text:
User talk:Mmmbeer

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Edcolins 08:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiProject Law
I am pleased with your Case of first impression article - I had that one on my list of things to do! Please consider joining WikiProject Law, where we are doing a complete overhaul of common law subjects, in our effort to make Wikipedia the world's premier free internet source of legal information. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 23:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Safe harbour exemption
I understand your concern about "safe harbour exemption" redirecting to "research exemption". If there are indeed safe harbour exemptions in many sections of law, being American or foreign law, I suggest redirecting "safe harbour exemption" to "safe harbour". --Edcolins 07:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Cool law stubs tonight
I'm on new article patrol, keep seeing you every couple of minutes. Good stuff, keep it up. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The Great Story relisted on VfD
I was closing thd VfD for this, and saw you had rewritten it and recommended relisting on VfD. Since there was only one vote (apart from yours) subsequent to you rewrite, I have taken your advice. You can find the new VfD here. -Splash 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Wisconsin
Thanks for your contribution of University of Wisconsin Law School. If you'd like, you're welcome to join WikiProject Wisconsin and contribute to other articles on the state. Cheers. --BaronLarf 15:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Court citation & redirects
Redirecting the citation to the case was recommended by Toytoy at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. I think it's a particularly good idea, so I do it for all of my cases. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 04:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Inventor (patent)
I am not aware of any such article. But it would be an excellent idea to start one indeed. I'll try to help. --Edcolins 19:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you think of new articles that do not exist yet, for instance intellectual property-related articles, you may wish to drop a request here: Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences. --Edcolins 20:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

We could indeed fill wikipedia with patent law articles if we tried. The challenge however is IMHO to simultaneously create general articles summarizing the important aspects of a subject while presenting it in proper perspective; the subject may for instance be the U.S. patent law. I have created a poor stub with the ambitious title "U.S. patent law" and it badly needs something substantial in it. I have also created articles about "European patent law", which I will try to expand! After more than a year contributing in wikipedia, I found it easy indeed to create articles on small subjects. Creating a featured article might be much more (demanding and) interesting at the end of the day. I will pick up one article one day and make it a featured article... (can't figure out which one to choose though). --Edcolins 07:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Law getting on the move!
Hi. Please join the discussion at Portal talk:Law - we're getting things off the ground for featured articles, pictures, cases, and a collaboration of the week! -- BD2412 talk 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Biopiracy
If you continue, I will KEEP the NPOV tag on that article because you think that YOU ALONE have the right answer, and are monopolizing your perspective into it. I do not appreciate what you are doing to that article, and what you have done to that article. It's a disgrace how you are injecting YOUR point of view. It's typical of the developed world to take this stance on something which hardly affects it.

So go ahead: Impress me with a good article, if you can do it - but telling everyone NPOV when you are the ONLY one saying it is NPOV is just an abuse of the system. --TaranRampersad 23:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, if you stopped thinking you were the only person on the earth who thought Biopiracy was something that you alone understood, you wouldn't be apologizing on my Talk Page. You're taking your own perspective and forcing it on everyone else simply because you can force the NPOV tag down everyone else's throats. That is exactly what you are doing, and it's inexcusable. Save the apologies, I'll NPOV what you write if it reflects your perspective alone. And so far, you've done an outstanding job of telling everyone else they are wrong WITHOUT BASIS other than your own *education* with PCT law. Continue, but know that if it is a US-centric perspective, I will NPOV it to hell because you have not just injected but *hijacked* the article.

I hope that you can write a good article that is well balanced, because myself and others will suffer nothing less... and history is a wonderful thing. You can listen to us now, and negotiate a meaning, or continue on your present course which can easily be undone and cause a war between you and the perspectives of the developing world. If you think that this perspective cannot be solidified, then time will tell. I will no longer waste my time on the short term. We in the developing world know what Biopiracy is, and if you choose to continue on your present course you ACTUALLY MAKE OUR CASE.

Thank you. Abrazos, mi amigito. --TaranRampersad 05:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Meningitis
Hi, thanks for your sensible comment re absence of details on management items for cases of viral meningitis. Technically the advice you quoted is correct, but there are important reasons to take care in how that might be incorporated into the article. I raise my concerns in Talk:Meningitis as no mention would be better than a poorly worded one. Please don't think I'm "biting your head off over this", this will be an important consideration in the article's talk page for other later editors to consider too. As a doctor myself who may be required to advice patients or relatives, before and after treatment, as to what to do, I truely found the issues very difficult to reach a conclusion over. I see you are a law student, so you will appreciate precise language and how the choice of phrasing evokes a variety of interpretations. So please do think over my comments and I welcome any suggestions on the phrase I suggest. David Rubentalk 01:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a legal dictionary
Hi Mmmbeer--

I have been wondering if there are too many dictionary terms listed in the Law stubs category and if these things would be better off in Wiktionary. I'd like your opinion; see my talk page for details. Thanks! Massysett 04:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Patent misuse
I thought it was useful to have a link from patent misuse to other articles on "patent-related perceived abuses" or the like. Just in case somebody was looking for information on "patent troll", but involontarily arrived on the "patent misuse" article. I removed the disclaimer. Indeed useless. Biopiracy is a good one to add as well. --Edcolins 20:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

civil law
I appreciate you coming to me about the article(s). It's issue that I've been mulling over for a while and it would be great to discuss it with others. I spent some time debating whether to use "private law" or "common law" descriptors. As it stands right now, neither seem ideal. Most legal dictionaries make a distinction b/w the civilian system and the "other" type of "civil law". The problem is that they are not consistent in defining the "other". Some define the word "civil law" as being a dispute b/w private parties, while others define it as being anything that isn't criminal, there are also a number of variations on those two definitions. My attempt to use the "common law" disambiguator was to be inclusive of all the variations on the "North American" use of the word. But you're right to point out that there is nothing preventing the term "civil law", as we use it in North America, from being used in the civilian world. Honestly, I just assumed that it was a common law term. From my exposure to civilian law, I haven't seen the term used but it doesn't mean they don't use it. Thinking back, perhaps "private law" is a better descriptor. I really can't say for sure. It might be useful to start a discussion on this point. --PullUpYourSocks 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion of "civil law (action)". Though, you're right that there may be a bit of confusion with "civil action". Maybe that's not even a bad thing since they are so close in meaning anyways. While we're brainstorming, I'd suggest something like "civil law (jurisdiction)" since the heart of the term is to group jurisdictional matters of law. --PullUpYourSocks 03:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ussc template
Hi. We had a discussion a while back at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases about putting in the case citations. It never really got concluded, but for reasons explained in the discussion it was leaning in the direction of having the citations done like so:

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined...

(fast forward to external links section at the bottom)

I've changed it to this for all of the cases I contributed (I think there's about 60), and am gearing up to do a few hundred more. I think it's a better format, but I want to avoid a back-and-forth with these links. Please let me know what you think. BD2412 T 01:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be possible to make them uniform (one way or the other) with a bot - otherwise, I'll gladly do them myself. There's only about 415 cases in Category:United States Supreme Court cases, which I can go through in a day. I think there's something to be said, though, for the first link on the page not taking the reader out of Wikipedia. BD2412  T 02:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, note that when you use use the {{ussc... template, you can still link the date like so: Baker v. Selden, {{ussc|101|99|1879}}. BD2412  T 02:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Storyline patent
I also came across the article/press release you mentioned and I thought of reviving the article. However, after a quick investigation I think it is not appropriate to revive it (yet). IMHO. --Edcolins 08:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) eMediaWire does not seem to be the usual mainstream source of information. As highlighted on their site, it is some sort of "free online press release distribution services";
 * 2) This particular press release seems to be sponsored by the same guy who applied for the patent(s) and probably created the Wikipedia article;
 * 3) The press release only concerns patent applications not patents yet. Stricly speaking, there is no such thing as a storyline patent yet, only applications. I will seriously reconsider my opinion once a U.S. patent is actually granted for that kind of subject-matter; and
 * 4) Finally I believe creating the article would amount to accepting some kind of commercial advertisment.

