text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary

Discussion
I was thrilled to find the chapter by chapter review of book 6, then disgusted to read some of the reasons this summary should be deleted. First of all, the C by C summary is NOT a repeat of other material. One is a review, no matter how detailed, of the book as a whole. The other contains specific chapter by chapter summaries. There is nothing wrong with either. Summaries are not copyright infringement as long as they are not re-printing the book word for word, or for sale. I could be 'technically' mistaken, but how far do we want to stretch this? This is also the ONLY site I have found that has actually TOLD me something. All the other sites I have looked at are either dated, links to advertising, or full of false promises...revealing nothing except a 'pre'release review that of course was incomplete. I also don't see what the big deal is to keep the plot of this book (or any other) hidden. Not EVERYONE is going to read the book! I'm certainly not going to sit down and turn 600+ pages in a day just to hear what happens. Why should I be shut out because there's a few people out there who want to be control freaks and tell the rest of the world...'you can't read this...go buy the book'. Well, if the summary here is interesting enough...I might. I realy don't understand these few people who think they're better than everyone else in the world and feel the need to dictate their beliefs and force them upon the rest of us. GET A LIFE. Yes, I'll print out the summary before some holier-than-thou do-gooder removes it from my sight...I might be harmed or, heaven forbid, be breaking some law. Keep the chapter by chapter summary up. It's fantastic and thanks to whoever contributed to it! (posted by User:63.77.247.130, July 20, 2005.)
 * The point of the VfD on the chapter by chapter summary is that some feel it's an intellectual property rights violation. (I happen to feel it should have been submitted as such, not on VfD, but that's water under the bridge.) It's obviously slavishly derivative of the source, and Ms. Rowling is known to be litigous. If she should discover this plot outline and decide to sue Wikipedia, I doubt that the project has the funds required to mount a successful defense.
 * That said, I personally don't feel that this material is encyclopedic. All it does is tell people the plot, and I would never expect to find that level of detail about a book in an encyclopedia. Ken 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * But you would be pleasantly surprised if you did, wouldn't you? — David Remahl 06:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, actually. It would interfere with what I consider the primary purpose of an encyclopedia, to serve as a basic general reference work for human knowledge. I don't consider the plot of a novel to be encyclopedic on it's own, and the more non-encyclopedic articles there are in an encyclopedia, the harder it becomes to find the particular information that I'm consulting the encyclopedia for. In an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, an article about the Harry Potter phenomenon is a given. Once it grows enough, articles analysing and discussing the individual books (with brief plot summaries), main characters, settings, and themes are reasonable. A plot summary article that's 5% the size of the book it summarizes is just non-encyclopedic. Not to mention a likely violation of copyright, if the litigous Ms. Rowling chooses to press the matter. Ken 03:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * You must remember that in no way is Wikipedia simply an encyclopedia. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 19:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

How is the chapter by chapter summary an "intellectual property rights violation"? I am surprised a random wikipedia user cares so much about the completely undefined phrase of "intellectual property", are you a lawyer? Books are copyrighted, how does the summary violate copyright law? A one paragraph summary per twenty pages (the book is 600 pages long right?) is actually rather succinct in my interpretation. zen master T 07:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't actually much care about intelectual property or its rights, but I do care about Wikipedia and people who actually own intellectual property are very protective of it, to the point of suing at even a hint of violation. I'd much rather err on the side of caution and keep Wikipedia out of the courts. James 07:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you misintepreted my question, you say you don't care about intellectual property or "its rights" but my question is precisely asking exactly what rights are those? I am against the claim by the publisher's canadian lawyers that argued there is "no human right to read", how crazy is that? Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know under the law there is actually no concept of "intellectual property right", that phrase is a combination of many things like patents and trade secrets but as far as a book is concerned only copyright law is applicable, right? I am all for keeping Wikipedia out of the courts but some analysis of the merits of a possible case should be performed, shouldn't it? zen master T 08:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't quite see what the Canadian controversy has to do with Wikipedia. This page is a violation for completely different reasons than selling the book when it wasn't supposed to be. And there is no human right to read what is copyrighted. The owner can say who can and who can't read it. Irrigardless of the dispute at hand, a copyright owner has complete control of the distribution and availability of a copyrighted work for the duration of the copyright, and that is the copyright owner's intellectual property right. James 08:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * In canada the people paid for their copy of the book in a bookstore, the publisher should blame the bookstore. Also, I think you misunderstand copyright law (IANAL however), as I understand it copyright law does not regulate how a book can be used/read, it only applies if the work is subsequently copied (or derivative works are made) which is completely unapplicable in the canadian case where 15 bookstore patrons just happened to be able to buy the book early. zen master T 08:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * As it says at Copyright, a copyright gives the holder the exclusive right to "produce copies of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)". The bookstore infringed on that right when they sold the book without her permission, and the only way to remedy the infringement would be for the buyer to return the book. Simply because the buyer did nothing illegal does not mean they have a right to read or keep the book. An analogy would be if a computer company sold someone a copy of Windows XP, but the license was not actually legit. The buyer did nothing wrong, but has no legal standing to continue to use the software. James 08:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * How does bookstore infringement lead to bookstore customer not being able to read something? Asking for or even ordering the book be returned is very different from ordering that a book not be read. How would you punish such a customer if they actually did read it? The restrictions you mentioned with proprietary computer software are actually not imposed using copy right law, with tangible books you can borrow a friend's book or donate them to a library (as long as you aren't making a copy) but with most proprietary computer software for some reason the "license" is not transferable, and the important point, I repeat, is this restriction is not imposed using copyright law but by EULAs and other agreements. Last time I checked book purchases do not require EULAs. zen master T 08:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It actually is comparable to EULAs, because the legal protection behind the EULA is the copyright. An EULA wouldn't have any force if the person giving it out were not the copyright holder of the software. And there IS is essence an EULA for every book: the doctrines of Fair Use and education exceptions to copying. You agree to abide by all of that when you buy the book. I don't know that the customer could really be punished for reading it, but I don't think it's out of the question that they could be told not to. They have the book illegaly, and continuing to use it is illegal. James 14:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * You misframe the issue a bit in my non lawyer opinion, the imposition of restrictions can only happen if the customer agrees to the EULA (the customer is in effect giving up their rights by agreeing to the EULA). Books do not come with EULAs fortunately. As I understand it, copyright law is only applicable in the case of the distribution of copies or derivative works, how the product is used is completely outside its scope. Also, I do think there is a human right to read, it's a slippery slope otherwise. zen master T 15:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * A purchaser gives up certain rights when purchasing a book as well. Copyright law is only applicable to copies and derivitive works, but a book obtained improperly, regardless of who is at fault, is not the property of the person who bought it, and thus they have no right to it, even to simply read it. Also, of course there is a human right to read, but not to read everything. You can read whatever you want that's PD. James 17:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * By what process does the purchaser give up those rights? Books only have copyright notices in them. Can you point to specific parts of copyright law that support your claim that someone can be prevented from reading a book? So you dispute my interpretation that copyright law is applicable to only just copying and derivative works? As I understand it the original purpose of copyright law was actually to encourage the spread of ideas and words, not to restrict their distribution. Authors were given a limited time monopoly on their works (so people didn't hoard/monopolize knowledge) for the purpose of encouraging the production of copies which was historically an inefficient time consuming process but is an increasingly unnecessary concern in the digital age. zen master T 17:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Normally, a purchaser CAN read a book they buy, but in this case, the book was bought improperly and copyright law was violated in the process. As I said before, because the copyright holder did not authorize the sale, it is invalid, and the book is still the property of the copyright holder, not the purchaser. Being the property of the copyright holder, he/she can demand its return and the purchaser has no legal standing to challenge that. In essence, it is similar to the sale of stolen goods; while the buyer had nothing to do with breaking the law, they are still required to forfeit the goods obtained. James 18:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * For the sake of argument I will temporarily assume that the sale can be subsequently invalidated but how does that lead to the curtailment of reading? As against freedom and democracy as it would be for police to burst into an early purchaser's home to retrieve a time embargoed book, the concept that there is no human right to read is actually much much worse. A sale time embargo is entirely a bookstore/marketing construct, to my knowledge the copyright notice in the 15 early purchasers' books did not include any sale time embargo requirement, how does copyright law apply to them in this case then? If in the future a copyright notice does include some sort of sale time embargo requirement what is the likelyhood of that being struck down in court as being outside the scope of copyright law? The following two points seem to be strong evidence against the claim that copyright law can be used to support the argument that there is no human right to read: 1) copyright law is explicitly and exclusively applicable to copying (specific to the people doing the copying) or derivative works (specific to the people creating derivative works) and 2) the original intent of copyright law was actually to promote the distribution of copies. In contrast to your argument copyright law was originally meant to reward authors for sharing rather than reward authors for hoarding/monopolizing. How an individual copy of a book is used is outside the scope of copyright law. zen master T 19:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You're completely not following. Copyright law allows the holder to have exclusive rights over how and when and to whom their work is sold. Because the copyright holder did not authorize the sales, they were illegal, and because they were illegal, the posessors of the books were not actually the owners of the books. If you do not own something, you have no rights to it, whatsoever.

