text:
Athletics at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres

The men's 100 metres was a sprinting event on the athletics programme at the 1900 Summer Olympics in Paris. It was held on July 14, 1900. 20 athletes from nine nations competed. The event was won by Frank Jarvis of the United States, the second of three straight gold medals by different Americans in the event. Australia medaled in the event for the first time, a bronze by Stan Rowley.

Background
This was the second time the event was held. None of the 1896 runners competed in 1900. American Arthur Duffey had recently won the AAA Championships (at 100 yards) and was heavily favored. Unofficial world record holder (in an eight-way tie) Isaac Westergren of Sweden also entered the competition.

No athletes from France, the host nation, competed. Australia, Bohemia, India, and Italy were represented for the first time.

The 1900 competition was one of only two Olympic Games (the other being 1904) where the men's 100 metres was not the shortest sprint, as the 60 metres was held in those two Games.

Records
These were the standing world and Olympic records (in seconds) prior to the 1900 Summer Olympics.

Arthur Duffey in the first heat of the first round and Walter Tewksbury in the second heat of the first round set new Olympic records with 11.4 seconds. In the third heat of the first round Frank Jarvis equalled the unofficial world record with 10.8 seconds. In the second semifinal Tewksbury also equalled the world record with 10.8 seconds.

Competition format
The competition consisted of four rounds: heats, semifinals, a repechage, and a final. The top two runners in each of the six heats advanced to the semifinals. Those 12 men were divided into 3 semifinals of 4 runners each. The 1st-place runner in each semifinal advanced directly to the final, the 2nd and 3rd place runners went to the repechage, and the 4th place finisher was eliminated. In the 6-man repechage, only the winner advanced to the final and everyone else was eliminated.

First round
In the first round, there were six heats. The top two runners in each advanced to the semifinals.

Heat 1
Duffey was a metre ahead of Moloney at the finish.

Heat 2
Tewksbury beat McClain by six inches, with Koppán far back in third being eliminated.

Heat 3
The fastest of the preliminary heats featured two of the eventual medallists; Jarvis won by a metre and equalled the world record.

Heat 4
Leiblee beat Doerry by a yard.

Heat 5
The fifth heat was the only one that was not won by an American, with Pritchard beating Minahan by half a yard.

Heat 6
In an all-American heat, Burroughs defeated Boardman by a yard; Slack, in third, was the only American to be eliminated in the first round.

Semifinals
There were three semifinals, each with four runners. The top runner in each of the semifinals advanced to the final, while the second and third place runners competed in the repechage. The winner of the six-runner repechage advanced to the final as well.

Semifinal 1
Duffey dropped almost half a second from his preliminary heat time to beat Rowley by five feet. Burroughs beat Boardman to stay in contention via the repechage.

Semifinal 2
Tewksbury equalled the world record, the second runner to accomplish that at the Paris Games, to beat Leiblee by six inches, while Doerry pulled up lame.

Semifinal 3
Jarvis won by a yard over McClain: McClain and Pritchard were relegated to the repechage, with Minahan being eliminated.

Repechage
The repechage was a very close race, with Rowley defeating Pritchard by two inches to advance to the final.

Final
Duffey got away to an early lead, but pulled a tendon at the 50 meter mark. Jarvis beat Tewksbury by two feet, with Rowley half a yard behind.


text:
Talk:Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts)

Student Media
I edited this section a bit, mostly for clarity. I removed the Lacademy Sun link (the page is dead). I regret removing information about new writers joining the Spectrum, but I feel such statements should be augmented by numbers. Anywho, I hope the edits are acceptable to everyone. By the by, someone should throw down some info about WRLA - our radio program is something we ought to be proud of. Riselikehelium (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the material on the independent student publication. A publication that existed for three years is not notable in the history of a school that is more than 200 years old.Paratrooper450 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Academy at Groton
Is this the school's official name? I don't see any record of that on their website.

Yes, this is the school's official, business name; however, it's usually shortened to Lawrence Academy. "At Groton" signifies ties with the Groton Academy, which changed names to 'Lawrence' in the 1850s. (Currently, Governor Dummer is doing the same thing, changing names to The Governor's Academy, although retaining Governor Dummer's as a business name.) I imagine that adding "at Groton" might engender confusion with The Groton School, so Lawrence downplays it. 71.234.216.249 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to the act of the Massachusetts legislature that changed to corporate name of the school from "the Trustees of the Groton Academy" to "the Trustees of the Lawrence Academy at Groton." Paratrooper450 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

To the user who delted "at Groton" from the article's lede as being "unecyclopedic": that is the school's legal name, as referneced in the article itself. This is nt a matter of style. Paratrooper450 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

downtown runs
this section is so trivial. on top of that, cumbuys isnt there anymore

re: The section is not trivial- although the term '2li run' was not coined till 2003, the practice has been a tradition for at least nine years and remains a fond memory for dozens of alumni. And, although it's true that 'cumbuys isnt therrr anymur,' 'Cumby's' is an acceptable nickname for the Country Farms store in downtown Groton.

this seems to have lots of commentary and not a lot of fact. I don't see any citations or references for any of these traditions. Surely if they are such great traditions for the school, they would be referenced on the school's website, in alumni magazines, yearbooks, newspapers, etc. if people are citing something that is a fond memory for dozens of alumni, can we at least get a reference to an alumni who is reflecting on it fondly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.228.83 (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

notable alumni
antione wright was actauley expelled in his sr year

How is Amos an alumnus of a school he founded?

 * Did you read the article? Amos' father, Samuel Lawrence, helped to found the school, (called Groton Academy.) Amos donated considerable funds to it, and thus the Academy re-named itself after the Lawrence family.

 * Chase Hoyt clearly wrote that page about himself. Ridiculous. The notable alumni section is for alumni who are actually notable.

 * Swapped Laurie's link, as it doesn't appear that Laurie Baker went to Lawrence or won a Gold medal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.3.1.253 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

LA Football
I deleted the section on football because it has nothing to do with traditions at the school and I hate football. Also what was written was for all intents and purposes an ad for the football team. Thefirechild 03:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lawrence.gif
Image:Lawrence.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Athletics
I took out the portion discussing how Lawrence Academy dominates in athletics. A quick glance at the athletics portion of the school's official website reveals losing records in the following sports: Cross Country, Field Hockey, Men's soccer, Volleyball, Wrestling, Baseball, Golf, Boy's Lacrosse, Girl's lacrosse, and Boy's and Girl's Tennis. Many of the other sports have records hovering around .500. This would not qualify as "domination." jhd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.228.83 (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unique academic programs
This section reads like it was copied from a prospectus, it is unencyclopedic in tone and entirely unreferenced. It should be deleted.Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure
I am an alumnus of Lawrence Academy. As such, it could be perceived that I have a conflict of interest. However, I firmly believe the institution deserves a Wikipedia article that accurately and fairly describes the history of the school, as well as its current curriculum and offerings. I will properly source every edit I make, and I invite the Wikipedia community to monitor, comment on, or modify my edits. Paratrooper450 (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

National Register Reply Comment
I don't see anything in the article about NRHP status. It also does not seem to be on the list of properties on the county list. Is it only one building on the Register, or could this be an error? -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites  ‖ 21:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Academy at Groton. 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/20120717041458/http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/oldest_founding_date.php to http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/oldest_founding_date.php

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) 17:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Badly written 'Scandal' section
There seems to be a developing edit war over content recently added to this article by. I noticed their 'Scandal' section had been deleted a number of times as being 'inaccurate'. If serious accusations against individuals and organisations are to be inserted, editors need to learn how to write neutrally and to cite their sources correctly. All inline hyperlinks to external websites should be removed, and the Cite template used to support each and every statement. See WP:REFBEGIN if you need guidance.

I don't believe this section should be reinserted in its current form, and I ask all editors to refrain from edit warring and to re-assess, re-edit and re-format these recent contributions, and not simply reinsert them without thinking when they get deleted. In addition, even if valid, I don't think it's acceptable to put a section on 'Scandal' so high up in the order of content, as this suggests POV-pushing by one or more editors here. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

___________________________

I have only noticed the removal being marked as "unhelpful". This is the problem. The information - which is verifiable and cited correctly - is helpful to parents, alumni and students. It is currently "unhelpful" to school leaders who are using their assets and clout to hide important safety information for families.

If you are able to offer specific examples where edits need to be made, I will consider them.