Unclean hands
As a matter of practical application, the doctrine comes up in contract more than anywhere else (perhaps because there are more contract cases than there are other trademark, antitrust, etc.). I'm not sure that there is unough to be said about equity to justify a template - besides this and specific performance and laches... ? (note that equitable conversion is covered under property and the constructive trust is under wills and trusts). BD2412 T 18:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Warez
Thanks for your help! Its not much, but its certainly better than what WAS there. ALKIVAR ™ 08:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for your comments on Articles for deletion/Criticism of the BBC. I would just like to have this opportunity to say I like your username. When I was 18 years old I hated the taste of beer. But it grew on me and nowadays I like beer a lot. I appreciate people who appreciate beer. — J I P  | Talk 19:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to good catch message from my talk page
You are very welcome! I fixed up the notes some made sure each were properly described and added the missing 50 U.S.C. §#... -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 02:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

www4.law.cornell.edu vs www.law.cornell.edu
In the future you might want to change http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811000-.html to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811000-.html as this will let them do some load balancing on incoming traffic.

Authorization by Previous Admins
OK, thanks for the information. Fine on the revert, thanks for the notice. If I come with a reference, I'll edit it in.--Kbk 18:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Work!
Hey Mmmbeer, are you still a 3L? If so, double-kudos for your work on the NSA wireless warrants article.Ulpian 20:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

NSA stuff
I said this on the article talk page, but I thought I might as well repeat it here. Thanks for your work on the legallity section. It's dramatically better than it was before. I have a question: in the rename section, I've added a few ideas for possible alternate names that are shorter and more intuitive. I don't want to move without consensus, so I thought I'd get a comment from at least one person before taking action. Thanks, Dave (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, could you specify (with a link or with copied text) what changes to the AUMF you're referring to? Are they my changes from yesterday? Is it this? I haven't figured out what versions of the paragraph you're looking at or what the problem is. Dave (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What reprecussions could there be for wikipedia's spilling the beans on highly classified stuff? Metarhyme 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm more worried about wikipedia being shut down than suing an attorney. Dave wants reported Ft. Meade activities verified. I posted a worried note to the section. Metarhyme 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

rewrite
I made a printout. Although I could refrain from calling Scott McClellan the president's plump propaganda minister, my rewrite wouldn't be clean. Would you be willing to fix it up if I did a rewrite? (metarhyme at gmail dot com) Metarhyme 02:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're a good deal less eager than me to do anything at NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, and I want to do barely anything. The NPOV contested label may be back - I put it there. Edits are going over the line into vandalism. You got time? Metarhyme 18:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for flirting with the accretion disk. Yeah, it's a black hole. That was the right thing to do about User:Federal Street. I note that you didn't remove the NPOV template. Maybe it'll turn into a book. Metarhyme 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Length
Want to contribute an opinion to Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy? Metarhyme 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV title
The NSA spying not cleared by FISC controversy occurred to me after I pointed out the procedure for obtaining a contested move to the "terrorist" pluggers. It's fairly neutral, bland, abstruse and moves the article. A while ago I had a long fight with a screaming lefty who, at the end, set up his own little kingdom at Legality of warrantless surveillance. AustinKnight was the original thuggish righty - threatening to out a user. Both attacks are in Talk archives. In my analysis of how to shorten the article, I dismissed Congress's ability to work out a surveillance compromise. That may turn out to have been unwarranted - I hope so. Metarhyme 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Knight (patent agent)
You took part in an Afd relating to "Storyline patent" 9 months ago. I have just created an Afd page on a related article "Andrew Knight (patent agent)". You may wish to have a look at that one: see Articles for deletion/Andrew Knight (patent agent). Cheers. --Edcolins 12:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of movement
Greetings, Mmmbeer. I aim to make Freedom of movement (fascinating and important topic as it is) a featured article by summer. Anything you can add - even if just a sentence or an inkling of information - would be appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cease and desist
I've blanked Talk:Cease and desist and added a message on the user talk page. Do you think the history needs to be deleted as well? I could do that. I am not sure whether this is necessary. What do you think? Cheers. --Edcolins 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Interested?
An anon attempted to sucker punch the NSA warrantless legal analysis section. See =>Talk<= there if you care to revisit your old struggle. Metarhyme 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Patent pirate
Please could you have a look at patent pirate and give us your opinion as to whether we should make it a disambig or redirect to patent infringement or not. See the discussion on Talk:patent pirate. Nowa thinks we should keep the article. I do not concur. Thanks --Edcolins 07:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Legal disclaimer
Template:Legal disclaimer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Inasmuch as you're the template's creator and only contributor, I thought I ought to let you know about my nomination; had I known you to be a fellow Wisconsinite, I'd have gone easier on the template :)... Joe 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Law selections
Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fan fiction legal issues - please help?
Hello! I found you through one of your posts in WikiProject Law. I'm here to plea for a bit of help on the fan fiction article.

Fan fiction is usually defined as unauthorized or semi-unauthorized derivitive works, most of which are nowadays published to the internet to websites such as fanfiction.net. As such, copyright law in any and all countries with access to the net has a huge impact on the international fan fiction community, and is obviously of great importance to the article on it. The problem is, of course, that both in the U.S. and other areas of the world, copyright law is inconsistent, as are books' or series' canon creators' reactions and stances on fan fiction.

As such, the "Legal Issues" section of the fan fiction article is at current a complete mess. Almost all of it is completely unsourced and uncited, much of it contradictory and confusing to the reader, and some of it flat-out wrong. Additionally, there seems to be a bias towards U.S. law, with only tangential references to other countries' copyright laws, despite the fact that foreign copyright law can be of equal or in some cases greater importance.

I lack the resources, base knowledge and experience to fix the entire section on my own, so I've elected to implore a handful of WikiProject Law participants to help me fix it.

Any help whatsoever would be appreciated; so much as a single properly-cited court case, terminological explaination, etc., would be of enormous help at this point! Runa27 23:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your contribution to patent troll.--Nowa 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Patent Troll Behavior
Mmmbeer, Anything to add to the discussion regarding the section on weaknesses in the patent system leading to patent troll behavior? I'm trying to avoid a revert war and I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Discussion ongoing at Talk:Patent_troll --Nowa 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi MMBeer
I see you are at U of Wisconsin. What a great law school! I went to law school in my late 40s, as a second career. Then I became very ill, and did not take the bar exam until recently. I have just been admitted to the bar in Florida, where I live. My previous career was electrical engineering. It's always nice to see lawyers with a technical background! jgwlaw 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Foley & Lardner
I've nominated the article Foley & Lardner for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Foley & Lardner satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Foley & Lardner. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Foley & Lardner during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PatentLaw
Template:PatentLaw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Edcolins 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PatentTypes
Template:PatentTypes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Edcolins 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alvarez Barry.jpg
Hey Mmmbeer. There is a lively debate about use of promo photos on wikipedia. My name is Jeff and I Do not support the interpretation of WP:FU as implemented by user's like User:Chowbok. They believe that Wikipedia should be free of all promotional photos that are "replaceable with an equivalent" (i.e. an amateur photo from flickr). Their rationale is being debated in many places, and take it a step further believing that all promo photos should be deleted and let someone else deal with finding and uploading a free alternative.

 * WikiProject Fair use
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use specifically this thread
 * Requests for comment/Chowbok
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok
 * User:Chowbok/Robth%27s_RFU_Explanation
 * Image_Talk:Jennifer Granholm.jpg

And many other places I've no doubt missed.

I and many others who support use of fair use promotional photos have not been successful in changing the actions of Chowbok and rampant deletion and changing of many hundred's of useful images from Wikipedia articles continues. One good example is the Jennifer Granholm article which had a great promo photo replaced by a terrible photo. I seek to raise the profile of this issue through challenging promotional photos on high profile article's like this one. I'm sorry, really I am, but fair use policy as implemented by Chowbok has left me with few viable options.