 * As far as copyright notices go, they're not even required. Copyright notices don't need to explicitly state anything, because it is a negative right. Basically, a copyright holder has complete control of a copyrighted work, and any uses, other than fair use, have to be explicitly okayed by him/her. James 19:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you are confusing invalidating a purchase with restriction of use. A subsequently declared illegal sale does not mean copyright law applies, copyright law only comes into play when someone violates either of the 2 copyright law restrictions, namely copying or creating plus distributing derivative works. For the case of an individual book being stolen or even sold illegally standard theft or illegal sale laws would apply. Even if a sale is declared illegal worst case that just means the police can burst down someone's door to retrieve the book, it does not mean an early purchaser does not have the right to read it. As far as copyright law is concerned a purchaser is paying for an individual physical copy of a book, not the right to read/use it. To use an analogy, if someone buys a car with a bad check copyright law is completely inapplicable and does not allow the dealership to sue or restrict the use of the car's AC. The copyright holder only has complete control over copies and derivative works, not use. The phrase "All rights reserved" means the author retains the right to control copies and derivative works, it does not mean the author has control over how the work is used. The sale of an individual copy of a book is governered under the same laws as a car sale, including subsequently declared illegal sales.

 * I think I see how you and others may be confused now (it always seems to come down to language ambiguity), the legal concept of "fair use" is a copying exception, the word "use" does not refer to use of the original individual copy. "Fair use" means copying exceptions that are considered fair and are allowed, it does not mean uses of an individual copy that are allowed. zen master T 20:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this conversation has gone on about as long as I can take, but I'll leave one last comment. Copyright law has everything to do with invalidating the sale - it is the very reason it is invalid. With any other product, if the seller had legal posession of the product, they would be able to sell it whenever they wanted, but because they need explicit permission from the copyright holder to sell the item, because of copyright law, the sale is invalid. Seeing as the sale is invalid, the purchaser has no right to even posess the book, much less read it. Further, copyright law not only allows the holder to determine how the work is disseminated, but even whether or not it is disseminated.

 * I'm aware that fair use refers to copying exceptions. My point above was that the only uses of a work that are guranteed by law are those enshrined in the doctrine of fair use. I would say that being allowed to read a book that you have bought is implicitly allowed when you purchase an item, but that allowance does not exist when the sale was not authorized by the copyright holder. James 21:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * They need the explict permission of the copyright holder only to distribute copies or derivative works, not to use a legally obtained individual copy. If someone steals a car or their purchase is subsequently declared illegal does copyright law apply? The bookstore is simply the copyright holder's dealership used to sell physical copies of books off the printing press assembly line, they are not selling any rights or a license to use or restrict anything. Your statement that "...the only uses of a work that are guranteed by law are those enshrined in the doctrine of fair use" seems to be in contradiction to your immediately previous statement that you are aware that "fair use" refers to "copying exceptions"? The legal concept of "fair use" does not enshrine or gaurantee any uses of a work under copyright law, it refers to the fairness of copies, which is basically situations where copying is allowed without the explicit consent of the copyright holder. "Fair use" should be renamed to "fair copying" to avoid ambiguous language confusion.  How can copyright mean anything but the right to copy? zen master T 21:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The direction of this discussion has become too strained. The fact of the matter is that a copyright gives its holder complete control over the distribution of their work. Because the sale of the books was not explicitly authorized, the sale violated copyright law, and thus the purchasers did not own the book. If you do not own something that is not a public good, how can you have rights to it? Further, there is no universal right to read everything that is available to read. There are in fact a large number of restrictions on reading from healthcare information to classified information to mail sent via the postal service. To put it simply, mere posession of the book does not entitle the people to read it. James 22:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * I found a standford.edu law site that describes fair use as "in its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and 'transformative' purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work". [emphasis mine] The sale in your example is not applicable to copyright law, instead its under standard theft/illegal sale laws. The only power a copyright holder has is to prevent people from making unauthorized copies or derivative works and/or sue for damages for the same, which would implicate the bookstore, not the early purchaser. The sale of an individual car and an individual book follow the same laws which is not copyright law. Why should books be any different from cars? Nothing I've seen within copyright law supports the notion that there is no human right to read. Also, the same stanford site specifically lists the rights granted to copyright holders, I can't seem to find where the controlling of how a copy is used is mentioned:

 * What rights do copyright owners have under the Copyright Act? ]

 * The Copyright Act of 1976 grants a number of exclusive rights to copyright owners, including:

 * reproduction right -- the right to make copies of a protected work

 * distribution right -- the right to sell or otherwise distribute copies to the public

 * right to create adaptations (called derivative works) -- the right to prepare new works based on the protected work, and

 * performance and display rights -- the rights to perform a protected work (such as a stageplay) or to display a work in public.

 * zen master T 22:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't even say anything about fair use in my last post. A copyright allows its holder to control how and when it's sold. It is a violation to sell without authorization obviously, and Rowling could sue the stores if she really cared. But it's also against the law to have something that you don't own, like a book that was sold illegaly, due to copyright violations. If it's against the law to have it, it's clearly against the law to use it. This is exactly the same as a stolen car. You have no legal right to use a car that was stolen and sold to you, even if you know nothing about the theft. I don't see what you're disagreeing with me on. James 23:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not entirely true. Book owners may resell books how and when they please without regard to the copyright holder.  Some companies, especially the music industry, would like to see those rights curtailed, but the secondhand market is currently thriving.  The books in this case were not sold illegally, but in breach of contract, which is quite different from a stolen car.  T h e St ev e  02:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * We mentioned fair use to clear up the confusion surrounding the fact that the word "use" refers to subsequent copying, not to the uses of an individual legally obtained physical copy. IANAL, but my interpretation is that copyright law has no concept of "use", the law applies only to the subsequent copying and creation of derivative works. Copyright law applies at the earlier time when the publisher/printer prints each book by having an authorized deal with the copyright holder, the act of purchasing an individial physical book later on is covered under regular sales of tangible products/physical ownership transfer/theft laws. Book purchasers actually end up owning their individual physical copy of a book. Any mistake made in this case was done by the bookstore, not the customer. Are thieves who steal cars charged with copyright law violations? Are people that test drive cars before purchase charged with copyright violations? The copyright holder can not restrict "use" because that is outside the scope of copyright law, the only thing they can legally restrict, under copyright law, is unauthorized copying and derivative works. Copyright holders of books may be entitled to restitution for the premature sales of a book, but the store is the entity that seems to have violated copyright law (dubiously assuming time sale embargoing is a violation, it is actually just not adequately protecting ownership over all the individual physical copies). Time sales embargoing is not enforced through copyright law, it is just maintained by having and protecting physical ownership over all the individual physical copies. Someone that buys a car but later the sale is declared illegal is not liable for the milage put on that car if the problems with the sale weren't their fault. They can perhaps be asked to return the car, but that might mean physically driving it back to the dealership, which is use! In your view what exactly could someone be charged with if they know their book sale was declared illegal but they read it anyway? What case law is there that supports the concept of "use" under copyright law? zen master T 01:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * In the canadian case, there might be a trade secret component too. — David Remahl 08:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Under canadian law or just the fact that it was an errant early release? I am not a lawyer but the little I know about trade secrets requires you to do everything in your power to keep them a secret, an early errant book release hardly qualifies in my interpretation. Isn't there a concept in trade secret law that once the cat is out of the bag (for various reasons including lack of effort or impossibility of keeping it a secret) there can be no claim? I read an article a couple days ago about how betting was shut down way before the book was released on which character in HP6 would die, numerous folks from where the book was being printed in England were betting correctly with apparent foreknowledge, were those folks punished/fired? zen master T 08:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * From http://raincoast.com/harrypotter/injunction-commentary.html