Optimistaverdad (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Optimistaverdad: it was too long, and too detailed, certainly given the sourcing. Wikipedia is not here to be helpful for parents; encyclopedic information must be neutral, concise, and well-verified. Decent but local sources are alternated with links to an advocacy website (?), and the entire thing ... well, you asked above how this should be rewritten, and I say from start to finish since I really can't make heads or tails of it. Pinging and Nick Moyes as well. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) has just removed the section, right before I was going to do the same thing. That section was poorly written, excessively long and contained irrelevant detail. , you need to gain consensus here on this talk page before adding any such content back into the article. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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


text:
User:Allan jenkins

my name is allan jenkins. I am the editor of the observer magazine in the UK. In the course of meeting a new writer (who googled me), I discovered there is an entry for me on wikpedia that is pretty wildly inaccurate and malicious. It states for instance that I am a deputy editor of the paper. untrue. it states that I was brought up in a Barnardos home. Untrue. It further states that I have two children by two different mothers. Also untrue. It also published my wife's name and profession. She is extremetly uncomfortable that this is posted at all let alone with this inaccurate information. The entry also contains some extremely damaging and libellous information about alleged affairs with contributors. naming one from the london Times, which were deleted after a vote though the inaccurate information still stands and the libels can be easily accessed. I have posted a message on adjudicator Sam Spade's talk page but had no response probably my own fault as have no real way of knowing how to navigate this site. have no great problem with appearing but wish the inaccuracies and libels and my wife's name and profession to completely wiped. any help in this would be very gratefully received. do not want to appear humourless but want it fixed. please help. allan jenkins

Download this as a file

title: User:Allan jenkins


text:
Onset of Putrefaction

Onset of Putrefaction is the debut album by German technical death metal band Necrophagist. It was recorded almost solely by the band's founder, guitarist and vocalist Muhammed Suiçmez, who recorded all the vocal tracks and programmed most of the drum, bass and guitar tracks with some help from Jochen Bittmann and Bjoern Vollmer.

Release and 2004 re-release
The original 1999 version of the album was very difficult to obtain due to distribution problems with French label Noise Solution Records who owned the rights to its music and pressed only 1,000 copies. American label Willowtip Records' founder Jason Tipton described the situation in an interview: "I first heard Onset in 2000. I started emailing Muhammed, asking about releasing it in the US, and Muhammed always wanted it to happen, but things were a complete mess. He had signed a really bad contract and his label had gone out of business and the rights to that album were sold to another company. So this company owned the rights to the CD and they were near impossible for anyone to deal with. In fact they weren't doing their job at all. They didn't really care at all about the Band and didn't have the CD in press. It was a complete mess."

Despite the hardships of the situation, Willowtip eventually successfully re-released Onset of Putrefaction. The re-release version of the album features new cover art as well as a complete remaster of all its songs as well as new resampled drum machine tracks. The vastly improved drum samples used by the drum machine were recorded and programmed by drummer Hannes Grossmann.

Track listing
All songs written by Muhammed Suiçmez.

 * 2004 re-issue bonus tracks

Personnel
Necrophagist Production
 * Muhammed Suiçmez – vocals, guitars, bass guitar, drum programming
 * Jochen Bittmann – additional bass guitar
 * Bjoern Vollmer – guitar solo on "Extreme Unction"
 * Hannes Grossmann - additional drum programming (2004 re-release)
 * Muhammed Suiçmez – producer

title: Onset of Putrefaction


text:
Talk:Zozobra

Improve this article
i love youuuuuuuu ....Let's get a history of the unique nature of each zozobra! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphx (talk • contribs) 01:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

1999 was Orange - picture on the LOC site. Dolphx (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

https://www.insider.com/zozobra-2020-burning-gloom-away-in-the-age-of-covid-2020-9 A reference for the murder hornet cufflinks and the coronavirus hair for the 2020 Zozobra, but I have no idea how to edit the template.

Why?
This article does a decent job with who/what/where/when/how, but doesn't say why people burn Zozobra. Is Zozobra an effigy of someone specific? Is it just a cooler version of a bonfire? Ruakh 22:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few sentences about why we burn Zozobra every year. I'm not sure if the "gloom papers" exist in stores anymore but I know they existed when I was younger. Hope this helps. Misspadfoot 05:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Most people just use any piece of paper, but I think the Kiwanis still passes out the forms. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC), former resident
 * Hi friends! I added the section "The Event" so as to really capture what happens here. I am a Santa Fe local and have been to many years of Zozobra myself so I wanted to make sure there was more information. I included information about the music, fire dancer performance, the crowd chanting, fireworks, food, and more. Hope you like it!ElenaRobles33 (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zozobra


text:
Category:Ionian colonies

Colonies in antiquity founded by Ionians.

title: Category:Ionian colonies


text:
Darrow

Darrow is a surname of Scottish origin. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Alex Darrow (born 1993), American entrepreneur, founder of PictureTheWorld
 * Barbara Darrow (1931–2018) American actress
 * Barry Darrow (born 1950), American football player
 * Benjamin Darrow (1868–1911), American district attorney
 * Charles Darrow (1889–1967), American businessman falsely credited with inventing Monopoly
 * Chris Darrow (1944–2020), American singer and songwriter
 * Clarence Darrow (1857–1938), American lawyer and civil liberties advocate
 * Clarence A. Darrow (born 1940), American lawyer and politician
 * Daniel C. Darrow (1895–1965), American pediatrician and biochemist
 * Elliot Darrow, American spoken word poet
 * Geof Darrow (born 1955), American comic artist
 * George M. Darrow (1889–1983), American horticulturist
 * George P. Darrow (1859–1943), American Republican member of the House of Representatives
 * George Darrow (baseball) (1903–1983), American baseball player
 * Henry Darrow (1933–2021), American actor
 * Jessica Darrow (born 1995), American actress and singer
 * Jimmy Darrow (1937–1987), American basketball player
 * John Darrow (1907–1980), American actor
 * Karl K. Darrow (1891–1982), American physicist
 * Kathryn Hach-Darrow (1922–2020), American businesswoman and philanthropist
 * Leah Darrow (born 1979), American model
 * Nathan Darrow (born 1970s), American actor
 * Paul Darrow (1941–2019), British character actor
 * Ruth Darrow (1895–1956), American pathologist
 * Sara Lynn Darrow (born 1970), United States District Court judge
 * Tony Darrow (born 1938), American actor and screenwriter
 * Whitney Darrow Jr. (1909–1999), American cartoonist
 * William Darrow, American professor of public health

Given name and spelling variants

 * Darrow Hooper (1932–2018), American athlete
 * Darrow Tully (1932–2010), American newspaper publisher
 * Frankie Darro (1917–1976), American actor
 * Mike Darow (1933–1996), Canadian game show host

title: Darrow


text:
Hannersdorf

Hannersdorf (Sámfalva) is a municipality in Burgenland in the district of Oberwart in Austria.

Geography
Parts of the municipality are Hannersdorf, Burg, and Woppendorf.

Politics
Of the 15 positions on the municipal council, the SPÖ has 8, and the ÖVP 7.

title: Hannersdorf


text:
User:CockBot

Hello!

title: User:CockBot


text:
User:Robby159

This my page. About Wikipedia, I say it's a perfect forum for sharing knowledge, expressing ideas, and receiving feedback. Robby159 17:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Robby159


text:
SEAT 1430

The SEAT 1430 is a 4-door sedan made by SEAT in Spain from 1969 to 1975. The car was based on the FIAT 124 Special, but the front lights were the square ones from the FIAT 125 instead of round. The cockpit was almost identical to the Fiat 125. In 1973, the GTI version of the SEAT 1430 was introduced as the 1430 Especial 1600 model, popularly known as "FU". It was superseded by the SEAT 131, while the donor car, the SEAT 124 continued in its base form until 1980.

The SEAT 1430 also provided the engine and other underpinnings for the "Auto Replica MG 50", a Spanish-made replica of the MG TD.

title: SEAT 1430


text:
Talk:Judge Edith Clement

This looks very much like a text dump to me, from the source at http://www.usdoj.gov. Is this open to a copyright violation, or fair use of public information? jglc | t | c 17:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Judge Edith Clement


text:
Captain Nemo (song)

"Captain Nemo" is the debut single by Swedish band Dive (Chris Lancelot and Erik Holmberg), released in 1990. The song is named after the legendary character Captain Nemo from the 1870 Jules Verne novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas.

Sarah Brightman version
"Captain Nemo" is the first single from British soprano Sarah Brightman's 1993 album, Dive. A music video was made for the song.

Critical reception
Music & Media commented in their review, "Mostly she's featured in Andrew Lloyd Webber-composed musicals; now you have to judge her on her own merits. At least as interesting as Kate Bush and Tori Amos."

Track listing

 * 1) "Captain Nemo (Radio edit)"
 * 2) "When it Rains in America"
 * 3) "Island"
 * 4) "Captain Nemo" (Extended album version)

Alternate 2-track edition

 * 1) "Captain Nemo (Radio Edit)"
 * 2) "Island (LP Version)"

Other covers

 * Cecilia Vennersten recorded a Swedish version of the song on her self-titled 1995 debut album.

title: Captain Nemo (song)


text:
Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet

The Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet was a unique prototype fighter interceptor built by the Northrop Corporation. It was one of the most radical of the experimental aircraft built during World War II. Ultimately, it was unsuccessful and did not enter production.

Design and development
The initial idea for the XP-56 was quite radical for 1939. It was to have no horizontal tail, only a small vertical tail, used an experimental engine, and be produced using a novel metal, magnesium. The aircraft was to be a wing with a small central fuselage added to house the engine and pilot. It was hoped that this configuration would have less aerodynamic drag than a conventional airplane.

The idea for this single-seat aircraft originated in 1939 as the Northrop N2B model. It was designed around the Pratt & Whitney liquid-cooled X-1800 engine in a pusher configuration driving contra-rotating propellers. The U.S. Army ordered Northrop to begin design work on 22 June 1940, and after reviewing the design ordered a prototype aircraft on 26 September 1940. Shortly after design work had begun, Pratt & Whitney, however, stopped development of the X-1800. The Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine was substituted, although it was considered not entirely suitable. The new, 2000 hp engine was 200 hp more powerful, but it had a larger diameter and required a larger fuselage to house it. This change delayed the program by five months. It was expected that the new engine would require a 2000 lb weight increase and cost 14 mph in top speed.