I invite you to join the battle for Promotional Photo usage on Wikipedia and the protection of Fair Use concepts. --Jeff 07:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:US Code
I ran across the template US Code that you made a couple years ago. I redirected it to UnitedStatesCode. I assume you've found the latter template by now but thought I'd mention it anyway. Cburnett (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Old old edit to Clickwrap
Another editor found an issue with an edit you made back in mid-2005, and is requesting clarification. I noticed you're not actively editing anymore, but if you do happen to get this message, please drop by the talk page and help with the conversation. Thanks! -- Dachannien TalkContrib 11:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Law School Outlines
Hey, I've been workign together with editor Pianno Non Troppo in addressing all the links on search term "law school outlines." I've noticed your contribution to that page and wanted to know what it would take to add another site to the 2 currently listed under External Links. If you wouldn't mind taking a moment to look at Outlines.com and letting me know if it could be included. Pianno recommended it be added as a reference within the body of the page, which has been done successfully and I think it should also be considered for an external link. The registration process is free and quick and meant to ensure the quality of user submissions to the outline database. The database is course/school and professor specific and offers users free downloads in exchange for their uploads, to keep this database growing. There is a nominal fee if users would prefer to just purchase the outline. I understand the concern you and Pianno share, so all I am asking is that you consider this suggesstion. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Judge Robertson.jpg
File:Judge Robertson.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Judge Robertson.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Thomas Hogan.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Thomas Hogan.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Broomfield.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Broomfield.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Malice aforethought

The article Malice aforethought has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, nothing here is cited.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Diligence for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Diligence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. C T J F 8 3 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States patent law cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contributory infringement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Foley & Lardner

The article Foley & Lardner has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   02:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Foley & Lardner for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foley & Lardner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Foley & Lardner & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Kotelly.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Kotelly.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Protospiel moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Protospiel, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel 5969  TT me 13:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Protospiel
Hello, Mmmbeer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Protospiel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Protospiel

Hello, Mmmbeer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Protospiel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mmmbeer


text:
Riverbank Arena

The Riverbank Arena was a stadium in the Olympic Park, in Hackney Wick, London, United Kingdom, containing a water-based astroturf.

History
The Riverbank Arena was built with two venues for field-hockey competition at the 2012 Summer Olympics with capacities of 15,000 and 5,000, respectively, and venues for the football 7-a-side and football 5-a-side competitions at the 2012 Summer Paralympics.

The budget for the stadium was £19 million. Plans were made to scale down the venue after the Olympics, converting it into a 5,000-seat arena and a training pitch in Eton Manor, a sport and leisure venue in Leyton, Waltham Forest. In January 2011, Leyton Orient F.C. expressed an interest in moving into the stadium after the games.

In May 2012, it opened with a test event, a men's and women's invitational hockey tournament.

Riverbank Arena was dismantled following the conclusion of the 2012 Games. The Eton Manor venue on the Olympic Park, now known as the Lee Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre, hosted the 2015 EuroHockey Nations Championships. The facility reopened in June 2014 and is the current ground of Wapping Hockey Club.

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

title: Riverbank Arena


text:
Zemljotres

Zemljotres (Cyrillic: Земљотрес, English: Earthquake) is an album by Bosnian Serb singer Mile Kitić. It was released in 2004.

Track listing

 * 1) Svi su tu
 * 2) Potroši se ljubav
 * 3) Zemljotres
 * 4) Ti nisi čista
 * 5) Svako slovo lagala je
 * 6) Milioni, kamioni
 * 7) U mojim venama
 * 8) Kad jednom ljubav ubiješ
 * 9) Da sam tebi jedan bio
 * 10) Zemljotres [remix]

title: Zemljotres


text:
Henry Tennant (railway administrator)

Henry Tennant (1823–1910) was a British railway administrator. He served as general manager of the North Eastern Railway from 1870 to 1891. He was chairman of the Central London Railway from 1895 to 1898 and a director of the company after that.

Biography
Henry Tennant was born in Countersett in 1823.

He married Mary Jane Goundry on 17 February 1847. She died in 1900.

He died at his home in York on 25 May 1910.

Locomotive Committee
From 1884 to 1885 the North Eastern Railway was without a Locomotive Superintendent. During this period the work was done by a Locomotive Committee, chaired by Henry Tennant. The committee designed the NER 1463 Class 2-4-0 steam locomotive.

title: Henry Tennant (railway administrator)


text:
Crush syndrome

Crush syndrome (also traumatic rhabdomyolysis or Bywaters' syndrome) is a medical condition characterized by major shock and kidney failure after a crushing injury to skeletal muscle. Crush injury is compression of the arms, legs, or other parts of the body that causes muscle swelling and/or neurological disturbances in the affected areas of the body, while crush syndrome is localized crush injury with systemic manifestations. Cases occur commonly in catastrophes such as earthquakes, to individuals that have been trapped under fallen or moving masonry.

People with crushing damage present some of the greatest challenges in field medicine, and may need a physician's attention on the site of their injury. Appropriate physiological preparation of the injured is mandatory. It may be possible to free the patient without amputation; however, field amputations may be necessary in drastic situations.

Pathophysiology
Seigo Minami, a Japanese physician, first reported the crush syndrome in 1923. He studied the pathology of three soldiers who died in World War I due to kidney failure. The renal changes were due to the buildup of excess myoglobin, resulting from the destruction of muscles from lack of oxygen. The progressive acute kidney failure is because of acute tubular necrosis.

The syndrome was later described by British physician Eric Bywaters in patients during the 1941 wartime bombing of London (the Blitz). It is a reperfusion injury that appears after the release of the crushing pressure. The mechanism is believed to be the release into the bloodstream of muscle breakdown products—notably myoglobin, potassium and phosphorus—that are the products of rhabdomyolysis (the breakdown of skeletal muscle damaged by ischemic conditions).

The specific action on the kidneys is not understood completely, but may be due partly to nephrotoxic metabolites of myoglobin.

The most devastating systemic effects can occur when the crushing pressure is suddenly released, without proper preparation of the patient, causing reperfusion syndrome. In addition to tissue directly suffering the crush mechanism, tissue is then subjected to sudden reoxygenation in the limbs and extremities. Without proper preparation, the patient, with pain control, may be cheerful before recovery, but then may suddenly die shortly thereafter. This sudden failure is called the "smiling death".

These systemic effects are caused by a traumatic rhabdomyolysis. As muscle cells die, they absorb sodium, water, and calcium; the rhabdomyolysis releases potassium, myoglobin, phosphate, thromboplastin, creatine, and creatine kinase.

Crush syndrome can directly come from compartment syndrome, if the injury is left untreated. Symptoms include the 5 Ps: pain, pallor, paresthesias (pins and needles), paralysis, and pulselessness.

Treatment
There is no distinct treatment option that can undo the effects and damage from rhabdomyolysis because it is a necrosis. However, the rate of the pathology that can lead to more complications can be decreased by acting early and consistently. Overall treatment depends on preventing kidney failure (renal failure) which is done by rehydrating the patient. It also depends on making urine have a more basic pH (alkalinization of urine). Immediate untreated crush syndrome death is caused by severe head injury, torso injury with damaged abdominal organs, and asphyxia (excessive loss of oxygen). Early untreated crush syndrome death is caused by hyperkalemia and by hypovolemic shock. Late untreated crush syndrome death is caused by renal failure, coagulopathy and hemorrhage, and sepsis.

Due to the risk of crush syndrome, current recommendation to nonprofessional first-aiders (in the UK) is to not release those with a crush injury who have been trapped for more than 15 minutes. Treatment consists of not releasing the tourniquet, overloading the patient with fluid using Dextran 4000 IU, and slow release of pressure. If pressure is released during first aid, then fluid is restricted and an input-output chart for the patient is maintained.

Field management
As mentioned, permissive hypotension (restrictive fluid therapy) is unwise. Careful fluid overload and administration of intravenous sodium bicarbonate is wise, especially if the crushing weight is on the patient for more than four hours, but often if it persists more than one hour. The San Francisco emergency services protocol calls for a basic adult dose of a 2 L bolus of normal saline followed by 500 mL/h, limited for "pediatric patients and patients with history of cardiac or renal dysfunction."

Use of a tourniquet can stall the life-threatening consequences of a crush related injury and can be a second option if the person cannot immediately have the fluids that were lost be medically replaced back into the body. Tourniquet measures should be taken if the person has been entrapped for more than two hours.

Initial hospital management
The clinician must protect the patient against hypotension, kidney failure, acidosis, hyperkalemia and hypocalcemia. Admission to an intensive care unit, preferably one experienced in trauma medicine, may be appropriate; even well-seeming patients need observation. Treat open wounds as surgically appropriate, with debridement, antibiotics and tetanus toxoid; apply ice to injured areas. Breathing and circulation must be checked and the patient should be given oxygen if eligible. Oral or intravenous fluids must be given depending on the measured amounts of electrolytes, arterial blood gases, and muscle enzymes.

Intravenous hydration of up to 1.5 L/h should continue to prevent hypotension. A urinary output of at least 300 mL/h should be maintained with IV fluids and mannitol, and hemodialysis considered if an increase in urine is not achieved. Use intravenous sodium bicarbonate to keep the urine pH at 6.5 or greater, to prevent myoglobin and uric acid deposition in kidneys.