In regards to the legal aspects of the injunction, Raincoast and Bloomsbury are the exclusive licensees of Harry Potter in English in Canada. Being the exclusive licensee means Raincoast is authorized, to the exclusion of all others, to distribute or disclose Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in Canada. Distribution or disclosure of the contents in advance of the on-sale date constituted a breach of the exclusive Canadian publication rights of Raincoast and Bloomsbury. It is also a breach of confidence. Breach of confidence is the conveyance of confidential information, the communication of confidential information and the misuse of confidential information. Due to the protection and embargo agreements signed worldwide to protect the contents of the book, Harry Potter was considered confidential information until July 16. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a breach of confidence applies to third party recipients of confidential information, even if innocent at the time of receipt. The Supreme Court of Canada has also established that gains such as “springboard” or “head start” through breach of confidence should not be permitted. This is why the injunction prevents early disclosure and reviews of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. T h e St ev e 00:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * To answer the question "How is the chapter by chapter summary an intellectual property rights violation", see Derivative work, which contains a paragraph from current US copyright law. While IANAL, I suspect that the courts would consider this detailed a plot summary to be a condensation, and thus covered under that paragraph. As for why I care, I'm a photographer. I am in the business of marketing my creative efforts, and copyright law is really what permits me to control (and collect for) the fruits of my labor. I'm in favor of fair use, but IMO this goes beyond anything contemplated in that section of the law. Ken 11:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Condensation" to me implies size is the metric so the fact that the full plot summary is organized by chapter does not prove it is a derivative work in my interpretation, though IANAL. In other words, if condensation applies it would be because the plot summary is too long overall, not because it is organized by chapter. Are you saying the chapter titles are protected, they are a summary already themselves? The full plot summarization seems to be less than 1/100th the size of book 6 and is not being sold. Doesn't copyright law require some "literal" or "verbatum" copying or at least copying the "art" of the original work? An encyclopedia article summarization simply reports the facts of what happened in the plot, some detail seems to be needed to cover all the connections in book 6 to the previous books and the overall story (which I don't see how that can be a derivative work). In your view, what is the max length for a summary and should it be proportional to the length of the work being summarized? Each HP book could easily be a 6 hour movie by itself if it included everything in the book. zen master T 12:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You need not copy anything litterally or verbatum to violate the law. For instance, if someone made a Harry Potter movie based on nothing but the summary on Wikipedia, it would definitely be a derivitive work, despite not even using the book as a direct source. James 14:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, I should mention that I don't consider book (or movie) summaries encyclopedic by themselves. IMO, there is no single work of literature that's worthy of that degree of recognition. A summary of a book may be encyclopedic as part of an article on the book it's a summary of, but not as a separate article. Encapsulated within an article on the book, two or three short paragraphs should be enough to summarize the book.

 * As for how the current plot summary would be a derivative work, I will admit I didn't read the whole thing. (I'm waiting for my neices and nephews to finish the book so I can borrow it. :-) However, I didn't see anything there beyond "This happened in the first chapter, and this in the second, and ..." That's the equivalent of the author's plot outline (assuming Rowling uses that tool), and is quite obviously derivative. Think about how it gets assembled. You read the first chapter and write down what happened. Then you read the second chapter, etc. Your work is derived directly from the author's work. Ken 19:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * IANAL, but this article found at FindLaw.com left very clear to me that Rowling has the advantage in a potential lawsuit:
 * The Copyright Act confers five separate exclusive rights to copyright owners of a literary work. Subject to certain limitations, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to: (1) reproduce the copyrighted work, (2) prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work, (3) distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public, (4) perform the copyrighted work publicly, and (5) display the copyrighted work publicly. Any or all of these rights may be subdivided in an almost infinite number of ways by format, language, territory, or term.
 * This is a derivative work, and the only defense that we have for it is by calling it fair use. Unfortunately, this does not constitute fair use. Wikipedia's own article on fair use reads that under US law, factors that affect whether a work constitutes fair use or not include:
 * 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * This article is being touted as a replacement for the book, with several Wikipedians stating that they want this article to stay because they don't want to purchase the book;
 * 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * The copyrighted work in this case is a best-selling book just released, which means that there still are substantial numbers that could read this and decide not to purchase the book;
 * 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
 * The fact that we have another summary for The Half-Blood Prince, which is shorter (and adequate) in length makes this page stand out like a sore thumb;
 * 4. and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 * Already discussed, some Wikipedians want to use the article as a replacement for the book.
 * Whether someone has the right to read a book is inconsequential. The fact that such a mess has happened in Canada just because a book was released for sale (which means that Rowling will still get revenue from those sales) should be just a warning that she will defend if there's a situation in which she will lose profits. --Titoxd 02:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree that this article is a derivative work, I don't see how an encyclopedia's non commercial plot summarization and overall story connection synopsis article can be. The length of this article is on the order of 1/100th the size of the book, and it does more than just summarize the book, it connects plot points to the previous books and future plot points that will need resolution. zen master T 15:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of votes...
I realize that to vote, on VfD in particular, it is usually required that you have an account and have contributed a significant amount to Wikipedia. I don't really have a problem with that.

However, I do think that the opinions of these voters should be considered. Remember: Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The process is not what is important: the output is. We, as editors of Wikipedia, are part of the process. The output, however, is evaluated by a much larger group of people: the readers. It seems to me that the small (comparatively to their numbers) amount of input we have received from the readers in this case is generally in favor of keeping the article.

I believe this fact needs to be considered in the tallying of the votes. — David Remahl 06:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * TBH, I do not see even votes to keep or delete. I suggest that once we figure out what is going on, probably resend this to VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page. The votes are all on Votes for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary, not here. I also haven't seen any votes removed, personally. Hermione1980 23:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there hasn't been. I was not expressing myself clearly. Sorry. There have been no improprieties, I was just pointing out that the admin that makes the decision weighs in the votes of new or anonymous users to some extent. — David Remahl 23:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. You're talking about discounting of votes, not removal of votes (I think — correct me if I'm wrong). Yeah, most admins will at least read through the votes from new or anonymous users, but it is up to their discretion as to whether or not to count them in the final tally, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hermione1980 23:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Not EVERYONE is going to read the book! I'm certainly not going to sit down and turn 600+ pages in a day just to hear what happens. Why should I be shut out because there's a few people out there who want to be control freaks and tell the rest of the world...'you can't read this...go buy the book'."

 * In other words, you're too lazy to read the actual book, so you feel you're entitled to have access to what amounts to an abriged version? No.  That's not how it works.  If you don't feel like reading the book/can't afford it/can't read/whatever, then you can ask a friend or wait for the movie.  Exploding Boy 23:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The abridgd vrsion unfrtnately does nt gve all aspcts of the stry and may evn ct out sm imprtnt prts, as evdncd hr. Do nt dprv urslf of n nchntng read. H.J.Potter 20:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought
Wikipedia contains countless articles on dozens of fictional universes. It is quite possible that out records of other franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, various animes) are even more comprehensive. I don't think this is a copyvio for two reasons:

 * 1) We are not quoting vast amounts. That's a real copyvio.
 * 2) We must take into consideration the size of the book in comparison to the size of the article. We have kept the article relatively easy-to-read and NPOV.

User:Merovingian (t) (c) 19:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel that your point 1 is mistaken, insofar as it concerns the reason to be concerned about a possible copyright violation here. There are several ways to violate an author's copyrights. One is, of course, to duplicate a significant portion of the author's work without permission, for uses not contemplated under Fair use. This is the one we usually mean when we refer to a copyright violation, and I agree that the article in question is in no danger of falling into that meaning. However, copyright law also typically grants protection against the creation of derivative works. (This article includes a relevant quote from the U.S.C.)
 * The contention of those who object to this article on copyright grounds (including me) is that this article is a derivative work under this section of the code. We believe that the plot of a book is an essential part of the total creation that is the book, and this detailed a recounting (per the SFWA, this plot summary is long enough to be a novelette) of that plot is thus a derivative work. Since Ms. Rowling (or her solicitors) are known to be zealous in their protection of the Harry Potter intellectual property, this obviously opens Wikipedia up to a potential large lawsuit. Ken 04:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Post-closing comments

 * I moved these comments here from the main page--which should not normally be edited after closing.