Since this tailless design was novel and considered high risk, it was decided to construct a small, lightweight plane of similar configuration for testing called the Model N-1M. In parallel with the design of the XP-56, successful flight trials of the configuration were conducted utilizing this airframe, confirming the basic layout. Two small Lycoming engines powered this aircraft. These trials confirmed the stability of the radical design and, upon review, the Army decided to construct a second prototype, which was ordered on 13 February 1942.

Northrop constructed the XP-56 using magnesium alloy for the airframe and skin, because aluminium was forecast to be in short supply due to wartime demands. At the time there was little experience with magnesium aircraft construction. Because magnesium cannot be easily welded using conventional techniques, a team comprising Vladimir Pavlecka, Tom Piper and Russell Meredith developed the heliarc welding technique for magnesium alloy. It resembled the GMAW predecessor processes developed in the 1920s by General Electric but, importantly, employed inert gas shielding.

First prototype
First engine runs in the aircraft were conducted in late March 1943, but excessive propeller shaft flex caused the engine to fail. Pratt & Whitney did not send another engine until August, causing a five-month delay.

Taxi tests of the XP-56 began on 6 April 1943 and showed a serious yaw problem. At first, it was thought to be caused by uneven wheel brakes, and considerable effort was placed into fixing this problem. Manual hydraulic brakes were installed and the aircraft flew on 30 September 1943 at Muroc Air Base in southern California. Eventually, the yaw problem was traced to a lack of aerodynamic stability, and to fix this the upper vertical stabilizer was enlarged from a mere stub, to one virtually matching the ventral unit in shape and area.

After a number of flights, the first XP-56 was destroyed 8 October 1943 when the tire on the left gear blew out during a high-speed (~130 mph) taxi across Muroc Dry Lake. The pilot, John Myers, survived with minor injuries which he credited to his innovative wearing of a polo player's helmet. Myers was the test pilot for several of Northrop's radical designs during the war.

Second prototype
A number of changes were made to the second prototype, including re-ballasting to move the center-of-gravity forward, increasing the size of the upper vertical tail, and reworking the rudder control linkages. This second prototype was not completed until January 1944. The aircraft flew on 23 March 1944. The pilot had difficulty lifting the nose wheel below 160 mph. He also reported extreme yaw sensitivity. This flight lasted less than eight minutes, but subsequent flights were longer, and the nose heaviness disappeared when the landing gear was retracted. Only relatively low speeds were attained, however. While urging NACA to investigate the inability to attain designed speeds, further flight tests were made. On the 10th flight, the pilot noted extreme tail heaviness, lack of power, and excessive fuel consumption. Flight testing was then ceased as too hazardous, and the project was abandoned after a year of inactivity. By 1946, the U.S. Army Air Forces was developing jet-powered fighters, and had no need for a new propeller-driven fighter aircraft.

Aircraft disposition

 * 41-786 - crashed during high-speed ground run in 1943.
 * 42-38353 - in storage at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. On 20 December 1946, the U.S. Army shipped the second prototype to Freeman Field, Indiana, for storage. It became part of the National Air and Space Museum's collection in 1950–1951 when the Smithsonian moved this collection to its Suitland, Maryland-located Paul Garber Restoration Facility.

title: Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet


text:
Category:Dorian colonies

Colonies in antiquity founded by Dorians.

title: Category:Dorian colonies


text:
South Dundas

South Dundas is a municipality in eastern Ontario, Canada, in the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry along the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. It is located approximately 100 km south of Ottawa and is midway between Kingston and Montreal, Quebec.

Communities
The Municipality of South Dundas comprises a number of villages and hamlets, including the following communities:

 * The western portion, in the former Matilda Township: Brinston, Dixons Corners, Dundela, Glen Stewart, Hanesville, Hulbert, Irena, Iroquois, Stampville; Haddo, Pleasant Valley, Rowena, Toyes Hill; Iroquois Beach, New Ross, Oak Valley (partially), Pinetree Point, Rapide Plat Point, Robertson Point, Straders Hill
 * The eastern portion, in the former Williamsburg Township: Dunbar, Elma, Glen Becker, Morrisburg, Riverside Heights, Williamsburg, Winchester Springs (partially); Archer, Beckstead, Boucks Hill, Colquhoust, Froatburn, Grantley (partially), Hoasic, Mariatown, Nudell Bush, Orchardside; Colquhoun, Crysler Beach, Doran Point, Marina Bay, Morrisburg Beach, Muttonville, The Sixth, Whitney Point

The municipal administrative offices are located in Morrisburg.

History
The county was named in 1792 to honour Henry Dundas, who was Lord Advocate for Scotland and Colonial Secretary at the time. Matilda and Williamsburgh were two of Upper Canada's original eight Royal Townships. The northern portions of Matilda and Williamsburg townships were separated in 1798 to form the new townships of Mountain and Winchester within Dundas County.

The McIntosh apple was discovered and cultivated in South Dundas near Williamsburg. John McIntosh's parents emigrated from Inverness, Scotland to the Mohawk Valley in New York, and John moved to Upper Canada in 1796. In 1811 he acquired a farm in Dundela, and while clearing the land of second growth discovered several apple seedlings. He transplanted these, and one bore the superior fruit which became famous as the McIntosh Red apple. John's son Allan established a nursery and promoted this new species extensively. It was widely acclaimed in Ontario and the northern United States, and was introduced into British Columbia about 1910.

During the War of 1812, several battles were fought in Dundas County, present day South Dundas. The Battle of Matilda, Battle of Point Iroquois, Skirmish at Doran's Farm, and the Battle of Crysler's Farm were all fought in Dundas County along the St. Lawrence River. As well, the Dundas Militia built numerous earthworks and breastworks along the river to fortify the area from attack, in 1814, the earthwork at Point Iroquois was expanded to include a blockhouse, but due to the construction so late in the war, and the relative peace, the fort was called Fort Needless.

Morrisburg took its name from James Morris, Canada's first postmaster general. Morris also played an important role in canal-building in the area.

James Pliny Whitney, Ontario's sixth premier, is buried here in the cemetery of Holy Trinity Anglican Church in Riverside Heights, just east of Morrisburg and north of County Road 2 (formerly Highway 2). Whitney was born in Williamsburg in 1843, represented Dundas County in the Legislature from 1888 to 1914 and served as Premier from 1905 to 1914.

Morrisburg and Iroquois were partially flooded by the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1958. Unlike the Lost Villages of Cornwall and Osnabruck Townships, however, the two towns were simply relocated to higher ground in the same area. There was an international design competition in 1954 to design the new Iroquois townsite. Canadian-British architect Wells Coates was among those who submitted redevelopment concepts.

An artificial lake, Lake Saint Lawrence, now extends from a hydroelectric dam at Cornwall to the control structure at Iroquois, and replaces the formerly narrow and turbulent section of river that was impassable to large vessels. It replaces, in part, the Long Sault rapids.

Several buildings from the Lost Villages were moved to a site near Morrisburg to create Upper Canada Village, a living museum which depicts 19th century life in Upper Canada.

In 1976, stuntman Ken Carter attempted to jump a one-mile portion of the Saint Lawrence River by taking a one million dollar Lincoln Continental rocket car off an eight-storey ramp. This was billed as The Super Jump. The ramp and its runway were located in a field just west of Hanes Road, South of County road 2. The ramp has since been demolished, but the concrete runway still exists as of 2012.

The municipality was established on January 1, 1998, with the amalgamation of the former townships of Matilda and Williamsburg, along with the former villages of Iroquois and Morrisburg.

Charles A. Barkley, who was elected mayor of the municipality in the 2006 municipal elections, died unexpectedly on June 17, 2009. He had been a municipal politician since 1981, when he joined the Township of Matilda council. He was succeeded by deputy mayor Robert Gillard.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, South Dundas had a population of $11,044$ living in $4,651$ of its $4,821$ total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of $10,852$. With a land area of 521.54 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

Transportation
The only provincial highway directly serving the municipality is Highway 401. All other highway routes in the municipality, including Highway 2 and Highway 31, were decommissioned by the province in the 1990s, and were folded into Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry's county road system. Highway 416, the main route from the 401 to Ottawa, has its southern terminus at Johnstown in the neighbouring township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal.

Morrisburg is served by a small, unattended airport adjacent to Upper Canada Village. Iroquois is served by a small unattended airport near the locks.

Sport
The Morrisburg Lions of the Eastern Ontario Junior B Hockey League play out of the Morrisburg Arena.

Thoroughbred racing pioneer Francine Villeneuve grew up in the community of Winchester Springs.

title: South Dundas


text:
Villa del Poggio Imperiale

Villa del Poggio Imperiale (English: Villa of the Imperial Hill) is a predominantly neoclassical former grand ducal villa in Arcetri, just to the south of Florence in Tuscany, Central Italy. Beginning as a villa of the Baroncelli of Florence, it was seized by the Medici, became the home of a Medici princess, and a lavish retreat for a Grand Duchess with imperial pretensions. Later given to Napoleon's sister, it was reclaimed by the hereditary rulers of Tuscany before being finally converted to a prestigious girls' school. During its long history, it has often been at the centre of Italy's turbulent history, and has been rebuilt and redesigned many times.