To prevent hyperkalemia/hypocalcemia, consider the following adult doses:
 * calcium gluconate 10% 10 mL or calcium chloride 10% 5 mL IV over 2 minutes
 * sodium bicarbonate 1 meq/kg IV slow push
 * regular insulin 5–10 U
 * 50% glucose 1–2 ampules IV bolus
 * kayexalate 25–50 g with sorbitol 20% 100 mL by mouth or rectum.

Even so, abnormal heart rhythms may develop; electrocardiographic monitoring is advised, and specific treatment begun promptly.

title: Crush syndrome


text:
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark may refer to:

 * Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (album), an album by Robert Cray (1988)
 * Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973 film), a television horror film
 * Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2010 film), a remake of the 1973 film
 * Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (American Horror Story), an episode of the anthology television series American Horror Story (2017)

title: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark


text:
Wikipedia:Suffrage

The important thing is consensus
Wikipedia is governed by consensus. That means the most important step in deciding what to do is asking others, debating the issue, and addressing everyone's concerns. Occasionally a decision is eventually put to a vote; however, this should be the last resort when consensus cannot be reached by discussion. Users should avoid putting formal policy proposals to a vote; only if a policy is required to ensure the smooth running of Wikipedia should formal policy be written. Formal policies are by nature contrary to Wikipedia's principles of "be bold" and "ignore all rules", the first two items in Wikipedia's Simplified Ruleset.

Votes that determine the popularity of primarily cosmetic elements of Wikipedia, such as on template standardisation to decide which style of template is the most popular, are an example of when a vote can be a good way to determine community preferences.

However, similar votes on more substantive issues, such as attempting to create policy for where templates are located, at template locations, are better left to the discussion and negotiation process to form a consensus to use as a guideline, rather than create a formal policy to use for enforcement.

Votes should only very rarely be used to form policy; other means of seeking consensus should be exhausted first. Even policies designed to address disruptive problems on Wikipedia, such as the Three Revert Rule should come to vote only after the terms, condition, start time, and duration of the voting period have been decided by consensus.

Sockpuppets – the downside of voting
Wikipedia has the occasional problem with sockpuppets, that is, new accounts that are created primarily to cast a vote on one or more issues. It is irrelevant whether these are multiple accounts of the same user, or friends of that user that are not otherwise involved in the Wiki. Sometimes the account simply appears, casts a vote, and is discarded; in some other cases, particularly on articles for deletion, accounts are made that first make a couple dozen of simple edits, and then make a number of votes.

Suffrage – a remedy to the sockpuppet problem
Since many users find the latter issue undesirable, several vote processes use a formal or informal suffrage policy, stating that users may not vote unless they meet certain criteria. Usually these criteria involve the account having been created before the vote started, and/or the account having a certain minimum number of edits. Apart from this, it is policy that if a user has multiple accounts then only one of those accounts may vote.

For important proposals, it is useful to set a strict suffrage policy at the beginning of the vote. Otherwise, after the vote closes, people may start an argument over what the suffrage policy should have been – and at that point it may be possible (though unlikely) that the vote would pass or fail depending on where the bar of suffrage is set. This debate can be avoided by making it clear and unambiguous from the start.

The downsides of restricting suffrage

 * 1) Not all new users are sockpuppets. By banning them from voting we risk:
 * Losing fresh insight brought by new users.
 * Alienating new users and discouraging them from contributing to Wikipedia.
 * 1) Strict suffrage requirements are game-able:
 * Edit-count requirements are trivially game-able, although this is less so if the user needs to have a certain amount of edits before voting starts.
 * Account-length requirements are also game-able, although it would require planning beforehand. However, if we decide to make suffrage a common requirement, it is possible that a section of the Wikipedia community will build a set of accounts, thus creating an arms race between those who don't contribute honestly and those who seek to weed these people out. (*)
 * 1) Not only are edit counts game-able, but legitimate contributors not gaming the system may be removed from useful debate and consensus if the edit-count limit is set too high.
 * 2) Suffrage rights are sometimes the spur that gets anonymous users registered. Delaying that right after registration will reduce the number who register.

''(*) This point might sound dramatic and unlikely. Some people assert that sockpuppets themselves didn't exist until we started relying on voting percentages. That isn't strictly true, although it has contributed to the phenomenon; the original reason for employing sockpuppets was creating extra persona to agree with you, thus asserting a consensus on your side when in fact there is none. Water always finds the easiest path, so do those who want to cheat the community.''

Informal suffrage
Most vote-related pages on Wikipedia, such as WP:AFD and WP:RFA, use an informal system of suffrage that is based on common sense. This means that, while anyone can vote, votes can be discarded or given less weight if they are made by a user with a lack of edit history, or a probable sockpuppet. There are no strict limits here, it is a matter of judgment and discretion for the person (generally an admin) closing and concluding the discussion. It can reasonably be assumed that this applies anywhere on the Wiki, unless specified otherwise.

Formal suffrage
A few areas in Wikipedia have a strictly defined suffrage policy. Generally these are very broad-scope votes on official policy, or election of WikiOfficials.

 * In November 2004, the ArbCom amendment vote had a strict suffrage policy, requiring at least 500 edits and an account created before the vote started.
 * In June 2005, the Wikimedia Board Vote allowed users to vote only if they had 400 or more edits by the time the vote started. Similar limits have been in place for all subsequent Board elections.
 * In July 2005, the Speedy Deletion proposal author required suffrage of having at least 250 edits by the time the vote started. During the vote, some people complained about this limit, but because the requirements would not have impacted the results of the poll in any significant way, the arguments have been dropped.
 * Rarely, an AFD or VFD vote that suffered from sockpuppets is restarted and given strict suffrage on the new version, on the order of requiring 100 edits to allow a user to vote.

title: Wikipedia:Suffrage


text:
Alexei Sultanov

Alexei Sultanov (Алексей Султанов; August 7, 1969 – June 30, 2005) was a Soviet and American (since 2004) classical pianist of Uzbek origin.

Biography
Alexei Sultanov was born to a family of musicians, his father a cellist, his mother a violinist, both music teachers. At the age of 6, he began piano lessons in Tashkent with Tamara Popovich and then with Lev Naumov at the Moscow Conservatory. At the age of thirteen he was a participant of the International Radio Competition for Young Musicians in Prague. He became famous after winning the Eighth Van Cliburn International Piano Competition on June 11, 1989, at the age of 19, the youngest contestant in that year's competition. Listeners were awed by his virtuosic technique, musicality, and dynamic range. After winning the Van Cliburn, he made appearances on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson and Late Night with David Letterman.

In October 1995, Sultanov won second prize at the XIII International Chopin Piano Competition; the grand prize was not awarded. He went on to perform in North America, Europe and Asia. During his lifetime Alexei Sultanov performed i.e. at New York's Carnegie Hall and Washington's Kennedy Center.

In 1996 he had his first stroke, and despite his refusal was convinced by his wife Dace Abele to visit Ed Kramer, a neurologist. Kramer checked on him and discovered some small black spots which proved to him that blood clots had formed in the brain. Despite the stroke he continued his performance in Tokyo, but there he experienced another stroke. After that the same neurologist diagnosed him with diastolic heart failure. In February 2001, he had another stroke. The strokes damaged everything except the cerebral cortex and he was able to continue performing while sitting in a wheelchair.

He became an American citizen in 2004.

On June 30, 2005, at 4:30 a.m., he suffocated following a stroke. He died at the age of 35 in Fort Worth.