I disagree with this interpretation of the vote; however, please note that the content of the summary is preserved at Wikibooks: Harry Potter plots/Half-Blood_Prince. This mirrors the precedent of Atlas Shrugged, which also has book notes at Wikibooks.--Eloquence* 05:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with it and have undeleted the article for the time being. Normally I would not intervene, but it appears to me that most of the votes are to keep, so deletion seems outrageous. I suggest that we either accept a keep result or try some other method to settle the matter. Everyking 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon: Angela has now deleted the article again. Perhaps we will have to take it to VfU. Everyking 07:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you'd deleted it once and restored it twice before posting this note, it wasn't even clear whether you'd meant to undelete it. I saw no reason for the undeletion and there was nothing on WP:AN about the undeletion. Please note the page has already been transwikied to Wikibooks. Angela. 07:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * Did an admin actually count up the votes (what was the final tally)? It seems to me there are more keep votes here. zen master T 11:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the result of the vote was to delete, did the board decide to delete/transwikify instead? If the latter then "the result of this vote was to delete" is inaccurate...? zen master T 02:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but the vote going on at Votes for Undeletion shows a very clear consensus to keep it in Wikibooks (Angela is in the Board, so you could say that the Board said it). See Harry Potter plots/Half-Blood_Prince. No one is protesting that the article should not exist there, as far as I know. --Titoxd 20:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * My point is the closing admin claimed the vote result was for deletion which is false. The undeletion vote is invalid if the original vote was to keep it here. If the board is who decided to move it then that should be noted everywhere. My main question is by what basis/authority was it moved?  The vote here was actually to keep it here, if the board didn't decide anything then it should still be here! This is a breakdown in policy or a breakdown in not properly noting what is going on, this perpetuates an inaccurate historical record. Also, aren't charges of copyright infringement potential stronger if the plot summary is on a book repository site, as opposed to an encyclopedia site (more legal leeway for encyclopedias perhaps [not that it needs it but still])? zen master T 20:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, then take that up with the closing admin. Although I don't think you'll get too far with it: I don't know by what authority it was removed, but what I do know is that it followed policy, it went through VfU, the process to correct arbitrary deletions (which is what you're claiming) and it was agreed with a large consensus that it should stay deleted. In fact, since no one really protested to the soft redirect, the VfU vote was closed and deleted just a few minutes ago. The article was deleted, so it fell under VfU jurisdiction, making the vote valid. As for the copyright charges, yes, the offending material still survives, but the likelihood of it being the cause of a lawsuit is lower, because Wikibooks is nowhere as visible as Wikipedia, which ranks consistently in the top 100 in Alexa ratings. And as far as I know, there's no expanded leeway for encyclopedia, a copyvio is still a copyvio in an encyclopedia...
 * P.S: It's nice to see someone this passionate about an article... that's not seen very often. --Titoxd 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Apparently no anti-delete editors were aware of the vote for undeletion. Was some effort made to contact editors that voted do not delete in the original vote?  The original vote was actually to keep I believe (I have not actually tallied the votes, but I assume it is close). I am shocked wikipedia allows such vote result obfuscation to exist. How did the deletion follow policy if the original vote was to keep it? By which exact logical argument was it not acceptable inside wikipedia? zen master T 21:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Apparently by the fact that the third comment in this section says "perhaps we will take it to VfU" (and these comments were on the main deletion page before they were moved here). If you're tallying up the votes, are you taking into account the vast amount of sock-puppeting that was involved in the vote? Many of the votes should be discounted because they came either from Harry-lovers or Harry-haters that made an account just to vote here. If the deletion didn't follow policy, that's what VfU is for, and if it was decided that it should stay deleted, well, it stays deleted. You can always open another Vote for Undeletion, if you want, but I doubt it will get far, since most people were happy with it staying in Wikibooks. What logical argument was followed? Wikipedia is not a place for detailed book summaries. Wikibooks was made for that purpose. Follow the link above and you'll see the classification/inter-wiki-ing scheme that is being used. --Titoxd 21:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems to me that the purpose of Wikibooks is to have complete copies of publically available books, not summaries that also additionally tie the overall HP series togther. If the article was initially deleted because someone determined it violates policy then THAT exact reasoning should be noted, it should NOT inaccurately be claimed that the vote result itself supported deletion. Instead of assuming the vote result why don't we both actually tally it up (removing sockpuppets of course)? Aren't vote results normally counted up and posted at the top? I don't understand how something can be taken to VfU if it doesn't first legitimately pass through VfD?  Again, why weren't editors informed of the VfU as obviously many more people voted in the VfD (that should tell you something)? zen master T 21:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, complete copies of books (and others) are the purpose of Wikisource, not Wikibooks. At least that's the reasoning in the VfU vote. If this whole issue can be fixed by changing "The result of the vote was to delete" to "The result of the vote was to transwiki", then that can be done. As for tallying it up, it can be done, and while it's not policy to post results at the top, that can be done also.
 * VfU is design to catch mistakes in VfD. If this page wasn't legitimately deleted in VfD, then VfU is supposed to fix that. If it wasn't undeleted in VfU, then that means in all likelihood that it was treated properly. As for notifying users, it isn't written anywhere that users voting in a VfD should be notified of a VfU. It is assumed that if a nomination is too controversial, people will follow it. But even then, in this case, they was a notification, when a mention of VfU was placed at the top. While more people did vote in VfD, the crowd at VfU was different, and in a way, uninvolved in the VfD vote, making a new debate. Anyways, if you decide that a new VfU is warranted, do so, and warn editors if you want. But my question is: what is the problem with it being transwikied? Why does it have to be in Wikipedia, if it was sent to a more appropriate sister project? --Titoxd 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Because the vote here was actually to keep it, not to delete or transwiki it. A majority of editors disagreed with both arguments that the summary is a copyright violation and/or should be moved to wikibooks, how was the move justified then? Shouldn't the argument to move it make sense in some way, either under copyright law or under wikipedia policies? If something makes sense then it should make sense in the light of day, but no one is fully explaining it, it seems like obfuscation is going on here. Doesn't a vote with a larger number of editors carry more weight that a vote with a smaller number of editors, the do not delete consensus from the original vote is stronger than the delete vote in the VfU?  But most importantly why the mislabeled closing of the vote as "delete" (or even "transwiki") both of which would be an inaccurate description of this vote?  Isn't one tenet of voting the concept that each editor's vote will be officially counted? Can you understand why some editors might be concerned by this? zen master T 22:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I don't understand why some editors are concerned with this. One thing is to worry about process, and another one is to worry about results. The result is that the material is still available (to the disgust of the pro-delete crowd), just not in Wikipedia (to the disgust of the anti-delete crowd). Doesn't that sound more like a compromise than anything else? In any case, the VfU vote will always supercede the VfD discussion, because VfU is an appelate court for VfD, if you want to call it that. The fact that VfD has more votes doesn't mean that the vote is more valid, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. As far as I know, no one protested a transwiki-ing, everyone just ignored it. And stop with the conspiracy theories and assume good faith on part of the admins and pro-deleters, . If you are so offended by this, just post it in VfU again! It's the third time I've said this. --Titoxd 22:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "Results"? A compromise usually means both sides agree to it, rather than a handful of editors simply impose it upon everyone else without explanation. Is it possible everyone ignored the vote because they thought the result of the original vote was to keep the article here? I commented on the error of the vote tally as soon after I noticed it a few days ago, no one responded to my complaint until the day the VfU closed, shouldn't people have referred me to the VfU back then? A second VfU is an inaccurate course of action to take if the initial VfD was not concluded or closed properly. How does 53 keep here votes support transwiki-ing? I assume good faith, but I also point out evidence to the contrary, namely the apparent disregard for 53 do not delete votes, a 70% majority. If Wikipedia is not a democracy and/or not pro-consensus then what is the point of the VfD process?  zen master T 23:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you decide to pursue it, a second VfU IS an appropriate course of action, given that VfU is there when there are accusations of a VfD not being closed properly or consensus being ignored or any other unilateral or arbitrary action.
 * It seems you misunderstood what I said. Wikipedia is not a democracy, meaning that administrators are given leeway in making decisions and are not bound by numeric voting. Admins don't usually go against votes, but when they do, VfU is there for that. If you read the VfU discussion, you'll see that both sides did agree to it. --Titoxd 23:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If a small number of admins can go against VfD voting what is to stop them from going against VfU voting? When admins do go against voting shouldn't they usually explain their rationalization, rather than merely refer people to the VfU page? I read the VfU page and I see no compromise here, the vast majority of editors voted to keep the article on VfD originally, their voices were not adequately represented on the VfU page. Can we set a precedent for the future that if someone inquires on a talk page about an improperly closed vote they will be referred to the VfU page before the last day of voting from now on? And perhaps in the future everyone that voted initially will be notified of a second/VfU vote too? Perhaps we should additionally clarify the vote closing process because it's unclear how VfU is applicable when the will of the people is denied through an improperly tabulated/closed VfD vote result. zen master T 00:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * A VfU vote is not going to be "ignored", because going against it is usually grounds for a Request for Comments. If you think that the voices of the anti-delete crowd wasn't heard, say so in a new VfU. But I read it too, and I also did a rough tabulation of the votes in the VfD, and the majority voted Condense and merge. The amount of users that adamantly refused any type of modification was smaller than those who wanted the article nuked.
 * The procedure is very clear. In any case where a deletion is disputed, it should be brought up in Votes for Undeletion. If the will of the people was ignored, why no one else is complaining? And is there a problem with it being in Wikibooks and having a soft redirect, instead of it being in Wikipedia? That you haven't answered.
 * As for the precedents, I agree that there is need for a precedent, but here isn't the place to do it. Mention these concerns in the VfU talk page, in the VfD talk page, and anywhere else you think may be pertinent. I'll say that it is a good idea to put a notice (maybe a template) on VfD vote pages that are currently up in VfU for the future. --Titoxd 01:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, 53 keeps to 22 deletes (only "Votes made logged in" section) is grounds to delete? What is this crazy definition of "consensus" that calls less than 30% a consensus?? Cburnett 22:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm willing to let this go, after reading the above, it seems like a failure to protest (either here or on a VfU) is being interpreted as consent, so, for the record -- I believe that it's okay for an admin to disregard voting, but when they do so, they need to explain that in their reasoning when they close it out, and not claim a consensus to delete or transwiki when none existed. Even among established users there was a majority to keep. And usually there needs to be an overwhelming majority to delete a page. If its a close call, it doesn't get deleted. I don't have a problem with people making mistakes, but I don't want mistakes to be interpreted as precedent. --Arcadian 01:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * In order to prevent stuff like this happening again, I've made a proposal that places a VfU notification in the VfD subpage (so those who were following the debate can see it on their watchlist) once debate starts at VfU. Look over it, and comment there also. --Titoxd 02:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki contrary to stated argument for deletion
It seems I am here a litle late. However, my contribution. As stated by others it would appear that the majority vote was to keep. Ok, maybe some of these were invalid votes, but I have not seen any justification of which were allowed and which ignored. More to my point, I find that the action taken contradicts the main argument made by many contributors. It was claimed that the articles represent a copyright violation. If this is accepted, then it can not go on any wiki. If it is not accepted, then I would assume that any vote made to delete using these grounds should not be counted. I think this would then have left a majority to keep. I do not see how you could make a decision to transwiki on the grounds that it is a copyvio???