Medici era
The villa was once the property of the Grand Dukes of Tuscany — the Medici. However, the documented history begins in the 15th century when a small villa on the site known as "Villa del Poggio Baroncelli", was built by the Florentine merchant Jacopo Baroncelli The villa was sold to Bartoncelliu's creditor in 1487, and in turn to Pietro Salviati in 1548. The Salviati were an ancient Florentine noble family. Pietro embellished the property, and added Andrea del Sarto's Assumption of the Virgin to the villa's chapel. In 1565 at Pietro's death the Salviati property was confiscated by Cosimo I, who gave the villa to his daughter Isabella de' Medici who was married to Paolo Giordano Orsini, duke of Bracciano, who made an occasional appearance. At this favoured retreat Isabella held her stylish and intellectual court. Following Isabella's murder by her husband in 1576, the villa passed to her son Virginio Orsini, Duke of Bracciano.

In 1618 the villa was purchased from the Orsini by Archduchess Maria Maddalena of Austria, wife of the future Grand Duke Cosimo II, and was completely rebuilt between 1622 and 1625 to the design of the architect Giulio Parigi. The villa was doubled in size with a large corps de logis flanked by two canted lower wings. The interior of the villa was decorated to the Grand Duchess' requirements by the artist Matteo Rosselli. It was at this time that the villa was linked to the city by a monumental tree-lined avenue and given its "Imperial" title "Villa del Poggio Imperiale" — Maria Magdalena was the sister of Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor.

The building work was very costly, as was the near simultaneous work at the Palazzo Pitti. The Medicis' finances had deteriorated since the time of Cosimo the Elder, and the Grand Duke's decision to close what few branches remained of the Medici Bank at this time meant that the people of Tuscany were forced to pay increased taxes to finance the building projects. Following the death of Cosimo II and the joint regency of Maria Magdalena and her mother-in-law Christine of Lorraine, the extravagances and unprecedented luxury of the court at the Villa del Poggio Imperiale and the Palazzo Pitti severely depleted the Medici finances.

In 1659 the estate was acquired by Ferdinand II and his wife Vittoria della Rovere, who had the villa further enlarged and embellished with marbles and intarsia. However it was to be under the successors to the Medici, the House of Habsburg-Lorraine that the villa was to reach its zenith.

Habsburg-Lorraine era
The villa was again redesigned and renovated in 1776 by Gaspare Maria Paoletti for Leopold I. The work was prolonged over 15 years and included much stucco and plaster work to the interior. Extra wings were created and various secondary façades were redesigned in the neoclassical style; only the principal facade remained unaltered.

The villa was always a secondary home for Tuscany's ruling families, favoured during spring and autumn. Conveniently close to the court, which resided at the Palazzo Pitti, and surrounded by an estate of 17 farms, it was a rural retreat from the city. However, it was always only one of several villas and palaces available to the grand ducal family, and its popularity and use waxed and waned. At the end of the 18th century, Grand Duke Ferdinand III leased the villa to King Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia. Charles Emanuel lived here for just a month from 17 January 1799. It was at the villa that on meeting Count Vittorio Alfieri (companion of Louise Stuart, wife of the "Young Pretender" Charles Edward Stuart, claimant to the British throne), Charles Emanuel uttered the much-quoted phrase "Voici votre tyran!" (Behold your tyrant).

The present monumental principal facade was created in 1807 for the newly elevated Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Elisa Bonaparte. The architect chosen was, who designed the great façade using drawings by Paoletti's admirer and imitator Pasquale Poccianti, an architect better known for his later work the Cisternoni of Livorno.

Neoclassicism was a style which evolved as a contrasting reaction to the more ornate Baroque and Rococo styles which preceded it. It was not a trend to make pastiches of classical designs but a force creating a new form of architecture based on simple but rational forms with clear and ordered plans. Milan became the centre of Italy's neoclassical architecture. The works of Leopoldo Pollack, in particular his Villa Belgiojoso, and Giuseppe Piermarini, was similar to the neoclassicism found from London to Munich. However, in Italy, outside Milan these new ideals were often more pronounced and more severe than in northern Europe. Florence was for once the birthplace of a new architectural form, and the façades of the Villa del Poggio Imperiale are austere even by the standards of Italian neoclassical architecture.

The façade is severe and plain, the only variation and ornament being the five-bayed projecting central block. This block has a rusticated ground floor pierced by five arches leading to the inner courtyard. On the first floor is a glazed loggia, also of five bays. This block of only two floors crowned by a low pediment is flanked by two symmetrical wings of even greater severity. Each of two floors with a low mezzanine above are the same height as the central pedimented block, which is given extra prominence by raised parapet behind the pediment.

The severities of the exterior of the villa were compensated for by the exuberance of the interior. A series of large salons were decorated with plaster work in the classical styles. The chapel, frescoed by Francesco Curradi, remained unaltered from the 17th century.

Post-Risorgimento

From 1849 the political history of Florence and Tuscany became troubled. Leopold II, the last ruling grand duke, was forced to abdicate following the Second Italian War of Independence. On 27 April 1859, the grand duchy ceased to exist and the last ruling grand duke of Tuscany and his family peacefully quit Florence. It had been a bloodless overthrow and the family left with "respectful farewell greetings of the people." Tuscany now became part of the short lived United Provinces of Central Italy.

On 5 March 1860, Tuscany voted in a referendum to join the Kingdom of Sardinia. This was an important step in the unification of Italy (Risorgimento) which was to follow shortly. In 1865, Florence became for a brief period the capital of a united Italy. The Palazzo Pitti became the main Italian royal palace. The new King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel II, with many palaces at his disposal and an obligation to travel across Italy in the interests of the unification, had little need for a second large palace, such as Villa del Poggio Imperiale, in such close proximity to the Palazzo Pitti.

The unwanted and, by now, fairly neglected villa, now in the ownership of the state, became an exclusive girls' boarding school, the Istituto Statale della Ss. Annunziata. The school had been founded under the patronage of Leopold II and his wife, Maria Anna of Saxony in 1823 to provide education for the daughters of the Florentine nobility. Its original home in the "Via della Scala" in the centre of the city was required for government offices, so in 1865 a simple exchange was made. The school has occupied the building ever since. In January 2004, the school's use of the villa was formalized in an official government announcement that granted the school free use of the state-owned property in perpetuity. Only the state rooms, some of them with frescoes by Matteo Rosselli, are open by appointment to the public.

Interior furnishing
The only remaining part of the original 15th-century Villa di Poggio Baroncelli is the small courtyard. This, the smallest of the villa's three courtyards, is sited immediately though the main entrance. Here, four cloister-like corridors illuminated by segmental windows provide abundant light. The corridors are adorned with antique busts placed on ledges and niches constructed in the eighteenth century. This decoration and embellishment of a substantial collection of antique busts was made by Vittoria della Rovere, who brought the sculptures to Florence to embellish the villa. On the first floor, one of the most prominent additions to the villa was the development of the Salone delle feste, built between 1776 and 1783, and decorated with embellished stucco reliefs which are predominantly white in color.

In one of the adjacent "Chinese" wings, are four rooms decorated with circa 1775 Chinese hand-crafted wallpaper, which came from Canton workshops, specialized for export, and represented the important influence of the chinoiserie style then being experienced throughout Europe. The refined paintings of the China wing represent an idealized world of flowers, exotic birds and scenes of daily Chinese life, often borrowed from the period literature depicting Chinese life and culture. A fifth room contained, originally, 88 pictures (about 20 × 30 cm each) which were displayed with these various scenes from Chinese life. These probably came from a collection that was in the villa from about 1784. Today, only about twenty are displayed, with their repair and reconditioning being underway in an ongoing restoration project, which will eventually recreate their original layout.

Many Chinese paintings, probably from the same source as those of the villa, were given by Leopold I to his sister Maria Caroline, who became Queen consort, and de facto ruler, of Naples and Sicily. A portion of these painting were taken by her to Palermo where they remain today in the Palazzo dei Normanni and Palazzina Cinese.

Interior design
The original 1487 plan of the Poggio Imperiale bears little resemblance to the present day neoclassical layout. Originally, the building was a country manor house belonging to the Baroncelli family; this passed to the Pandolfini family, and eventually in 1622 it was sold to the Grand Duchess Maria Maddelena of Austria. This change of ownership was to mark the beginning of a slow transformation from provincial country manor to grand, imperial villa. The Grand Duchess immediately commissioned the building's "restoration, enlargement, and embellishment."

The commission was granted to the architect Giulio Parigi, who between 1622 and 1625, introduced a more ornate Baroque style, and the later version of Baroque, Rococo. This was achieved with an expanded floor plan, lengthening the façades and elevations. These longer façades were in the late 18th century deprived of their Baroque ornament to create the chaste austere neoclassical architecture seen at the villa today.