Memorabilia
His performances of concerti by Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff were recorded, with Maxim Shostakovich conducting the London Symphony Orchestra, and were published under the Teldec Classics label, while his other albums such as the Fantaisie–Impromptu of 1997 and Sultanov plays Chopin which was released two years later were published by the Arts Core Corporation. He also was a part of a PBS documentary called Here to Make Music which was produced by Peter Rosen for US viewers. The film won an award and has been aired worldwide ever since.

title: Alexei Sultanov


text:
Wikipedia talk:Suffrage

Should VFD suffrage be formalized?
I see the advantage of being able to point new users (or potential socks) to a plain policy page that says they cannot vote on VFD (which of course does not prevent them from commenting). I see the disadvantage that setting strict rules makes it possible for people to 'game the system' (e.g. if N edits are required, to make precisely N+1 minor edits and then start voting). Radiant_ >|< 08:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I see the benefit of a formalized policy, as long as the bar isn't set too high. (For example, I'm pretty active (1600+ edits to date), but I was inelgible for the Board vote because I was cautious about editing until recently.) If the bar is set high enough (100+ edits) then the system gaming problem should decrease, and if accounts created after the start of the vote are prohibited, the sock problem should be eliminated. A question that occurs to me is: Should there be a system wide policy, or should there be a fallback policy that only involves votes where no other policy was set? -- Essjay ·  Talk 08:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * System wide sounds good for consistency. However, we'd arguably need several levels, as the suffrage required to vote on local issues (such as VFD) should be less than that required to vote on global issues (such as policy proposals or board votes). It is debatable whether RFA is the former or the latter. I believe the simplest way of wording it is requiring X edits at the beginning of the vote - that would automatically invalidate any accounts created after the vote started.
 * On most such debates it is already assumed that anonymous users can't vote (since an IP address can have been used by a wide variety of people, it's hard to check that). We should make a provision for users changing account names, but that is relatively rare anyway. Radiant_ >|< 10:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Pcb21| Pete 11:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer to leave the standard ambiguous for VfD decisions. The current guideline and precedent is very useful but we need the ability to exercise judicial discretion based on the specific facts at hand.  As you say, it is far to easy to game the system once a rigid standard is set.  Allowing and expecting the closing admin to do some research is the best way to meet our community goal.  I'm inclined to think that some ambiguity is also a good thing for the larger policy votes although I can understand that there is a greater need for a more structured guideline in those cases.  VfD has a lot of precedent to draw on.  Other policy votes, etc do not have as much and can benefit from a "sufferage" requirement.  Rossami (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the number of edits is coincidence rather than any strong indication: a large number of edits gives you an assurance of a legitimate user, but a small number of edits gives you nothing either way, going with the number of edits alone to identify active users will give you false negatives, and it can vary often for users when articles they edited to got deleted. I think the opposite a rule should be set firmly that the number of edits alone should never be used to exclude any user, except perhaps at a very base level (such as the 25 non-minor-edit-flagged article edits in the Vfu policy which seems somewhat reasonable). --Mysidia 13:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Establishing a strict suffrage policy runs counter to the openness with is required for Wikipedia to function effectively, IMO. It is my personal opinion that no suffrage requirements should exist, save the very obvious (no anon. votes, no votes from accounts that were created after the vote was begun). Beyond that, I agree, by and large, with what Rossami has said about leaving individual cases to the discretion of the admin. For global, high-profile votes, some gamed votes will probably slide through, but if the number of those is large enough to seriously throw the total, then there is in all likelihood a greater problem at work, and one that setting a strict suffrage requirement is going to do very little to allievate. – Seancdaug 13:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Rossami, Mysidia and Seancdaug (although anons can vote; admins can ignore said votes; see WP:GVFD.) Unless you can come up with some evidence that excessive sock/meatpuppet voting is actually causing some serious problems with admins accurately closing votes, I'd view this as bureauracracy creep.   Soundguy99 13:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not creep, nobody is as of yet proposing anything. This is just a gauge of public opinion (and discussion thereof) in reaction to the subject recently coming up in a number of places. Radiant_ >|< 13:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I support this idea. Furthermore, I think the Suffrage would be a lot easier to "enforce" if Kate's Tool were expanded to include an edit count up to a specified date. That way, you can have a clear idea of how many edits a certain account made up to the time a vote was started. --Deathphoenix 13:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Consider the case of the newly registered user, whose first action since being a long time anonymous contributor, is a vote on an issue. This user then continues to edit, and accumulates hundreds of good edits in the week or two before the vote closes.  Why should anyone attempt to codify restrictions of the bureaucrat's ability to use their discretion and accept that vote?  What if a recently registered anon can point to hundreds of edits under his static IP number?  Voting is a primary factor in getting anonymous users to register in the first place.  Let's be careful not to ruin that motivation.   Un focused 14:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But isn't that already stigmatised in practise? On a VfD, for instance, if there is a new user who suddenly votes, people often include a bulleted comment below the vote stating that it is "User's 2nd edit" or something similar. I know the vote itself isn't invalidated, but vote closers often see that comment and ignore the vote by the new user. --Deathphoenix 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote closer is easily able to establish whether the anon is contributing something useful to the debate. Knowing it is the second edit helps, but that is just one more tool that helps the admin make a good decision. If an admin is using that info as the be-all-and-all, then they shouldn't be trusted to close votes. Pcb21| Pete 17:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Edit count is just one factor in making a decision. I think it's a useful first-line filter. --Deathphoenix 17:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As a VFD closer of some debates where the result hangs in the balance, and there are some anonymous votes, I would prefer to not have a policy forbidding me from counting them. First, the VFD-tag invites users to contribute to the debate, anonymous or non-anonymus. Second, if an anonymous user makes a good point, it should be taken into consideration. Third, many of the anonymous votes are readers who don't regularly contribute, that is a big group of people who we are creating this encyclopedia for, there voice should be heard. The reason to discount anonymous votes is that they are often made in bad faith, often sockpuppetry. If I think that an anonymous vote was made in good faith (the usual sign of this is that the other votes are all from established users in good standing), it's counted by me. Finally, I think edit counting should be irrelevant, a persons vote does not become more valuable because he or she has many edits. Time since account creation may be relevant however as a guard against sockpuppetry (I treat such votes the same way as anonymous votes, and count them unless they were made in bad faith). Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Warning: editcountitis can be fatal. Fatal to the person counting their own edits and fatal to those that rely on counting another's edits for a gold-standard of something-or-other. It seems to me that sockpuppets/meatpuppets are an annoyance but not a restriction on how we do business, even on VfD. It doesn't take a lot of practise to spot one of either and any admin worth their rollback-button ought to be able to that with their metaphorical-eyes closed. Formalized suffrage says "we don't want to hear what you have to say" and "we don't trust you to say something sensible". We do not trust socks/meats, but we should trust new users who vote and edit in good-faith. As Sjakkalle says, we invite all users to come visit the VfD discussion and we shouldn't quietly have another policy that says they might not really be invited. So long as we make plain that only votes in good faith will be counted we are both flexible and welcoming at the same time. If we further make clearer than at present that socks/meats/anons etc are likely to attract claims of bad-faith and have their vote discounted, nobody can complain they weren't warned. -Splash 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Sjakkalle. I registered as an editor for this site because one of my favorite articles was up for deletion, and I made several remarks in its debate that assisted in getting the article transwikied rather than deleted.  I probably wouldn't have even registered, had I not seen that VfD tag and joined the debate (and joined several other debates I found interesting).  Instead, well... I've been here for 8 months, I'm listed on Confessed Wikipediholics, and I have over 2000 edits.  Suffrage requirements definitely discourage new users from contributing, and all they do is add to a bureaucracy.  WP:NOT a bureaucracy. --Idont Havaname 21:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There was mention of using time since account creation as an alternative measure to edit counts... How about also looking at possibility of adding more options.. a measure of sustained activity? Sustained activity being average edits over time, i.e. average non-reverted edits of significant size per day for the last 4 weeks.  Requiring voters to have registered an e-mail address, to have a non-null user page, to have not clicked the "logout" button too often (when possibly switching between accounts), hmm; have we thought much about possible criteria other than mere counts of something?.. --Mysidia 03:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Consistency
It can reasonably be assumed that whatever suffrage is the guideline for VFD, will also apply to IFD, CFD, TFD and RFD. It would be easiest (once we have consensus for that) for all those pages to link here. However, VFU presently has its own, very strict, suffrage criteria. Shouldn't those then be dropped to make it consistent with the rest of the lot? [Radiant]

 * The VfU criteria is wrong and should be changed back in line with all the others. Pcb21| Pete 17:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Done now. Radiant_ >|< 15:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