Now, it has been argued that the articles have found a new home on wikibooks. This is not true. The articles as transferred were acceptable to wikibooks on grounds of copyright, but unacceptable on grounds of content. There has been a long discussion there about this. They regard the articles as encyclopedic, and unsuitable for wikibooks. They also have a policy of not accpeting half of a project, the remainder of which is elsewhere. The book has only been accepted provisionally, on the grounds that it will be radically altered. If it were so altered, then it would inevitably subsume and supercede all the HP articles currently on 'pedia. Which of course gives rise to their concern that they do not host encyclopedias, and do not host half projects. I have posted a couple of character write-ups there just to see what would happen. Nothing. It has potential to become an analysis book, but it was and still is in reality an appendix to the articles here. Sandpiper 15:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The full plot summary should be moved back to wikipedia if there are issues on wikibooks. The full plot summary is not a copyright vio (in my non lawyer opinion) and it is encyclopedic and noteworthy and the original vote here was clearly to keep it here. zen master T 16:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teri Krebs

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Teri Krebs
speedied Fawcett5 03:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC) vanity Bayyoc 20:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. --Several Times 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, we have a new WP:CSD allowing deletion of articles which make no assertion of the subject's notability. These don't need to come to VfD any more. -Splash 22:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathma

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

The result of the debate was merge into Diablo II and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rathma
gamecruft Kertrats 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Nothing wrong with it, needs to be expanded and formatted. If it can't be expanded then it should go alfrin 20:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Diablo 2 or Character classes in Diablo 2 or somesuch. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 21:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge I suppose. My characters a necro, though, and I didn't know what the article said, so for once I've learnt something from some gamecruft. Now, I must go and write my Wikipedia article about my character. -Splash 22:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Gamecruft is tolerable as long as the title does not conflict with a non-fictional subject or otherwise create confusion. If Rathma meant something outside of Diablo then I'd be more skeptical of this article, but that does not seem to be the case. -Buuneko 00:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathma


text:
Chair of Saint Peter

The Chair of Saint Peter (Cathedra Petri), also known as the Throne of Saint Peter, is a relic conserved in St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, the sovereign enclave of the Pope inside Rome, Italy. The relic is a wooden throne that tradition claims belonged to the Apostle Saint Peter, the leader of the Early Christians in Rome and first Pope, and which he used as Bishop of Rome. The relic is enclosed in a sculpted gilt bronze casing designed by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and constructed between 1647 and 1653. In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI described the chair as "a symbol of the special mission of Peter and his Successors to tend Christ's flock, keeping it united in faith and in charity."

The wooden throne was a gift from Emperor of the Romans Charles the Bald to Pope John VIII in 875. It has been studied many times over the years, most recently between 1968 and 1974, when it was last removed from the Bernini altar. The study concluded that it was not a double, but a single chair, with a covering, and that the oldest parts are from the 6th century. The Chair of Saint Peter is the second altar within the church with the first one being the one under the baldacchino. It stands to remind visitors of the Catholic Church's authority.

Description
The relic itself is described as an oaken chair damaged by cuts and worms. The chair has metal rings attached to each side, allowing use as a sedia gestatoria. The back and front of the chair are trimmed with carved ivory. This description comes from 1867, when the relic was photographed and displayed for veneration.

The reliquary, like many of the medieval period, takes the form of the relic it protects, i.e. the form of a chair. Symbolically, the chair Bernini designed had no earthly counterpart in actual contemporary furnishings. It is formed entirely of scrolling members, enclosing a coved panel where the upholstery pattern is rendered as a low relief of Christ instructing Peter to tend to his sheep. Large angelic figures flank an openwork panel beneath a highly realistic bronze seat cushion, vividly empty: the relic is encased within.

The cathedra is lofted on splayed scrolling bars that appear to be effortlessly supported by four over-lifesize bronze Doctors of the Church: Western doctors Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine of Hippo on the outsides, wearing miters, and Eastern doctors Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Athanasius on the insides, both bare-headed. The cathedra appears to hover over the altar in the basilica's apse, lit by a central tinted window through which light streams, illuminating the gilded glory of sunrays and sculpted clouds that surrounds the window. Like Bernini's Ecstasy of Saint Theresa, this is a definitive fusion of the Baroque arts, unifying sculpture and richly polychrome architecture and manipulating effects of light.

Above, on the golden background of the frieze, is the Latin inscription: "O Pastor Ecclesiae, tu omnes Christi pascis agnos et oves" ('O Shepherd of the Church, you feed all Christ's lambs and sheep'). On the right is the same writing in Greek, "ΣΥ ΒΟΣΚΕΙΣ ΤΑ ΑΡΝΙΑ, ΣΥ ΠΟΙΜΑΙΝΕΙΣ ΤΑ ΠΡΟΒΑΤΙΑ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ". Behind the altar is placed Bernini's monument enclosing the wooden chair, both of which are seen as symbolic of the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ and successor of Saint Peter.

Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter
Early martyrologies indicate that two liturgical feasts were celebrated in Rome, centuries before the time of Charles the Bald, in honour of earlier chairs associated with Saint Peter, one of which was kept in the baptismal chapel of Old St. Peter's Basilica, the other at the catacomb of Priscilla. The dates of these celebrations were January 18 and February 22. No surviving chair has been identified with either of these chairs. The feasts thus became associated with an abstract understanding of the "Chair of Peter", which by synecdoche signifies the episcopal office of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, an office considered to have been first held by Saint Peter, and thus extended to the diocese, the See of Rome.

According to historian Anton de Waal, although both feasts were originally associated with Saint Peter's stay in Rome, the ninth-century form of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum associated the January 18 feast with his stay in Rome, and the February 22 feast with his stay at Antioch. The two feasts were included in the Tridentine calendar with the rank of Double, which Pope Clement VIII raised in 1604 to the newly invented rank of Greater Double.

In 1960 Pope John XXIII deleted the January 18 feast from the General Roman Calendar, along with seven other feast days that were duplicate feasts of a single saint or mystery. The February 22 celebration became a Second-Class Feast. This calendar was incorporated in the 1962 Roman Missal of Pope John XXIII, whose continued use Pope Benedict XVI authorized under the conditions indicated in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Traditionalist Catholics who use older calendars continue to celebrate both feast days: Saint Peter's Chair at Rome on January 18 and the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch on February 22.