The eminent architectural historian Carlo Cresti describes Parigi's 1624 design as "yielding a corps de logis flanked by two lower, symmetrical wings with terraces and semicircular concave profiles. Inside the villa, Parigi restructured the old central courtyard and the rooms of the grand-ducal apartment, which were frescoed by Matteo Rosselli and his pupils."

A further period of enhancement took place when the villa passed to the Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere who created the ground-floor rooms situated at the crest of the inner courtyard designed by Giacinto Maria Marmi. Between 1681 and 1683, the courtyard and its surrounding loggias were further re-designed by the architect Giovanni Battista Foggini.

Between 1766-1783, the architect Gaspare Paoletti, during the third and final renovation of the villa, accomplished the definitive restructuring of the villa to twice its previous size. Paoletti added the two flanking inner courtyards to the central courtyard, and also designed the rear façade and the great ballroom on the piano nobile. This was embellished with the notable stuccowork by Giocondo and Grato Albertolli.

The principal façade, however, was not to be transformed until ownership of the villa passed to Maria Louisa of Bourbon, the Queen of Etruria, who in 1806 assigned the project to the architect Pasquale Poccianti. Poccianti extended this effort of complete neoclassical transformation (of the façade) to include a rusticated five-bay portico flanked by a theater and a chapel. The façade was completed under the eventual ownership of Napoleon's sister Elisa Baciocchi, then the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, who hired the architect Giuseppe Cacialli to freely adapt the completion of Poccianti's original plans. The free adaptation by Cacialli allowed him to supplement the original piano nobile with luminous peristyle including stuccowork and wall paintings. With the return of the House of Lorraine in 1814, the previously designed chapel and guard house were at last built, and a number of rooms were embellished by the painters Domenico Nani and Giorgio Angiolini.

The chapel for the Annunciation
With the extensive redesign and renovation in the eighteenth century, many of the original chapels in the villa were lost. Today, only the Chapel of the Annunciation remains which the architect Giuseppe Cacialli included as part of the 1820 neoclassical renovation.

The design of the chapel is divided into three naves with a semicircular tribune. The redesign preserved the pre-existing eighteenth century decorations and embellishments which included statues of the Virtues in separate niches, as well as stucco friezes depicting biblical scenes on the walls and ceiling dome in tempura depicting the Assumption of the Virgin by Francesco Ninci.

The remarkable wealth of the works of art and opulent reliquary of priestly use held in the chapel have been expertly cataloged and documented in the short volume by Brigida D'Avanzo in Italian titled: "Oggetti di arte sacra alla Villa del Poggio Imperiale Firenze" in 1990. Two of the dozens of exceptional holdings in the chapel include the "Il Ritrovamento della Croce" of 1686 attributed to Luca Giordano, and the "Madonna col Bambino e S. Giovannino" of the sixteenth century attributed to the school of Puligo.

A short essay in the D'Avanzo volume by Rosanna Caterina Proto Pisani documents several dozen of the objects of art held in the chapel. The extensive history of the relation of these exceptional holdings together with their cross-listing and shared use with the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, along with the art holdings identified with the villa in general, has yet to be completely studied as a separate subject of the relation between the villa and the Uffizi Gallery.

title: Villa del Poggio Imperiale


text:
Paul M. Hebert

Paul Macarius Hebert (1907–1977) was an American jurist who is best known as the longest serving Dean of the Louisiana State University's law school (now the Paul M. Hebert Law Center), serving in that role with brief interruptions from 1937 until his death in 1977. One such interruption occurred in 1947-1948 when he was appointed as a judge for the United States Military Tribunals in Nuremberg, and presided over the IG Farben Trial.

Hebert attended Catholic High School and later Louisiana State University, both located in Baton Rouge. While at LSU he was a member of the Zeta Zeta chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon and was a member of the Friars Club.

title: Paul M. Hebert


title: File:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Stephan Kinsella 2
Completing a re-nomination by User:RyanKoppelman of a previously deleted and (differently) recreated article. Previous VfD here, you may also wish to see the author's talk page. Whilst this is effectively a self-vanity page retaliation for the Tom G. Palmer article, a person with whom the author of this page disagrees, I will cast no vote. -Splash 17:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes ( ~ ) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