What about RFA? What about RFC endorsement? What about random votes about article style that occasionally pop up? Radiant_ >|< 12:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, it's good to have a set suffrage for the general case to be consistent. VFU has a very strict suffrage because VFU is a very specific case. Undeleting an article is fairly serious because it indicates that an admin (who is a trusted member of the community) deleted something out of process. If I were an admin, I'd rather know that my actions were decided to be out of process by a group of members that passed a suffrage. So, a general voting page could have a little note pointing to the general Suffrage page while another voting page that has more strict requirements may have its own Suffrage section (say, with the VFU, if it still requires a more strict suffrage than the general case). --Deathphoenix 13:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * In the first place, the suffrage requirements for VfU don't seem all that strict to me. In the second place, since VfU is essentially an appeals court that is often concerned more with process than content or subject, discussion rather than counting votes is even more important there than on VfD and sock/meatpuppet voting is more disruptive.  Plus, we need some way to prevent articles from simply ping-ponging between VfD and VfU.  I've got no problem with the situation as it stands.  As far as the rest of the questions go, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  IMHO, trying to institute a variety of suffrage policies is wandering perilously close to violating Foundation issues - specifically "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering."  True, voting is not editing, but still. . . . .   Soundguy99 13:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Those whole proposal strikes me as unnecessary instruction creep →Raul654 15:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as such. If this were okayed, it might actually reduce instruction creep. If it's decided that a particular vote needs a suffrage, instead of having to decide upon a suffrage for each vote, one can just slap on "This vote has a Suffrage" (or something similar) on top of the vote page. Instead of wasting time deciding on a specific suffrage, the only thing we'd need to decide is if it needs a suffrage. --Deathphoenix 15:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't need suffrage restrictions. Clueful admins with the experience to judge all comments on their merits are far better than any gamable system about edit counts. Thus it is instruction creep. Pcb21| Pete 17:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose in that case, you could count it as instruction creep wrt admins using their judgement on a case. I personally think having a suffrage helps filter out the chaff. That's not to say that you should only use a suffrage while ignoring everything else. Making the suffrage the end all and be all is like putting all your security at the point of entry while having no security on the inside, which I disagree with. The suffrage represents the entry point. Anyone that passes that first entry point can go through the scrutiny of any admin who wants to interpret the user's vote. --Deathphoenix 17:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Consistency would be a good thing: consistently no formal suffrage rules apart from a requirement that the vote be in good-faith from a user acting in good-faith. Although VfU serves the more subtle purpose of providing a check on process, it is enough of a backwater that, at present, socks don't go there much. When they do, they are just as easily identifiable as they are everywhere else. Frequently, however, someone wants an article undeleted because "they think all the VfD votes were wrong" or similar. They get "keep deleted, valid VfD" votes very quickly. This is more just a misunderstanding of the purpose of VfU (which, imho, is not stated nearly clearly or prominently enough) than sockpuppetry or the like. -Splash 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

History of sockpuppetry
Pcb21 made a change to the wording of one of the paragraphs on this page. See this diff. Based on my own recollection, sockpuppetry was always a problem. Sockpuppets were used to attempt to bias discussion threads, obscure the obviousness of edit wars, etc. It did not appear to me to have been caused solely or even primarily by the community's increased reliance on voting. I am going to revert the paragraph to the previous version because it is closer the way I remember the problem evolving. Would others who have also been watching the changes in our community processes also please comment? Rossami (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "Some people assert..." - this wording is unacceptable. It is like poor attempt to write in an NPOV style, but in the Wikipedia namespace!

 * I know Radiant! doesn't necessarily know because he wasn't there, but you should know better. Sockpuppetry has sprung everywhere in the last year or two as voting has spread. VfD has had supposed-consensus-reaching-that-is-actually-more-like-voting for longer, and so was an early breeding ground for sockpuppets. And coincidentally, probably the most disliked page on Wikipedia!

 * But in short, if this page is to become a useful guideline, that passage has got to change. Pcb21| Pete 21:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Suffrage for moving?
IIRC there was some talk about a minimum number of edits required to use the 'move' button. Does someone know the specifics about this maybe? Radiant_ >|< 07:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you talking about the various bits of weaponry against page move vandalism? Or some other proposal, related to seniority? Pcb21| Pete 07:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I seem to recall the move button only working if you had more than X edits, or that option being proposed. But I couldn't find it, hence the question. Radiant_ >|< 08:17, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Tim Starling should be able to answer the question, as all these bits of code tend to be written by him. It certainly isn't turned at the moment, but I suspect it could be flicked on at a moment's notice by a dev if someone starts on a spree of WoW-style page move vandalism. Pcb22 08:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * According to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Min edit count, it prevented page moves by the newest 1% of registered accounts. When I registered about a month ago, it was still on, and it took about two or three days before I could move pages. —Cryptic (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I just registered a new account now, and it is off. Likely that it got turned off during the 1.5 upgrade, I guess. Pcb23 13:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It was never a permanent measure, but just one of many things the developers do in their battles against page move vandals. Since page move vandalism is less database intensive in 1.5 than it was previously, the need to limit page moves has decreased, which is possibly why this measure is not currently on. Angela. 02:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Suffrage on Requests for Adminship
There has never been a formal policy regarding sufferage on WP:RFA, though likely socks are almost always discounted. My policy when closing a nomination and deciding whether or not to promote is to discount any votes by people who are uninvolved in Wikipedia. Usually this is very clear, because it is unusual for new users to make RFA votes. The majority of votes are made by people who follow adminship matters regularly. Most are nearly qualified for adminship themselves if they do not already have it.

RFA is, historically consensus-driven, with the 75%/80% guideline being only a way to quantify consensus. In a close vote I consider the rationale for the vote, if stated, as well as the prior voting history of the voter. In establishing consensus I am less likely to consider voters who apply criteria well outside the mainstream, such as unusually high edit count requirements. I am also less likely to consider votes made by people who nearly always vote the same way on adminship nominations (such as those who only ever vote "oppose"). On the other hand, I'm likely to consider more strongly those votes that are accompanied by clear, plausible reasoning for the vote.

Other bureaucrats may apply other criteria.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wording in "informal" section
I changed the sentence reading "This means that, while anyone can vote, votes can be discounted if they are made by a user with a lack of edit history, or a probable sockpuppet" to "This means that, while anyone can vote, votes can be discounted or given less weight if they are made by a user with a lack of edit history, or a probable sockpuppet." My change was reverted, with the explanation that "discounted" and "given less weight" mean the same thing. While i think the reversion was entirely reasonable, i disagree. Discounted, in my mind, means "counted for nothing" or having no effect. "Given less weight", on the other hand, means counted for less than other votes, but not entirely discounted. Since i think votes by new users and sockpuppets are sometimes discounted and other times given less, but at least some, weight than other users' votes, i prefer my wording of the sentence. - Jersyko   talk  21:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've already re-edited it to read similar to what you intended, which I believe is the correct interpretation.  Un focused 02:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Suffrage for policy proposals?
A recent policy proposal (on CSD) had a strict suffrage requirement (of >250 edits by the time the voting started). This was intended to set a clear bar, and to prevent disputes when the voting closed, such as "these votes are invalid so the proposal passes" vs. "no, THOSE votes are invalid so the proposal fails". And also, since the Wikimedia Board Vote used a similar (but harsher) criterion, it seemed like a good idea at the time. This suffrage was disputed, but in the end it didn't make any difference to the outcome so this can hardly be taken as a precedent either way. Of course we rarely have large formal proposals, so whenever the next one is a suffrage may be decided upon then. Radiant_ >|< 10:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Suffrage


text:
Woolwich Garrison

Woolwich Garrison (now referred to as Woolwich Station) is a garrison or station of the British Army. Geographically it is in Woolwich, in the Royal Borough of Greenwich. In terms of command, it is within the Army's London District.

At its largest, the garrison oversaw two division headquarters plus supporting units and around 7 battalions. Over the course of the 20th century the garrison began to diminish in size and importance, and much of its land and buildings were sold. In April 2001, the garrison reduced to a station, and Central Volunteer Headquarters, Royal Artillery, took over the role of HQ. Nevertheless, Royal Artillery Barracks continued to serve as the headquarters of the Royal Artillery until 2007, when it moved to Larkhill Garrison, since when other units have been based within the barracks and at nearby Napier Lines. The army is scheduled to leave Woolwich in 2028 (though in 2020 it was announced that, contrary to earlier indications, the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery, will remain).

Historical overview
There has been a military presence in Woolwich since at least the 16th century, when troops would have been engaged in defending Woolwich Dockyard (also known as The King's Yard). What gave the town its distinctive military character, however, was the arrival of the Board of Ordnance. The Board first acquired land here (known as the Warren) in the 1670s; this evolved to become the Royal Arsenal, which was (among other things) the British Government's principal armaments manufacturing facility for over 200 years. The Board was a military as well as a civil office of state: the Royal Regiment of Artillery and the Corps Of Royal Engineers were both military formations of the Board, raised in the early 18th century and only becoming part of the British Army in the 1850s. In 1776 the Royal Artillery moved out of its initial headquarters in the Warren into a new, purpose-built Royal Artillery Barracks just north of Woolwich Common. Subsequently, as a variety of military quarters, institutions and amenities sprang up the surrounding area, and a new garrison town began to emerge.