In the new classification of holy days introduced in 1969, the February 22 celebration has the rank of Feast.

title: Chair of Saint Peter


text:
User talk:Hookinmouth

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) 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! -- Ragib 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

title: User talk:Hookinmouth


text:
User talk:Henrywei

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) 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! -- Ragib 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

AfD nomination of Ethan Drogin
I have nominated Ethan Drogin, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Ethan Drogin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. MrShamrock (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created: Ethan Drogin  may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Ethan Drogin .

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted Findsources3:
 * Find sources for Ethan Drogin : google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 * 1) List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2) You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 3) When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
 * 4) You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ethan Drogin

A tag has been placed on Ethan Drogin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Fiddle  Faddle  16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Dysphexia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dysphexia 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/Dysphexia 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. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Henrywei


text:
WWF SmackDown! 2: Know Your Role

'WWF SmackDown! 2: Know Your Role', known in Japan as Exciting Pro Wrestling 2 (エキサイティングプロレス2), is a professional wrestling video game developed by Yuke's released in November 2000 on the PlayStation by THQ. It is the sequel to WWF SmackDown!, and the second game in the SmackDown series, itself based on the World Wrestling Federation (WWF, now WWE) professional wrestling promotion.

Know Your Role achieved commercial success, becoming the best-selling combat sports game on a single format (PlayStation) with 3.2 million units sold. The game was succeeded by WWF SmackDown! Just Bring It in November 2001.

Gameplay
The Season Mode was heavily modified in this game. Along with removing the pre-season mode that was included in the original, Know Your Role gave more storylines and more matches per show. These changes were given a mixed reaction by fans and critics alike. Wrestlers, wrestling moves, and arenas are unlocked as the player progresses through a season. The Season Mode has multiplayer support, with up to four players playing at once in a Season. Wrestlers such as Shawn Michaels, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Billy Gunn, Mick Foley (including Cactus Jack) and Debra are unlockable characters.

This is also Michael Cole's second appearance as an unlockable character, with his first appearance being in WWF No Mercy. This would be Cole's last appearance as a playable character until WWE '12, where he was included as DLC.

Big Show and Ken Shamrock were initially playable in the game, but they were both removed before release. Big Show had been removed from the promotion's main roster and was sent to Ohio Valley Wrestling, while Shamrock left professional wrestling to return to mixed martial arts competition. Despite this, both characters have been known to randomly appear during a Royal Rumble match (which the player can take control of) and can be used in other modes via a GameShark code, although their names and select screen images were removed.

''WWF SmackDown! 2: Know Your Role was the first game in the SmackDown'' series which introduced the advanced Create-A-Superstar, allowing the player to create a character in greater detail as opposed to just choosing preset mix-and-match templates like the previous game. A unique feature was also included in which players are allowed to assign managers such as Paul Bearer and Tori to different superstars. In addition, more features were added such as Create-A-Moveset, Create-A-Taunt, and Create-A-Stable which allowed up to 4 members.

Reception
The game received "universal acclaim" according to video game review aggregator Metacritic. Daniel Erickson of NextGen commended tons of options and multiplayer matches, but was critical to the game's Story mode. In Japan, Famitsu gave it a score of 30 out of 40.

Star Dingo of GamePro praised the selection of wrestlers, matches and new options in the game, such as Anywhere Fall mode, but considered Season mode "tiresome". In another GamePro review, Lamchop commended gameplay, controls, and graphics, but was critical to the Story mode and noted the lack of commentary and wrestler voices. The reviewer called it the best wrestling title for the PlayStation.

The game received a "Platinum" sales award from the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA), indicating sales of at least 300,000 units in the UK.

The game was nominated for the "Best Sports Game (Alternative)" award at GameSpot's Best and Worst of 2000 Awards, which went to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2. It was also a runner-up for the "Best Extreme Sports Game" and "Best Multiplayer Game" awards at the Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine 2000 Editors' Awards, both of which went to SSX and TimeSplitters. The game won the award for Action in Readers' Choice at IGN's Best of 2000 Awards.

title: WWF SmackDown! 2: Know Your Role


text:
User:AaronSw/Idioms

See also: List of snowclones

 * We control the horizontal. We control the vertical.
 * The Outer Limits
 * How The Other Half Lives
 * Jacob Riis book

Nixonland:

 * The students marched to the president's house to begin their student strike. They named their group after Fonda's new movie: "They Shoot Students, Don't They?"

Will the last person to leave X please turn out the lights?

title: User:AaronSw/Idioms


text:
Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Talk3

Note: A moderated "consensus version" of the article is at Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated. The rules there are: Discuss this proposal on the Mediation page. Uncle Ed 15:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Anyone may take out anything they disagree with - provided they discuss it.
 * 2) Nobody is allowed to "revert" a text move. (this is the zero-RR)

 * Actually, the "moderated" thing never bore any fruit. But it developed insights, which we shall now all apply. Uncle Ed 13:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over pool
Cut from into:

 * It also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident.

During the Mediation, one or more people said that this sentence was a problem. Uncle Ed 13:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ben said so, but it's better than the inaccurate line "The Act promises taxpayer-backed indemnity for extraordinary nuclear incidents while providing for limited compensation to victims". Simesa 00:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Text Move - Chernobyl
However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less     — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them. ]

We (ie the mediator and i) agreed that this statement is a disputed assertion - which cannot be stated without identifying the source. Benjamin Gatti

Simesa, Since we had already agreed on a paragraph which conveys this info - let's put it here in a final form, and perhaps have Ed move it onto the main page. Benjamin Gatti

 * I gave you four sources and an NRC source in  The line "However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less" is correct, as are the reasons " the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them."  If you can find better wording for that, I'll look at it. Simesa 19:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "Many nuclear physicists hope and pray that a nuclear accident in the United would have less impact that chernobly, however, the industry remains unwilling to accept the risk." Benjamin Gatti

 * If that is what you call a serious response, then I insist on the original wording. Simesa 23:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there might be a touch of irreverence in that - i really ony meant the form. Perhaps "Due to differences in design and the presence of containment buildings, many nuclear physicists maintain that the meltdown at chernobly and its widespread aftermath are unlikely to be repeated in the United States; however, the potential for a serious incident remains high enough that the industry is unwilling to accept full liaility. Benjamin Gatti

 * You are repeating things already said to again push your pov. A more accurate statement is:
 * "However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes that a similar event in non-Soviet reactors would likely have smaller consequences due to safer reactor designs and the presence of containment buildings."
 * 09:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well that is certainly better. The phrase "a similar event" is disturbing to me from a factual standpoint. Since US reactors don't use the Graphite Moderator/ water cooled strategy - exactly "What Happened" at chernobyl realistically couldn't happen in a different design. There are however (I presume) events which could involve the conversion of the available fuel into heat in a finite space of time as well as siesmic and malicious incidents. The point that I intend to see represented is that the industry itself is the "lucy goosey" saying the sky is falling etc. That it's not just a bunch of naive schitzos who think nuclear energy is too dangerous to accept the risk/benefit - but that the industry itself, with surely the most informed persons in their employ - concludes that the level of risk is unacceptable and continues to offer a less than market rate return on risk. Benjamin Gatti

 * As long as that viewpoint is backed up by cites, and noot just your pov. Simesa 09:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed " [ A catastrophic nuclear event — such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident — would arguably deplete and likely exceed the current pool of money. Though the Soviet Union never released official estimates of the accident's economic impact, Greenpeace International estimated it to have been about $280 billion, not including medical costs for victims." pending resolution of Chernobyl phrases. Simesa 09:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Text move from intro (DOE subsidy)
The Department of Energy has described it as a subsidy for investors.