 * Note. The original page history and talk page have now been restored. (talk page is at talk:Stephan Kinsella/archive1). -Willmcw 00:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Willmcw--could you restore my original entry as well, in the interest of fairness? Maybe it is better than the current one. I have no idea how to restore something. Nskinsella 01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Splash for cleaning up the page creation. My concern is that Mr. Kinsella himself recreated this new page about himself. It was already voted deleted once. He wants a second bite at the apple for his own self-interest.He has commented about it on his blog. Someone has linked him under "Noted" Patent attorneys almost immediately after his new page was created. This looks like self-promotion. I do not think Wikipedia should be used like this. I do not think that it is appropriate. Mr. Kinsella looks notable enough to me to have an article about him. As far as I know, the information is accurate, however, it seems hard for the article to be neutral when he wrote it about himself. He certainly speaks very highly of himself, "He has drawn on his expertise as a practicing patent lawyer to become a leading libertarian opponent of intellectual property laws; his seminal argument 'Against Intellectual Property' has become widely referred to and cited." This does not sound neutral. I suppose it could be rewritten, but who is going to correct Mr. Kinsella about himself, so I think this creates an on-going problem for the article. I cast yes delete vote.--RyanKoppelman 21:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * RyanK: I had no idea until you just wrote this that I am under patent attorneys. I had nothing to do with this. I am really not interested in self-promotion. I just want people interested in my writing to be able to access it. As for the promotional aspects to my entry, I'll modify and make it shorter and more factual. But I have summarized my case for why my entry clearly satisfies the Wiki "notable" criteria here Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2. None of the delete voteres have tried to follow the policy. Let me summarize: I have published books and articles, with audiences that satisfy the criteria. I have 19,000 Google hits. I am more well known than the average college professor. My info is factual and easily verifiable. Moreover, I am as far as I know the only practicing, licensed patent attorney who has written an explicit critique of the patent system as a whole, who calls for its abolition; and this articles has gotten a large amount of attention and is seen as one of the leading pieces in the libertarian anti-IP movement. By Wikie's own standards, I believe my entry is acceptable, as was the initial one not put up by me and therefore never should have been deleted. I would at least like to see Wiki editors citing and applying Wiki policy if they are doing to cast a delete vote. For example, why do I not qualify, in view of the factors I have noted, that I got from Wiki's own policy pages? Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you take out the domains mises.org, stephankinsella.com, lewrockwell.com and other domains that have blogs that you post to, your mentions drop to 13,000. Most of the 13,000 other hits are posts by you to other blogs, and responses to posts to the other blogs, since you seemingly spend every waking hour logged onto the internet to rebut your critics. So please don't go around claiming 19,000 hits as if these were people independently citing your work. Most of these instances are blog comments, and answers to your blog comments. Jstrummer 04:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Someone has linked him under "Noted" Patent attorneys almost immediately after his new page was created." "Someone", that's me (there is a history link for each page). I did put "Stephan Kinsella" link in the patent attorney page as "notable patent attorney", because it seemed to me that he was notable enough to be there. I have no connection with Stephan Kinsella whatsoever, please stop the suspicion, I find it offensive when a statement is made with no support. Thanks. If the article about him is kept, keep the link in the patent attorney, otherwise drop it. (see my vote below). --Edcolins 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * At User:Splash's suggestion, I have moved my verbose comments to the Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2 page. Please see those comments for my explanation of my entry and for my defense that it either not be deleted, or that consistent standards be applied as to my and others' bios. Because of my obvious bias, I had previous cast no vote, but Splash informs me it's my right to vote to keep, so, I vote keep, while acknowledging my vested interest. -Nskinsella 19:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I was the original contributor of the first article on Stephan Kinsella, although I contributed it before I started my present account. My contribution was based on a growing number of refereed journal articles, books, and lectures in which Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" was being cited. I was the original founder of the Birmingham, AL and Auburn, AL 2600 meetings, and ran an "h/p/c/a/v" BBS in the 90's. Since the late 90's, I have been very interested in IP, and have lectured on it at Auburn University and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. When I came across Kinsella's IP article in 2001 (in the Journal of Libertarian Studies), I had not met him, nor anyone else who knew him personally, but I did meet numerous academics who were taking his dismantling of IP very seriously. I personally thought that it was an essential step towards an exhaustive conciliation of the Hacker Ethic with property rights. Kinsella is now a frequent lecturer at Mises Institute events, and is constantly cited by eminent scholars like Walter Block as /the/ go-to guy on IP theory. As the point most germane to this discussion though, please let me reiterate that I was the original article contributor, and only mentioned the entry to Stephan when I asked his permission to release an image (stephankinsella.jpg) from his website into the public domain. I will cast a vote to keep. DickClarkMises 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think keep. Not really a vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Certainly it is a vanity article, written and edited by the subject. It was deleted here Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella just three months ago in a VfD which had a number of sockpuppets participating on his behalf. This article appears to have been recreated in part to compete with that of a rival, Tom G. Palmer, that Kinsella has used a blog campaign to try to get deleted. -Willmcw 21:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Willmcw: Have you taken into account that I and one of my IP publications is mentioned in the Wiki Intellectual Property entry; and in the Wiki Libertarian_theories_of_law entry? I had nothing to do with either; I assume both predate my recent entry; and I was just made aware of it after doing a google search on Wikipedia. Is this no some indicia of notability? Those entries will pointlessly go to a blank page, if you delete my entry. Why? Nskinsella 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Willmcw: My original entry was put up by someone else. Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And that version was deleted by a properly-run VFD. This version was written and posted by you. This is the version that we are discussing. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Willmcw: My original entry was put up by someone else. It was not a vanity piece. But I have summarized my case for why my entry clearly satisfies the Wiki "notable" criteria here Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2. Why do you disagree with it? I fail to see the relevance of my motives for posting the entry, but if you must know, after looking at the criteria for notability more closely due to the delete debate about the Palmer entry, I realized my entry qualifies and should not have been deleted. The preveious delete debate did not cite of follow Wiki policy. People just used their airy-fairy discretion to say "notable" or not. BUt there are criteria, and I expect Wiki editors to make a good faith effort to apply them. WHich of the policy criteria that I have listed do you deny? Notice, you yourself are inconsisten, Willmcw: you voted to keep the Tom G. Palmer entry, on the grounds that he is openly gay at a think tank. This is ridiculous. What if I am a closeted gay?-wouldn't your policy punish gays in the closet? Moreover, as far as I know the only practicing, licensed patent attorney who has written an explicit critique of the patent system as a whole, who calls for its abolition. You seem to be nonobjective in my case. Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The previous version, since you keep mentioning it, was most likely written by you originally. It was then posted to a copyrighted webpage. Another editor, DickClarkMises, posted it here verbatim. That was a clear "copyvio" and I marked it as such. You refused to release the text under our GFDL and made disparaging comments about me on your blogs (thanks). We undertook to write a fresh version that was not a copyvio, and that version was subsequently VfDed (in a process which saw several brand-new editors voting to "keep") three months ago.
 * Regarding the Palmer article, Wikipedia is not consistent. Please do not try to prove a WP:POINT that if your rival gets something then you must too. Nonetheless I see you said there that you are not notable for your writing. If not that then what? On the other hand, in the spirit of equity, I'd be happy to change my vote to "delete" on that page if you'll do the same here. The chance that the Palmer article (which is mostly irrelevant to this discussion) may have started as autobiography and be currently edited by its subject are bothersome. Subjects who edit their articles are almost always a problem.
 * Willmcw, don't you think it's a bit ... off... of you to offer to change your vote on Palmer? Shouldn't you simply vote (a) in accordance with your good faith application of Wiki biograph policy; and (b) try to vote consistently? I assure you that my first Wiki entry was not vanity, nor did I do it or have anything to do with it. And as I have modifed the current version, it is short, unobtrusive, purely factual, and completely non-vanity.
 * I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of humor. Anyway, the offer still stands. You said you're not notable, you say Palmer isn't notable either. If you vote to delete both of them then, as a gesture of "wikilove", I'll do the same. Oh, and if you had nothing to do with the previous version, then I guess "nothing" includes the fact that you wrote it, edited it, and then you (and your friends) fought to keep it. It didn't just "happen." -Willmcw 06:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Willmcw: I said i was not notable in a colloquial sense; but when I read the criteria, I believe I qualify. As for the previous version: I meant I had nothing to do with an entry being put up in the first place. Dick Clark is not my friend; I do not even know him. I cannot access the origianl article since you had it deleted, but yes, he probably got most of the info from my online bio. that is true. Once it was up, and i was made aware of it, I did edit it, which is not impermissible. I actually did not fight to keep it, when you deleted it, I just objected to your calling it a vanity page since it was NOT. --Nskinsella 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've already told you, the entire history of the article has been restored and is here: . Here is the very first edit . Please note that I did not call the original version "vanity" in its VfD. I have called this version "vanity" since it plainly fits the label.-Willmcw 20:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, this is not just a vanity page - it is an advertisement for some very expensive books. Follow this link in the bibliography, Digest of Commercial Laws of the World (1998-present), to go to a page to buy a $600 book, one of several such links. Even in the previous version that was deleted we'd had those cleaned up and de-commercialized. The version that we deleted was better than this. -Willmcw 00:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Willmcw: I have removed the books. I can't find the original version of my entry, unfortunately. You say I wrote the original article; yet I have denied this and you have no proof. In fact Dick Clark admitted to doing it. Are you calling us both liars? That is uncalled for. I could have put my entry up anonymously or asked someone to do it. I have been honest. Your insinuation is uncalled for. As for copyright, there was not one, since I consented to it. The VfD of that first page was improper, since I clearly meet the criteria specified on Wiki policy. You have just asserted your own opinion as to consistency, but not tried to apply actual Wiki standards. As for Wiki not being consistent--no, it might not be, but you, as an individual, should be, otherwise you reveal unfairness, bias, or arbitrariness. Your alleged reason for Palmer's "keep" vote is that he is openly gay; this is absurd. Others say he has a large number of google hits, thus they vote "keep"; my google votes are higher. Others point to Palmer's publications; mine are greater in number, and I have books in addition to articles. I am only trying to have this entry treated fairly and judged by actual Wiki policy, which none of you deletes seems to want to try to make an effort to apply. I would appreciate a little fairness here.
 * Your google hits are almost entirely links to comments made by you on blogs, or responses to comments made by you on blogs. For instance, the number of hits drops by 6,000 if you take out the domains stephankinsella.com, mises.org and lewrockwell.com.  Since you are prodigious in posting to the internet, that accounts for your google citations. You are not cited more than a college professor. Most college professors have better things to do with their time.Jstrummer 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I truly doubt that DickClarkMises wrote the biography on your (copyrighted noticed) website. http://stephankinsella.com/bio/bio2.php That is the material that he used to create the original article (OK, not actualy original—plagiarized) . Now if he actually wrote it then I am mistaken. But I doubt that because he described it as "dump of auto-bio from stephankinsella.com)". Do you still insist that he wrote it? -Willmcw 06:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. I suppose he didn't "write" it, b/c he probably borrowed heavily from my own bio. But it was done without my knowledge or participation, solely on his own. --Nskinsella 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy and delete. If he is notable enough, someone will write an appropriate article. Writting some obscure published work and losing in a bid to be elected as a judge are insufficient in my view. And I'm generally an inclusionist. Themindset 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC) I will now change my vote to a weak keep. Marginal at best, I requested that he rewrite his article from a more neutral and simple perspective, and he has done so. The fact that it is an auto-biography does not sit very well with me, but he's a lawyer and he read our rules... and he does technically qualify for an article. Themindset 16:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: vanity, nonnotable. Don't bother to userify, I'm sure Kinsella is quite clever enough to do it for himself. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added a redlink of Kinsella to an article one time (and I have no particular ulterior agenda or ties to Kinsella). He is fairly notable as a libertarian legal theorist and commentator. - Nat Krause 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity problems. If a neutral party does a complete rewrite, will reconsider. Xoloz 05:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep . Notable enough. Google returns 19,000 hits for "Stephan Kinsella" . --Edcolins 07:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind and prefer to abstain. I can't find google hits on renowned sources of information. I am not sure about whether this article should be kept. And I don't like someone creating an article about himself. --Edcolins 08:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * His google hits are almost entirely links to blog comments he's made. These are not google hits on par with a legitimate scholar who might be cited for published academic work. These are the google hits of a guy who spends 10 hours a day on the internet posting on blogs.  Look how many times he's posted to wikipedia, and the energy he's spent on reposting his bio.Jstrummer 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)#
 * Speedy delete - valid vfd previously. Go to WP:VFU for undeletion. Dunc|☺ 12:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC).  Oh yes, WP:POINT Dunc|☺ 12:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC).  Commnet I've undeleted it since people for some reason think that it ought not to have been, despite it not being passed through WP:VFU and being a vanity page.  I still stand by my decision to delete it. Dunc|☺ 13:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the undeletion. Let's see the outcome of the vote. --Edcolins 13:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as WP:VAIN. Radiant_ >|< 14:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:VAIN says that "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is", and WP:AUTO says that autobiographies should not necessarily be deleted, either. - Nat Krause 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The newbie instructions also say "do not write an article about yourself]], so what exactly is your point? Radiant_ >|< 17:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not following newbie instructions by itself is not a criterion for deletion. - Nat Krause 07:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Who you callin' a Newbie, boy? I have put up 3 or 4 new entries. How many do YOU have! :) Wikihugs, Stephan Kinsella 22:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete this vanity as previously deleted material. --Allen3 talk 14:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a new version of a page that was deleted before (and it was deleted, I might add, with only four votes to delete). It is not previously deleted material. Get your story straight. - Nat Krause 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a substantially identical reinstatement of an article deleted by valid VFD consensus, and therefore speedily deletable. Read policy before citing it. Radiant_ >|< 17:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not substantially identical. It is a different article about the same subject. Refer to this comparison. - Nat Krause 07:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Delete - it's still vanity, imo -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - vanity - Tεx  τ  urε  14:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Vanity, non-notable. Only [22 hits in Google Groups] which I like to use as a touchstone because USENET tends to be less affected by deliberate promotion than the Web. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm merely observing this debate, I should point out that you spelt the subject's name incorrectly in your search. Also, Google isn't fooled that easily either. Click forward through a few pages of hits (by jumping e.g. 10 pages at a time) and Google will truncate the search to the 'unique' results like this. Note the message from Google at the bottom. As an aside, I'm not sure that specifically searching with an engine that avoids any kind of media/literature search is particularly useful for establishing notability or not. Without commenting on this article, I would suggest that your 22 hits just shows that there are 22 references to him in usenet groups and the like; that doesn't cover any of the more useful outlets at all. There may or may not be anything more notable turned up in a proper Google, but the groups search doesn't even admit the possibility. I find the truncation that Google does to be quite useful. -Splash 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies, 55 hits for Stephan Kinsella. No change in my vote. Generally speaking for most topics a Google Groups search consistently returns around 1/10 to 1/4 as many hits as a Web search. However, many sites engage in deliberate "search engine optimization" or other self-promotional activities. Few people don't bother to Astroturf or otherwise do anything to inflate their Groups count. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A search of ABI/Inform Global and Proquest Research Library, restricting search to "scholarly journals," turns up only one publication, and Kinsella is not the senior author: "The second paradox of blackmail Walter Block, N Stephan Kinsella, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Business Ethics Quarterly. Chicago: Jul 2000. Vol. 10, Iss. 3; p. 593" With an unrestricted search, there is only one additional hit, "Symposium: Q: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property? Ilana Mercer, N Stephan Kinsella, James DeLong. Insight on the News. Washington: May 21, 2001. Vol. 17, Iss. 19; p. 40 (4 pages)" Dpbsmith (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are uninformed. See the lists of my legal publications, and libertarian publications. A quick glance reveals I have articles in several scholarly publications, including several law reviews, all of which are "scholarly"--e.g., New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law; Louisiana Law Review; Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; St. Mary's Law Journal, one forthcoming in Southern University Law Journal, and others. And also some in other various scholarly or trade legal journals, such as: Philadelphia Lawyer, Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, Texas Oil & Gas Law Journal, The Licensing Journal, Intellectual Property Today, The Legal Intelligencer [Philadelphia], and Pennsylvania Lawyer.
 * Not to mention two legal treatises I have authored, and three others I serve as editor for, all published by the respected New York international law publisher Oceana Publications.
 * As for libertarian fora, these include scholarly journals such as Journal of Libertarian Studies (of which I served as book review editor for 5 years), Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and Reason Papers, not to mention publications such as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, etc.
 * My publication record clearly exceed those specifed under the notability criteria for bios. --Nskinsella 19:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Take it up with Proquest. I didn't decide which journals they consider important enough to index. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, take it up with proquest. These are not scholarly publications.  "New York Law School Journal of..." that's hardly the NYU Law Review.  Maybe you could count the Louisiana Law Review.  I'll give you that citation, although that is hardly the sign of a "leading" theorist of any sort. Jstrummer 04:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. The subject has enough publications that someone might want to know more about this author and turn to Wikipedia for the information.  Although it's an autobio, most of it seems verifiable, and we can remove the puffery, as we would with any non-autobio article.  (I've seen worse in articles that clearly weren't vanity.)  That it was already VfD'd once is certainly a concern.  We don't want to be debating the same articles over and over.  In this case, however, the new listing has attracted many more responses than the original did, so I think it's a valid occasion for revisiting the former decision. JamesMLane 17:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, slightly reluctantly, although the notability of being Andrew Gilligan's secret twin brother is quite high, it is not clear to me whether this subject is notable enough. However the  damage caused by such an article being present is minimal, unless it's leading to creeping (ultra) inclusionism.  Rich Farmbrough 19:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this seems to be a verifible article about an at least marginally notable person. If it is NPOV, then it can be edited. DES 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep due to marginal notability. Issues of vanity can be corrected through the editing process.  Hall Monitor 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep: Putting the bruhaha aside for a moment, this article should be kept, especially if you consider the subject's notability in comparison to the many marginal and trivial Wikibios. Ombudsman 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, not-notable enough for inclusion, just a lawyer with some minor legal articles. Does not appear in any biographical database I searched. Gamaliel 00:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "minor" articles? I don't agree with this; I have made significant impact in libertarian legal theory, and have published in many respected scholarly journals. As someone ELSE wrote on my entry,