Over time Woolwich Garrison has been composed of some or all of the following elements:

Royal Artillery Barracks
The barracks was built in 1774-76 and more than doubled in size after being extended in 1802–05. The blocks facing the parade ground housed artillery officers and troops; behind were a pair of quadrangles which provided accommodation for the Royal Horse Artillery, and beyond these another long block (built for the Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers). In the 1950s and 60s most of the surviving original buildings were demolished and replaced with modern blocks, though the main south façade was retained. The area of land known as the Barrack Field, adjoining the common, was purchased together with the site for the barracks and used for various military purposes (recreational as well as operational). Alongside the parade ground a Gun Park was laid out for field gun drill exercises.

Royal Military Repository
In the 1770s, Captain (later Sir) William Congreve created a 'Repository of Military Machines' in the Warren: a collection of guns, mortars, models and other items used to teach gunners and engineers the history and practice of their craft. At the same time, he devised a set of practical training exercises, which were carried out under his supervision on open ground nearby; known as 'Repository Exercises', these involved manhandling heavy guns and equipment over 'Ditches, Ravines, Inclosures or Lines' designed to simulate challenges likely to be encountered in the field. In 1778 the Royal Military Repository was given formal recognition, and Repository Exercises became compulsory.

In 1802 the building in the Warren burned down; but shortly afterwards Congreve re-established the Repository on recently acquired land just to the west of the Barrack Field. There, what became known as the 'Repository Grounds' (today Repository Woods) were laid out with trees, ditches, ravines, earthworks, and other structures in order to train troops in the movement of guns, ammunition and heavy equipment across difficult terrain. There were two large ponds, on which men were taught 'to lay pontoons, to transport artillery upon rafts, and all the different methods that can be adopted for the passage of troops across rivers, &c.'. In the 1820s an earthwork training fortification was added along the length of the eastern boundary, on which were mounted 'all the different sorts of cannon used in the defence of fortified towns'.

On the southern part of the site, four long gun-carriage sheds were built in 1802-5 (the northernmost, with offices at either end, designed to accommodate items from the Repository's historic collection). To the north of the sheds, the Rotunda (previously erected at Carlton House to celebrate the peace of 1814) was rebuilt in 1820; it served to house the surviving model collection of the Royal Military Repository (which in the meantime had been on display in the old Academy in the Warren).

In the 1880s it was still the case that all officers of the Artillery (including those of the Militia and Volunteers) had to pass a term of instruction at the Repository. The Rotunda by this time had been opened to the public as the Royal Artillery Museum. In 1890, the Royal Military Repository closed (much of its work having transferred to Shoeburyness). The Repository Woods remained in used for military training, however, through the 20th and into the 21st century.

Napier Lines
In the early 20th century the Ordnance College converted some of the old Repository Sheds into training workshops, accommodating 520 'wheelers, fitters, smiths, painters and others'. By the time of the Second World War it had evolved into a vehicle maintenance base, and after the war it was taken over by the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME), whose senior officer on site was accommodated in 'Repository House' (the former Gatehouse on Repository Road). In 1995 (REME having moved to new facilities in the main barracks) the workshops were replaced with large new sheds to store the vehicles and matériel of the 16th Air Defence Regiment; they were named Napier Lines (the regiment having just relocated from Napier Barracks, Dortmund, in Germany). 16th Regiment, the last Regiment of Royal Artillery to be stationed in Woolwich, departed in 2007. In 2011 part of the area was converted, with new stable blocks added, to form a base for the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery named King George VI Lines.

The Observatory (Magnetic Office)
On Green Hill, east of the Repository, an observatory was built in 1838. This was the first headquarters of the Royal Artillery Institution (a scientific educational club for officers), which had been founded that year by Lieutenants John Lefroy and Frederick Eardley-Wilmot. From 1839 it also served as the home base for Edward Sabine's global survey of terrestrial magnetism (with which Lefroy and Eardley-Wilmot were closely involved); it was known for a time as the Magnetic Office, until the Magnetic Survey moved to Kew Observatory in 1871. The observatory was extended in 1853, with the addition of a domed equatorial room. The following year, the RA Institution moved into new larger premises within the main Barracks complex; but it continued to use the observatory for astronomy until 1926. While the equatorial room was demolished soon afterwards, the original small transit room survives, alongside the pedimented annexe which originally housed the Institution's library and reading room. In the 21st century it accommodated the Royal Military Police.

Housing and other amenities
In the area between the Gun Park and the Rotunda, terraced housing was built in the 1920s to serve as married quarters for soldiers. More terraces were added in the 1930s and 1950s; as Green Hill Barracks they continued to house soldiers into the 21st century. North of the Gun Park, rows of gun carriage sheds were built in the 19th century; known as Congreve Lines, the area now contains the Army Medical Centre and welfare services.

Further to the north, a Regimental School had been established in 1808, in timber sheds by the barracks. In the 1850s the school was rebuilt on what is now Green Hill Terrace. By the 1860s, Green Hill Schools had a daily attendance of over a thousand children, with teaching also provided on site for non-commissioned officers as a way of combatting illiteracy. In the evening the building was put to social and other uses; it remained in military use until the 1960s.

Woolwich Common
Use of Woolwich Common by the military predated the opening of the barracks: guns had been tested there since the 1720s, and in 1770 an artillery range was set up for target practice. In 1802-4 four Acts of Parliament transferred leasehold ownership of the common (which until then had also been used as public grazing land) to the Board of Ordnance; the 'Gatehouse' on Repository Road (which originally housed soldiers guarding the garrison) dates from around this time. The Board acquired freehold ownership in 1812.

The common has long been used for sport: on the west side of the common a stadium was built by the Army in 1920; it was used for football, rugby, show jumping, athletics, and also military tattoos. The shooting events at the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics were held at a temporary venue on the northern edge of the common; (the original plan to conduct the shooting at the National Shooting Centre at Bisley, Surrey, was changed after the International Olympic Committee expressed reservations about the number of sports proposed to be staged outside London).

Royal Horse Infirmary
The common was regularly used for the training and exercise of horses (activities which have resumed since the return to Woolwich of the King's Troop RHA). The Royal Artillery and the Royal Horse Artillery both made extensive use of horses, as did the Royal Army Service Corps (based in Connaught Barracks). In 1805, at the far south-western corner of the common, a Veterinary Establishment was built by the Ordnance Veterinary Service. Later named the Royal Horse Infirmary, it became the headquarters of the Army Veterinary Department (predecessor of the RAVC, whose Corps Depot remained in Woolwich until 1939). Adjoining it was a Remount Establishment, to procure and train new horses for the Artillery and Royal Engineers, which was later expanded to form the main English depot of the Army Remount Service.

Shrapnel Barracks
Alongside the Royal Horse Infirmary, a hutted camp was built at the time of the Crimean War to serve as a cavalry barracks; the 'Hut Barracks' later housed Artillery units. In 1896 Shrapnel Barracks opened on the site, to provide accommodation for the men and horses of a field brigade of Artillery.

Royal Military Academy

The Royal Military Academy, which trained officer cadets of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers from 1741 to 1939, was initially founded in the Warren before moving into new premises built at the southern end of Woolwich Common in 1806. Expanded at various points, the institution remained here until being amalgamated into the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, in 1939.

Military Hospitals
In the aftermath of the Crimean War, Woolwich gained a new military hospital named the Herbert Hospital. Opened in 1865, it was (like the nearby Royal Marine Infirmary, but on a larger scale) a 'pavilion plan' hospital: built in accordance with the latest design principles for disease prevention, as advocated by Florence Nightingale, John Roberton and Douglas Galton (who was the hospital's architect). In 1972 work began on building a new hospital nearby (on the site of Shrapnel Barracks and the Veterinary Hospital) to be named the Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital; when it was opened in 1977, the Royal Herbert Hospital closed.

St George's Garrison Church
St George's Garrison Church was built to the east of the parade ground in 1863 (replacing the chapel within the barracks). Romanesque in style with Byzantine detailing, it was largely destroyed by a V1 flying bomb on 14 July 1944, but the ruins have been preserved as a memorial.

Royal Artillery Hospital (Connaught Barracks)
In 1780, shortly after the opening of the artillery barracks, the Royal Artillery Hospital was opened close by, just to the east of the barracks. Later known as the Royal Ordnance Hospital, it was one of the first purpose-built military hospitals in England. Over time the building was expanded: first in 1794-6 (when two new wings were added, one for a convalescent barracks, the other for surgeons' quarters) and then in 1804–6, when a new hospital complex was added to the north (linked by a long covered gallery to the old buildings, which continued to provide convalescent space and staff accommodation).