 * This is strictly true, but not fair in the way in which it was presented in the intro. The intro already reads that the law has been criticized as a handout to the industry; we don't need to pile on in the intro.  This can be (and I believe is) mentioned elsewhere in the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Intro text move: "reduces"
reduces

 * To say that the law "reduces" the insurance required to be carried by the industry is not strictly correct, because it implies that before the law there were other specific standards for the industry that were greater. I don't think this is correct.  I believe the correct verb should be limits. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Shifts ... to the U.S. taxpayer" is also not correct, as it implies that there was a nuclear insurance industry pre-PAA. I have replaced it with "limits." · Katefan0(scribble) 17:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly liability laws existed before Price - under such, corporations would be liable for the harm they caused others - Price shifts this burden from the corp to the taxpayer - its straight up factual. Benjamin Gatti
 * None that strictly applied to the nuclear industry. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Or that applied stricktly to the haircut and stormdoor industry - or to a hundred other "industries". Industrial Liability is a fairly general concept for a good reason and that is that it treats everyone the same (kind of a tenant of our constitution). "Special rules for special "industries" often have the effect of picking winners - particularly when it applies to sub-industries (Energy is an industry - Fussion is a sub.) Why does that matter? Because fusion competes with others in the energy industry - but with special advantages handed out by a bribed congress. Benjamin Gatti
 * Regardless, if there were no laws that strictly applied to the nuclear industry, and then Congress enacted one for the first time, it's not accurate to say that law "reduced" liability for that industry since specific statute didn't exist beforehand. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

There were laws. They applied to the nuclear industry. And they were strict. Perhaps you mean "Exclusively"? Very few laws do that. Benjamin Gatti
 * Other non-industry-specific indemnity laws, you mean? Can you point me to some information on what the differences are? · Katefan0(scribble) 20:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think other non-industry-specific liability laws are what you are looking for. Every state has their own, and they say roughly that if you harm someone you have to put them back in the condition they werein before you harmed tham. In addition punative damages cover gross negligence (think McDonalds and Coffee), plus pain and suffering, and treble damages for organized lawbreaking. Benjamin Gatti

Intro text move: "criminally negligent"
even if the reactor operator is crimminally negligent

 * This information is strictly correct, but I don't think it's entirely fair to include it in the intro. This isn't an enormous part of the law, it's one provision among many, and I dont' think it rises to the level of importance as the liability caps or public idemnification the law created (or the general criticism even).  In my opinion, to include it in the intro is basically just a subtle way of asserting a POV. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

And to remove it having admitted to it's being factual is a subtle way of censoring a POV. NPOV is neither an affirmation nor a censoring of a substantial POV. Benjamin Gatti
 * It's not censorship -- the information is mentioned later in the article. But including it in the intro elevates it to a position that isn't warranted, and tends to make the intro biased. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I really wish we could stop the "buzzwords". Chernobyl, censorship and Holocaust. Just because things are removed that don't belong in the INTRO isn't "censorship". The intro will lack some facts because...it's an intro. it's not the meat of the article. --Woohookitty 00:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Again I would argue that it is an enormously important part of the Act - if you don't "get that" then you're probably not a heavy investor in the business. The risk of bad actors plagues every investment of every size - look at Enron, Worldcom etc - having the government step in an say - ah - this investment shall be freed of that risk - is enormous. Now I want to build a wind turbine, i have to concern myself with not hiring crooks to do the project accounting - but if i operate a nuclear facility - i could hire the Taliban to run the place - and wouldn't be financially accountable for the result. That's pretty freaking enormous if you ask the victims. Benjamin Gatti

 * Moved:  regardless of fault or negligence -- exact same meaning. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is an item of some dispute. There are those who, clearly, would say that having the criminal negligence clause is necessary. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I assure you that the industry found it was necessary to include it in the BBill and lobbyied long and hard for the language they felt was necessary. I would suggest that our article ought to faithfully inform both industry and potwntial victims of the unique legal framework which the act imposes. Benjamin Gatti

For Ed -- I object (gaming the system)
I made a text move of Benjamin's earlier addition of information saying "even if the reactor operator is crimminally negligent". One of your rules for mediation was not to revert a text move. Benjamin didn't revert, but he did re-add information that conveys the same message: "regardless of fault or negligence". I object to this and would like to bring it to Ed's attention. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest blandly that a sentence which includes the word "criminal" cannot pretend to compare with a sentence which does not. Surely the most objectional word in the phrase you "text moved" has not been reinserted. If you still object (which perhaps you do) By all means move the new phrase and discuss it. I would remind you that "Criminally Negligent" are Ed's words. I support him on his excellent choice. Benjamin Gatti

Archiving
I did a third archive. Everything here is "post moderated" if that makes sense. --Woohookitty 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Note for Ed
Simesa mentioned this on the moderated talk but just so its here too...the article should be reprotected when Ed leaves for a week or else chaos will ensue, I assure you. :) "Inmates running the asylum" is a good term for it. --Woohookitty 00:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

New rules
Let's not be hasty and start accusing each other of things like:
 * over-zealously applying text moves.
 * gaming the system

It takes a while to get used to the new rules. We might want to adopt a convention which says that when A moves some text which B wrote (or otherwise approves), then B is not allowed to replace it with something similar. Rather, A and B both should agree on a formulation which satisfies them both.

And maybe even C should be the one to replace the mutually acceptable version.

Try to work it out. Aim for unbiased text which does not take sides but which describes both sides. Uncle Ed 01:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I stand by my original statement. Do you disagree that those kinds of edits are counter to the text move rules you established?  I ask not to be obstreperous but to have a clear ruling on how exactly we are to interpret your rules.  Is it considered a "revert" of a text move if we reword a sentence to use different words that convey the same meaning of a disputed item that was moved prior? · Katefan0(scribble) 02:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * My only problem is...as we've said before...this article is already mostly criticism. So we're walking a fine line here. The language that Ben wants is going to have to not sound like criticisms of Price-Anderson. Otherwise, we're going to take a tilted article and make it into a near diatribe. I wish myself that we would ban the buzzwords I mentioned earlier because they don't get us anywhere. They are just derisive and dividing. --Woohookitty 02:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Answering Katefan's question: the guidelines I suggested are intended to get editors to cooperate. Instead of going back and forth in the article until one side gives up from sheer exhaustion - work it out on the talk page. Find a way of discussing the disputed point which both sides can agree on.

This frequently means describing the disagreement. Here are several examples, all non-nuclear:
 * China regards Taiwan as a breakaway province, while many in the United States regard it as an independent country.
 * Some Americans think abortion is a woman's right, a decision entirely between her and her doctor. Others think that during its gestation the fetus is already a human being, so that killing it is tantamount to homicide.
 * Until the 17th century, natural philosophers believed that the Sun revolved around an immobile Earth. Galileo revived the idea that the Earth and other planets each revolve around the Sun.
 * A doctor in late-nineteenth-century Vienna got the idea that an invisible substance carried on one's hands was lethal to women giving birth. He insisted that physicians wash their hands thoroughly after conducting autopsies - instead of just wiping their hands on a cloth. The other doctors obeyed but resented this. They dismissed the first doctor's claims that the hand-washing practice was saving women's lives. (Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur followed this up with the germ theory of disease - think of Listerine mouthwash and pasteurization of milk.)
 * Some people think "cults" brainwash recruits. Others think that new members undergo a genuine religious conversion.
 * Some Americans think that Bush was right to invade Iraq. They believe his description of Iraq as a dictatorship and of Saddam as a cruel tyrant capable of using poison gas or other WMD for aggressive military purposes. Others think that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. They variously regard reducing tyranny in a sovereign as none of America's business; or Saddam as less tyrannical or threatening as Bush thought. In particular, they point to the failure of US forces to discovery enough WMD to justify a pre-emptive invasion.

All of the above is, I believe, perfectly balanced and neutral. You should not even be able to tell which "side" (if any) the writer himself (hi! that would be me ;-) advocates, merely by reading the text. See also Writing for the enemy.

Now I'm going on vacation till August 1st. Please find a way to cooperate on writing a neutral yet comprehensive article.


text:
User:Pmanderson/Munchkin

Ultramarine does not Play Well with Others. My experience with him has been almost entirely on [Democratic peace theory]]; and may be seen at some length on its [Talk:Democratic peace theory|talk page]]. When I first edited the article, it had an NPOV tag; ; and consideration of the version from which Ultramarine proposed to remove it may show why. It is this:

Ultramarine has written a polemic in favor of one version of DPT, as presented by a certain Prof. Rummel, who has a website. He has shown very little evidence that he knows anything more about DPT than the website has taught him; and it is itself an argument for Rummel's PoV and an advertisement for his books (which it is perfectly entitled to do). Ultramarine is prepared to advance any argument for Rummellism.

Ultramarine edits are persistently PoV. See comments by User:Mel Etitis, User:Michael Hardy, and User:Corax on Talk:Democratic peace theory.

I attempted to add fair and comprehensible statements of the criticisms of Rummellism. Ultramarine reverted them persistently. I requested help from Mediation, and from Mel Etitis as a third party. Mel's comments are here: [] He also asked for an RfC on the edit war, for which I thank him

When Ultramarine does not edit out a criticism of Rummel, he sandwiches it between defences. I attempted to clarify the structure, whereupon Ultramarine accused me of deletions, falsely.(See this diff, for example . Much has been moved around; no massive deletions. Compare Ultramarine's deletions from the criticism section here and its eventual removal. )   I called a survey on the structure. (See [] and [] All the comments disliked his structure (one also disliked mine) but he continues to revert to it.