 * "... Kinsella's views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory. ... In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard's and Williamson Evers's 'title transfer' theory of contract, linking it with inalienabiltiy theory while also clarifying that theory ('A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability' ). Kinsella sets forth a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory ('Causation and Aggression' ). Kinsella, as a practicing intellectual property attorney, also gives non-utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles ('Against Intellectual Property' ). Kinsella advances a 'discourse ethics' argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel (A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights)."
 * I have also authored two legal treatises on international law--hardly "minor" articles; and am editor of 4 other legal treatises. Also, please note SEVERAL wiki entries (e.g., Intellectual Property, Patent Attorney, Kinsella, Libertarian_theories_of_law, discourse ethics, refer to my entry. Why have them go to a blank page?? Does that serve any purpose?
 * In any event, if you still vote maintain your delete vote, applying those standards consistently, wouldn't you also vote have to against Tom G. Palmer, for the same reasons, which apply even moreso to his case? --Stephan Kinsella 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Funny. I have thrown away any number of offers to include me in SELF-PROMOTIONAL "Who's Who" books, and turn them DOWN--and now this has me accused of being self-promotional. Ridiculous. Anyway, try a google search for "Stephan Kinsella"; or Martindale. Nskinsella 01:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Martindale is a directory of lawyers, not an encyclopedia or biographical database, and it contains listings for over a million lawyers. Surely not all of them deserve an encyclopedia entry. Gamaliel 01:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * True. What do you think Who's Who is? Do you think everyone there deserves encyclopedic entry? You do not answer my point: that you are in effect penalizing me wiht the "self-promotion" critique because I did not engage in enough self-promotion earlier in response to all those dumb Who's Who offers. Nskinsella 03:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are not being penalized. An encyclopedia article is not a reward or something you deserve or have a right to.  And no, I do not think that an entry in Who's Who should automatically get you an encyclopedia entry here, but it's a damn sight more notable than appearing in a directory of over a million lawyers. I'm assuming you are referring to my vote at Votes for deletion/Tom G. Palmer where I noted Palmer had a WW entry.  That was not my only reason for voting a weak keep, nor should such an entry be the sole reason for inclusion.  My opinion was also swayed by both the content of the article and the posted opinions of other Wikipedia editors I respect. Also note that WW was hardly the only biographical database I search.  Here is an unformatted list of all the databases in which you also do not appear. Gamaliel 03:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, definitely. I know from personal experience that Mr. Kinsella is very well-known in libertarian/Austrian circles.  --zenohockey 03:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that this list and this list show notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You have 2 identical links. I think you meant to link to my libertarian page too: libertarian publications. Nskinsella 03:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is correct. I might note that we refer to him in Intellectual property and Libertarian theories of law! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also in Patent_attorney (which listing as a notable patent attorney I disagree with, BTW); and in Discourse_ethics (which, admittedly, I added).
 * Comment A recent message from User:Nskinsella let me to check his contributions and I notice that this user appears to be systematically lobbying everyone who voted for deletion here. Generally he seems to be suggesting that the Stephan Kinsella article should be kept because the Tom G. Palmer is worse. I've responded to this on his talk page. I know of no rule against lobbying VfD participants, but I for one don't much like it. Discussion of the deletion of the Stephan Kinsella article should take place here. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not true. I have noticed some people who voted to delete my entry are applying other standards elsewhere so I have merely asked that they make sure their standards are consistent and fair. That is all. If someone in good faith votes to delete my entry I have no problem with this. Strangely, however, I have noticed that NONE of the "delete" voters have even made an attempt to justify their decision based on Wiki's own criteria for bios; as I have shown, by those standards, my entry is permissible. No one has even attempted to contradict me on this. Sad. Stephan Kinsella 19:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Stephan is obviously making a WP:POINT. An important difference between his article and Palmer's is that the latter isn't self-written. Also it seems that Palmer simply has a greater claim to notability. Creating your own article out of disagreement with a deletion is poor form. Wanting an article deleted because your own may be deleted is similarly poor form. Radiant_ >|< 21:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * With regard to criteria... all right. Criteria for inclusion of biographies is a guideline, not a firm policy; it is a set of suggestions on how to look at biographies. The main section says that biographies meeting some criteria may be included, not that they must be. I happen to like the Google test, one of the criteria mentioned in the article. My own vote was originally based on an application of a variation of the Google test, using Google Groups. I then confirmed my impression using a Proquest search. I am now about to do a third: I personally regard a person as notable if they have written a book with an Amazon sale rank number that is less than (i.e. higher ranked than) 200,000. I do not know how this test will turn out. I believe by the way that this is a weaker criterion than "sales over 5,000." If Amazon shows that Stephan Kinsella has written a book with a sales rank number under 200,000 I will change my vote to "keep." Here we go:
 * Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk by Paul E. Comeaux, N. Stephan Kinsella, ISBN 0379213710 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,849,346 in Books
 * International Investment, Political Risk, And Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide. by N. Stephan Kinsella, ISBN 0379215225 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,623,236 in Books
 * Online Contract Formation, N. Stephan Kinsella (Editor), Andrew F. Simpson (Editor), ISBN 0379215195 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,623,235 in Books
 * A Civil Law to Common Law Dictionary, N. Stephan Kinsella, ASIN B0006QKZCG, out of print (no sales rank given)
 * Digest of Commercial Laws of the World, N. Stephan Kinsella (ed), no sales rank given
 * In interpreting these sales ranks: I happen to know of a particular book that has sold less than fifty copies and has an Amazon sales rank of #785,746.
 * My vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that Amazon sales ranks depend strongly on recency of sales. a bookm that has sold fewer copiees, but sold them more recently will generally have a lower (better) rank. The ranks are really not meaningful until you are dealing with books currently sellign well -- then they may be used to compare how well. Also they only record online sales, and are thus subject to systematic bias against books disproportionaly sold directly. I think you can get actual sales figures fromw Bowker (the people who maintain the Books in Print database) that are much more accurate, and give actual numbers of books sold, not a "rank", but I don't know exactly how to do this. DES 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you, and thanks. The Civil Law dictionary is a mistake by Amazon; it's not even a book. I tried to get them to fix it but they won't. I have an article by that title. Someone at Amazon is confused. The other books are expensive, specialty books. They hardly ever sell on Amazon; almost all of them are bought directly from the 50 year old publisher Oceana, which has an established catalog and direct mail and online presence. Digest is a 6 volume set so has less than 5000 sales. I am not sure of the sales of Online Contract Formation, but I think it's less than 5000 so far; but it was jsut releated last year. However, the International Investment book IS BEING RELEASED NEXT MONTH so there are no sales yet (though there are over 1000 pre-orders). The book it's replacing is the 1997 book, on Protecting Foreign Invesmtment. Its sales have petered of in last 2 years b/c the new book is coming out and b/c it's dated, but that book did have well over 5000 sales, and I can get a letter from Oceana to prove it if you want. MOroever, the criteria say articles in publications w/ more than 5000 subscribers, and several of mine have that. The Freeman for one, and probably some of the law reviews. Stephan Kinsella 00:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep - Notable enough, Wikipedia is not bound by paper restraints. Rangerdude 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete As per Gamaliel. The article contributes absolutely nothing to human knowledge. Arrogant, deluded vanity. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not an outlet to be used by non-notable lawyers for self-promotion ("hey, he must be good... he's even featured on wikipedia!"). It should also be speedied as a previously deleted article. If he was that notable then someone other than him or his department would have created the article. The JPS 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks The JPS. Duncharris, I think, already tried to speedy delete it, but it was decided that was not appropriate, due to the large number of discussions and the spare number for the first delete. So it was decided to let this process play out, to see what consensus emerges. Stephan Kinsella 15:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * As to being speedy deleted, WP:CSD criterion G4 says A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy. (bold added). I gather that this article is not substantially identical to the previous version even if it is on the same subject. Thus it is not subject to speedy deleteion under this criterion. DES 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dubious keep. Seems like vanity, but somewhat notable. Especially when you consider that we have articles on far less notable actors, singers, heads of organizations, authors, etc--the distinction being that it is doubtful that the parties themselves or their surrogates wrote them. Mmmbeer 19:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete As a lawyer, I suggest that he's only notable for the size of his ego. Why is he so desperate to have a Wikipedia article about him? 66.9.126.26 21:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete My original vote was deleted from this page. This is a vanity page, and Kinsella admits he wrote it himself. If you delete it, he's going to repost it as Stephan Kinsella 3, anyway. But it should be deleted anyway. Also, nearly all of the "keep" votes are sockpuppetish, or, I suspect, people on mailing lists that Stephan Kinsella has urged to vote for him. Virtually no libertarian knows who this guy is, except for a small band of people in Alabama. He's not cited in any serious academic articles. He's not published in any serious academic journals. He's just some lawyer guy who has a gigantic ego and a lot of free time to play around on the internet. Look how many times he comments on others' votes. Does this seem like the work of a leading intellectual, or a crackpot looking for net.notoriety? Jstrummer.
 * Again--I didn't delete you, or anyone. Your charges of "crackpot" are over the line. Stephan Kinsella 05:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, your post was never deleted. But at som point Galadriel (sp?) moved it to the bottom of the page--clearly you are a newbie, probably signed on recently on behalf of Tom Palmer just to attack Rockwell and Mises sites. Just a guess. A troll, IOW. Stephan Kinsella 05:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any delete of any votes; I certainly did not do this. There are not sockpuppets as far as I know. You are wrong about other libertarians not knowing me. This is just factually incorrect. You have not seen the correspondence I have gotten over the years from all over the states and increasingly, from around the world, as more of my articles get translated. I have published in serious academic journals. This is not boasting. It is just a fact and a correction of your misstatement. You are also wrong about my ego being gigantic. You are wrong, and do not know me. My ego is normal sized. Stephan Kinsella 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Stephan: I have been in the mainstream libertarian movement for 10 years. I've met every notable libertarian academic in the U.S., and many foreign ones.  I have also met you.  I have met and had discussions with nearly every important libertarian legal theorist from Epstein, to Posner, to Volokh, to Barnett, to Post, and so on.  Not once has your name been mentioned by ANY one of them, even when we've talked about IP law. It's very likely that not ONE of them knows who you are, although I wouldn't know for sure since your name doesn't come up.  You are not cited by them.  You are not invited to conferences hosted by or attended by them.  You haven't taught at any particularly impressive schools, or published in any respectable academic journals. You may be a fine practicing attorney - I would not know - but you do not qualify as a libertarian thinker, if by you mean "taken seriously by others."  What's more, my vote was deleted.  And that's annoying. Jstrummer.