Another ward block was added to the east in 1854; but after the establishment of the new Herbert Hospital in 1865, the Artillery Hospital buildings were converted into barracks and went on to serve as headquarters of the Military Train (who were the main providers of land-transport capability for the Army). The officers were accommodated in the 18th-century buildings, and the men in the 19th-century ward blocks. Stables for 240 horses were built in the former hospital grounds to the east (previously left undeveloped to prevent spread of diseases). Under the name Connaught Barracks, the complex went on to be the base of the Military Train's successor, the Horse Transport Branch of the Army Service Corps. Following mechanisation, the stables were renamed 'Motor Transport Lines', reflecting the Corps' new mode of conveyance. The Royal Army Service Corps remained here until 1962, when the Corps was amalgamated and the site redeveloped (the eighteenth-century hospital buildings survive as Connaught Mews, an apartment complex off Grand Depot Road).

The Grand Depot
In 1781 a garden was laid out to the north of the RA Hospital, initially to serve as a kitchen garden for the adjacent Royal Artillery Barracks. In 1804 the Grand Depôt of Field Artillery was established here: four long low sheds were built on the site, flanking a central range of workshops and offices, with a pair of magazines alongside to the west (all to designs by Lewis Wyatt). Here were maintained at all times 'thirty Brigades of Field Artillery, with Ammunition and Stores complete, and in a perfect state of readiness for any service' (a 'Brigade' in this context being defined as 'five Guns and one Howitzer'). The Grand Depôt served as headquarters for the Ordnance Field Train, a forerunner of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, which was responsible for the custody, conveyance and distribution of guns, ammunition and stores to Artillery units on active service (and of ammunition to the Army as a whole). In 1859 the Field Train was amalgamated into the Military Store Department of the War Office.

In 1856, a Royal Army Clothing Department factory was built on the site of the two magazines (it also covered over most of what remained of the garden). Twelve years later, the factory moved to Pimlico.

On 1 October 1871, the entire area (then known as the Grand Depot Stores) was handed over to the Commandant of Woolwich Garrison and converted into additional barracks for the Artillery: Grand Depot Barracks. The former clothing factory became the main block of the barracks, and the old Grand Depôt sheds were converted into stables (with one of them being demolished to make space for a sizeable drill yard). By the 1880s Grand Depot Barracks accommodated a full field-brigade of artillery; and in the 20th century it continued to function as an extension of the adjacent Royal Artillery Barracks. The surviving Grand Depot buildings (including the listed central block of 1805) were demolished in 1970.

Artificers Barracks
In 1803 a barracks was built further to the east (south of Love Lane, west of Thomas Street), to designs by James Wyatt, to serve as headquarters for the Corps of Royal Military Artificers (later renamed the Royal Sappers and Miners) who, like the Royal Artillery, were under the Board of Ordnance rather than the War Office. By the 1840s it had been expanded to house three Companies (273 men in total). In 1856, however, the Sappers and Miners were amalgamated into the Royal Engineers, for whom a new Corps headquarters was established in Chatham. Nevertheless, a small detachment of Engineers remained to see to the needs of the garrison, and through the 20th century the barracks were referred to as the Engineer Barracks.

After 1856 the barracks accommodated the cadets of the Practical Class of the Royal Military Academy, until 1863 when they moved back to the (newly extended) main RMA buildings. Afterwards, spare capacity in the Engineer Barracks was used by the Royal Artillery as overflow accommodation for the Grand Depot Barracks next door. Again, despite being listed the Engineer Barracks were demolished, in 1970.

Housing and other amenities
From 1824, the Commanding Royal Engineer (CRE) Woolwich lived in Mill Lane House (having moved there from premises in the Arsenal). When the Corps headquarters moved to Chatham, an office building (Engineer House) was built nearby as a base for the Engineer detachment remaining in Woolwich. It contained a drawing office and a darkroom, and a range of workshops was built alongside.

South of Engineer House, facing the Barrack Field, was the Garrison Dispensary: a single-storey range of buildings which later functioned as an Auxiliary Hospital; in the later 20th century it was known as the Garrison Medical Centre. Behind it stood the Garrison Female Hospital (later renamed the Military Maternity Hospital), which had been built at the same time as the Herbert Hospital to designs by the same architect (Douglas Galton). It remained operational until the mid-1970s.

South of the Dispensary stood St George's House (the Royal Artillery chaplain's quarters), and Government House (until 1936 the residence of the Garrison Commandant, which continued to serve as the Garrison Headquarters into the 1980s before being sold off in 1995). On land further back, towards Brookhill Road, several long ranges of married quarters housing were built in the late 19th century; these were replaced by new army houses in the 1970s. Older rows of married quarters, dating from the 1860s and known as Cambridge Cottages, stood further to the north.

The former Naval Dockyard
Woolwich Dockyard had been one of England's principal Royal Dockyards during the Tudor and Stuart periods, but it closed in 1869 as the Thames was by then too difficult to navigate for the naval vessels of the time. Subsequently, most of the site served as a subsidiary Ordnance Depot for the Military Store Department based in the Arsenal. Later an Army Pay Office was established here, responsible for the accounts not only of the Royal Field Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery, but also those of all soldiers serving with the Army Service Corps, the Army Ordnance Corps, the Army Veterinary Corps, and the Army Pay Corps itself. By 1914 it had grown to be the largest Army Pay Office in the country, with a military staff of 90 responsible for the administration of 60,000 personal accounts. The Records Offices of the Army Service Corps and Army Ordnance Corps were also based in the former Dockyard.

The former Marine Barracks
The closure of the Dockyard had also led to the Royal Marines vacating their barracks and infirmary on nearby Frances Street. The barracks were renamed Cambridge Barracks, and subsequently housed regiments of infantry; rows of married quarters ('Cardwell Cottages') were built to the north-east in 1872. After closure, the barracks were almost entirely demolished in 1972.

The former infirmary was renamed Red Barracks and went on to serve as the headquarters for what became the Royal Army Ordnance Corps until 1921. From 1885, Artillery College was also based there; it later expanded and was renamed the Military College of Science, before moving out at the start of the Second World War. Later housing the Royal Artillery Records Office and other functions, Red Barracks was demolished in 1975; only the perimeter wall remains. On the northwest corner of Frances Street and Hillreach, opposite the barracks security gate, is the Kings Arms pub, targeted by the IRA in November 1974 in a bombing which killed Royal Artillery Gunner Richard Dunne and another man, and injured 35 others.

Current units
Below is a list of the current units which form part of the garrison.

British Army

 * Royal Artillery Barracks
 * 1st Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment
 * National Reserve Headquarters, Royal Artillery
 * Countess of Wessex's String Orchestra
 * 30 Army Education Centre Group
 * Napier Lines
 * King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery

Future plans
In November 2016 the Ministry of Defence announced that the site would close in 2028, with all army units currently stationed in Woolwich scheduled to be relocated. In 2020, however, it was announced that Napier Lines were to be retained as headquarters of the King's Troop RHA. Nevertheless, in December 2020 Greenwich Borough Council unanimously passed a motion to oppose the sale of the historic barracks. By that time petitions to save the barracks had amassed over 9,000 signatures.

Census Returns

 * 1891 UK Census class:RG12. piece:534. folio=66. p. 1. - Woolwich Arsenal Grand Depot Barracks & Cambridge Cottages

title: Woolwich Garrison


text:
User talk:Armthehomeless

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ( Redwolf24 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC) ) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ( Redwolf24 ) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Albert Pujols. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Pujols&action=history page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have a citation for a longer home run that comes from a source equal in reputability to the New York Times, then please provide it; otherwise, the source and statement stand. — KV5  •  Talk  •  20:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck this warning, as it was misguided. The editor provided an edit summary, which makes the warning unwarranted. Their edit was technically incorrect (McGwire's homerun against the Marlins was at the previous Busch Stadium, not the current one), but their reason provided - although probably worded incorrectly - was correct; the NYT reference provided is a dead link, which I can see how someone might perceive as being a "fake" cite. Undo their edit if you see fit, KV, but the warning that you placed was in error. Striker force Talk  Review me! 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the deadlink. In the future, you can refer to WP:DEADLINK for handling the situation.—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Armthehomeless