He has repeatedly removed dispute tags (he once removed an accuracy dispute tag in the same edit in which he alleged factual inaccuracy )

title: User:Pmanderson/Munchkin


text:
Kuna Caves

Kuna Caves are lava tubes found south of Kuna, Idaho. There is currently one publicly known entrance to the cave, an opening in the ground with a caged ladder leading down into the cave.

Background
The caves are about 50 ft deep and run about a quarter mile north and around 1000 ft south from the entrance. The southern portion of the cave requires you to crawl through a trench dug out of the clay floor of the cave leading to a small space approximately 4 ft long by 3 ft wide by 3 ft high in which you can turn around to return to the main cavern.

Though according to locals, at one time the system had been much larger and was composed of multiple caves, even stretching to the Snake River, before the United States Army Corps of Engineers blocked it off by detonating dynamite collapsing a portion of the cave. A logbook was placed deep in the North end of the cave for people to sign in 2018. Although the entrance has a ladder to get down into the cavern, it is not maintained. The short road leading to the cave is unmaintained, often very muddy, and the cave itself is littered with trash and graffiti. The interior temperature of the cave hovers around 56 °F year round.

The official Bureau of Land Management stance on the cave is that it should not be visited by the general public.

title: Kuna Caves


text:
Pakistan Muslim League (Z)

Pakistan Muslim League (Zia), informally referred to as the Zia League, is an Islamist right-wing political party in Pakistan. Named after Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the sixth president of Pakistan, the party is headquartered in Bahawalnagar.

The party was founded in 2002 by Zia's son Muhammad Ijaz-ul-Haq. With the 2002 general elections, Ijaz won his National Assembly seat and merged with the Pervez Musharraf-endorsed Pakistan Muslim League (Q). It gained the federal religious affairs ministry under Haq. After PML-Q was routed following the general elections of 2008, PML-Z separated from the larger party in February 2010.

In March 2010, PML-Zia successfully contested by-elections held in Bahawalnagar for Member of the Punjab Provincial Assembly, upsetting the Pakistan Peoples Party. During the 2010 Pakistan floods, the party also came to national attention for distributing relief goods worth millions of rupees in Southern Punjab.

On October 9, 2011, PML-Zia became the only party to support the PML-N's threat to dissolve the Punjab Assembly and pre-empt the PPP's expected victory in the 2012 Senate elections. In the general elections in 2013, PML-Z contested two seats and won again from NA-191 Bahawalnagar in the National Assembly, and two seats in the Punjab Assembly. Haq's constituency NA-191 recorded the highest voter turnout in the country for 2013.

On 19 March 2023, party leader Ijaz-ul-Haq along with his party members, joined PTI after meeting with Imran Khan. The PML(Z) was also merged into PTI. It was later on 29 May, that he denied the rumours of PML-Z getting merged into PTI.

title: Pakistan Muslim League (Z)


text:
Talk:Autotrader EchoPark Automotive 400

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://the506.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1232064927
 * In Emory Healthcare 500 on 2011-03-18 05:03:29, 404 Not Found
 * In First Union 400 on 2011-03-19 07:15:14, 404 Not Found
 * In Food City 500 on 2011-03-19 09:10:18, 404 Not Found
 * In Gatorade Duel on 2011-03-19 19:16:04, 404 Not Found
 * In Gillette Fusion ProGlide 500 on 2011-03-22 06:04:32, 404 Not Found
 * In Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500 on 2011-03-22 09:39:48, 404 Not Found
 * In Greenville-Pickens Speedway on 2011-03-22 13:29:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 5-hour Energy 500 on 2011-06-19 14:21:50, 404 Not Found
 * In AAA 400 on 2011-06-19 22:29:23, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AAA Texas 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223185252/http://the506.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1232064927 to http://the506.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1232064927

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Autotrader EchoPark Automotive 400


text:
Pakistan Muslim League (J)

The Pakistan Muslim League (J) (Urdu: پاکستان مسلم لیگ ج) is a political party in Pakistan established in 1988.

It is one of the factions of the original Pakistan Muslim League, named "J" after Muhammad Khan Junejo. It was created in 1986 as the sole Pakistan Muslim League when Muhammad Khan Junejo was the Prime Minister of Pakistan under President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. In September 1988, the party formed an alliance called Islami Jamhoori Ittehad with Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi's National Peoples Party, and Qazi Hussain Ahmed's Jamaat-e-Islami against Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party for the 1988 general elections. During that time Nawaz Sharif became the most prominent politician outside PPP, and eventually became the Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1990.

After Junejo dismissed by Gen Zia ul Haq, Nawaz Sharif parted with the PML, and created his own faction called the PML (N), which became a major political party far more influential than the original PML. Junejo's death also marked the formation of PML (Junejo) in 1993 led by his supporters including Hamid Nasir Chattha, Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Manzoor Wattoo, Akhtar Ali Vario and Sardar Arif Nakai.

There was a party split within PML (Junejo) when Manzoor Wattoo in 1995 parted ways with his cousin Hamid Nasir Chattha and created his own PML (Jinnah). The party broke because Chattha wanted to be the president of PML (Junejo), much to the annoyance of Wattoo. The differences cropped up in the same year when Wattoo was removed as the Punjab Chief Minister in the power struggle between the province (headed by PML (Junejo) and the center (headed by rival PPP), leading Arif Nakai another PML (Junejo) candidate to be the new Chief Minister.

At the 2002 general elections held on October 20, the party won 0.7% of the popular vote and 2 out of 272 elected members. Hamid Nasir Chattha was the head of the party.

In May 2004, PML-J merged with PML-Q along with other parties to form united PML.

In 2008 general elections, Hamid Nasir Chattha, being part of ruling PML-Q, lost his National Assembly seat.

However, in 2013, Hamid Nasir Chatta announced to revive the PML-Junejo again and contested the general elections on the platform of PML-J but the party didn't get any seat in 2013 general elections.

As of 2013, the party's current leader is Muhammad Iqbal Dar.

title: Pakistan Muslim League (J)


text:
User:FeastOfBones

....because that's all that's left.

title: User:FeastOfBones


text:
Pakistan Muslim League (F)

The Pakistan Muslim League (Functional) (, acronym: PMLF, PML-F, PML (F)) is a nationalist and pro-Hurs clan political party in Pakistan. It is one of the Pakistan Muslim Leagues. The letter 'F' in its name stands for functional. It is primarily associated with the Sindhi religious leader Pir Pagara. It was formed in 1985 when the Pakistani establishment decided to make Muhammad Khan Junejo the president of united PML. In response, Pir Pagara Syed Shah Mardan Shah-II parted ways with the mother league and formed his own party.

After Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah was defeated by Ayub Khan in the Pakistani presidential election, 1965, Jinnah established the Pakistan Muslim League (Functional). Pir Pagaro Syed Shah Mardan Shah-II became the head of this political party. He was also nominated as first president of United Muslim League. He was Chief of Pakistan Muslim League-Functional (PML-F), and spiritual leader of the ‘Hur’ Jamaat organization.

In the 2002 Pakistani general election, the party won 1.1% of the popular vote and four out of 272 elected members.

In May 2004, PML (Functional) merged with PML (Q) along with other parties to form the united PML.

However, after two months in July 2004, Pir Pagara and the PML (F) parted ways with the united PML citing differences with the Chaudhry brothers and calling the PML, the Jatt league.

In the 2008 Pakistani general election, the PML-F won four seats, and were given one reserved women's seat raising to their total to five National Assembly seats. Additionally, the party won eight provincial assembly seats in Sindh and three in Punjab.

In September 2010 the Pakistan Muslim League (F) and PML-Q united, forming the All Pakistan Muslim League (Pir Pagara).

In January 2012 after the death of 7th Pir Pagara Syed Shah Mardan Shah-II his son Syed Sibghatullah Shah Rashdi III the 8th Pir Pagara became the President of Pakistan Muslim League (F).The Headquarters of PML (F) was then shifted to Raja House from Kingri House.

In the 2013 Pakistani general election, PML-F won 6 seats in National Assembly and 10 seats in Provincial Assembly of Sindh, PML (F) joined the government of Nawaz Sharif. Pirzada Sadaruddin Shah Rashdi, younger brother of Syed Sibghatullah Shah Rashdi III, of Pakistan Muslim League (F) was made the Minister of Overseas Pakistanis.

For the 2018 Pakistani general election, PML-F led a new coalition named Grand Democratic Alliance with Awami Tahreek, National Peoples Party, Pakistan Peoples Party Workers and Pakistan Peoples Muslim League.

title: Pakistan Muslim League (F)


text: User talk:81.10.89.95

title: User talk:81.10.89.95