 * I'm sorry, but by what criterion are you defining "respectable academic journals"? It seems to be an arbitrary one. Others have already listed journal articles has Kinsella has published. And I find your assertion that you have met "every notable libertarian academic in the US" laughable. It sounds to me that you have such a monster ego that if you have not gained personal audience with a "thinker" than you refuse to allow them to be referred to as notable. I have been in the "mainstream libertarian movement" for five years, and I HAVE heard of him. Maybe you should read more, so you could open your eyes to the notable libertarians that you haven't had a beer with.

 * Also, I am curious: Which "Barnett" are you referring to to? Bill Barnett, Andy Barnett, or Randy Barnett? All are published Libertarian thinkers. DickClarkMises 20:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I will change my vote to KEEP if the page says: "Stephan Kinsella is an intellectual property lawyer living in Houston, Texas who has published on paleolibertarian legal theory and is an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute." Then the page isn't vanity, it's truthful, and it's about all that Stephan deserves, if anything, on Wikipedia. Otherwise, my vote remains DELETE.

Man']] (talk'') 05:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Off-topic comment and following discussion regarding a barnstar I gave Kinsella has been moved to my Talk page
 * Über keep to counteract all the other strong votes. —[[user:Radman1|'''RaD
 * Keep This guy does seem to be known on the internet and so what if it is only through blogs. Surely the network of blogs has already brought major stories to the attention of the world so a recognised name in this sphere must be as valid as other journalists who are on wikipedia. 82.41.214.151 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: user's third day of editing.

 * Delete. Vanity page, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I vote to keep. This article is an example of what I want to find in a Wikipedia article.  As a libertarian (with no association with Shephan Kinsella) I value this article as a noncommercial document that provides information I find educational.  In reviewing the other votes for deletion I find many votes citing what I see as a weak reason (vanity or non-notable) outweighed by by what I believe is the reason Wikipedia or any encyclopedia article should exist: to provide useful information in context.  It seems to me that if I find the article useful, that is a valid counter to the claim of non-notable. Thane Eichenauer 07:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit.
 * I gladly admit that this is my first logged in edit to Wikipedia and my second edit ever. I have made only one previous edit and until today did not feel ready to take the step of creating an account for that one edit Special:Contributions/24.251.22.90. Thane Eichenauer 08:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Delete. The average law professor has a longer and more substantial list of publications, as do average (even below average) academics in many fields. Anyone who can run behind a Green Party candidate in a statewide election in Texas is a very, very minor character. (Texas judicial elections are complicated; his vote total fell between that for the Green candidate running directly for the same court seat he was and that of another Green candidate running for the same court.) Judge Magney 03:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Judge. But I don't know why you are equating electoral success with notability. Especially when someone does his best not to win. You might enjoy his interview in a laser industry trade magazine. Some found it humorous. But then, I get the impression many around here are Seriosos with no sense of humor. I think you are totally wrong about comparing my writing to that of typical law profs. But then, to each his own. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not equate electoral success with notability. I did imply that a candidate like yourself who is so resoundingly ignored by the electorate is likely to be non-noteworthy. Judge Magney 13:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. We have articles on equally undistinguished people who are Wikipedians. Grace Note 01:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. We are considering this article. If the existence of inappropriate articles in Wikipedia was considered to justify the addition of more inappropriate articles, we'd have a rapid "race to the bottom." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What's the big deal? His entry ain't so bad, he has written books, and the von Mises Institute is a real place.--Cberlet 22:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yo, are you Chip Berlet? Interesting. The SPLC guy? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep - Biography of a person alive with multiple book publications.. it seems as if he is probably notable enough for inclusion, and that this is not merely vanity. --J. Hess 02:47, 1 August 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.