidanur (Bidanoor) or Bidnur (Bidanoor) earlier during the 16th century, this was the last capital city of Keladi rulers.

In 1763, Hyder Ali, Sarvadhikari of Mysore captured this fort and called Hydernagar or Hydernagara after his name "Hyder". Farmers of the region in and around the village were instrumental in sparking the Nagar revolt against the Mysore kingdom in 1830.

Nagara was resided by an independence activist by the name of Sripathy Rao Baliga (1914–2003) who continued to work for the welfare of the village in the post independence era.

Shivappa Nayaka palace, fort, Devaganga tank, Neelakenteshwara temple and Gudde Venkataramana Swamy temple are worth visiting. The fort is built on a small hill, beside a lake. The fort has a system to circulate water around it for safety.

On the hill, within the fort, there are Darbar Hall (King's Court), remains of a palace, two tanks called Akka Thangi Kola (Tanks of two sisters), and a cannon. Devaganga tank is a cluster of seven tanks for bathing. Nagara in Kannada language literally means city. The place is amidst green thick forests which are giving way to urbanisation and eventually to deforestation.

Kollur Mookambika temple is 40 km from here. The nearest airport is Mangalore International Airport, situated 146Km from Nagara.

title: Nagara, Karnataka


text:
White jersey

Numerous cycling stage races award a white jersey to signify the current leader and overall winner of a certain competition, or to signify the best young rider in the race. The most prominent of these is the Tour de France, where the jersey is known as the maillot blanc and is awarded to the best-placed rider age under 26. The use of the white jersey to recognize the best young rider in a race is its most common use, though some tours award a white jersey for a different classification.

Other stage races, besides the Tour de France, that also award a white jersey for the best young rider include:

 * Deutschland Tour
 * Giro d'Italia (known as the maglia bianca, and the cut-off is 25 years instead of 26)
 * Paris–Nice
 * Tour of California (where the cut-off is age 23 instead of 26)
 * Tour of Ireland

Other white jerseys
Some stage races award a white jersey for a different classification than youth. The foremost of these is probably the Vuelta a España, where it recognizes the leader in the Combination classification. In this classification, ranks in the General, Points, and Mountains classifications are added, and whoever has the lowest cumulative total is awarded the white jersey. It is a relatively new award, having existed only since the 2003 edition of the race. In 1941, the Vuelta a España white jersey was for the leader and overall winner of the General classification.

The Tour of the Basque Country awards a white jersey to the leader and overall winner of the Points classification. The Volta a Catalunya awards a white jersey with green stripes to the leader and overall winner of the General classification. The 2008 Tour de Suisse awarded a white jersey to a somewhat unusual competition, the Sprints classification, which awards placings not on stage finishes but strictly in intermediate sprints.

The Tour Down Under awards a white jersey, with green piping and side panels, to the leader and ultimately the winner of the King of the Mountains classification.

title: White jersey


text:
Talk:Islam regarding intentions to marry

Foster Siblings & Marriage
The page Islamic_adoption says, "Islam also rejects the notion of an adopted child becoming a biological part of the family, hence, the adopted child is counted as a non-Mahram." If you look up Mahram, you'll see that this contradicts the bullet statement in the "Overview" section which say: "A Muslim cannot marry a foster relation as such relations are equated with blood ties." Philolexica 18:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

whole lenght
I have a hard time deciding what should be presented in its whole lenght and what should be summarised and linked... any suggestions? --Striver 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Merger
I agree with the merger: the article has little to do with its title and the information placed in it would be more appropriatly placed under Islamic marital jurisprudence. Stoa 23:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I put up the tag and thus also naturally agree that this should be merged.--Jersey Devil 03:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Dissagree, the main article is a hub, its not there to present any single topic at lenght. Take a closer look, all sections have sub-sections. --Striver 08:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This one is worse, the intro is written very badly and there are only three sections here for the whole article—and most of the info is a copy and paste of ahadeeth. In Islamic marital jurisprudence, the sections are short because they have the main article links for each one, so there is no need to write that much info. This article doesn't "present any topic at length" either. It is very lacking in info and would be more appropriatly placed as a section under Islamic marital jurisprudence. --Stoa 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Im not putting up a fight, just stating that i dont agree with the proposal of merging. I could agree that the article needs improving, but the hadith are important to the topic. They could be trimed down, but take a look at Jewish view of Jesus for another article full of quotes. I mean that it is not unprecedented. If you feel for it, you could explain the hadith instead of having them quoted. --Striver 08:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits of hadiths
Recent edits by User:KazakhPol edited some hadiths, changing e.g. "the Prophet" to "[Muhammad]". Some of the edits (on non-hadith text) were good obviously, but shouldn't the hadiths be preserved as quotations? I'm not reverting those changes because of the possibility that I've misunderstood what hadiths are, e.g. the edits may be valid if they are not direct quotations. --SLi 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)