text:
User talk:OorWullie

Celts et al
''There are celtic roots in Scotland, which is part of Britain. Britain is not England, being British is not being English. That pisses me off no end, being called English when I am not. First I am Scottish, second I am British, third I am a UK citizen. These islands are the British isles, your revisionist view of history will not change that.'' --OorWullie 17:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fenian_Swine"

Well, there is and there is'nt. The fact of the matter is that most of the various nations of the isles have no Celtic ansestry apart from those that descended from Celtic tribes such as the Atrebates, Brigantes and Menapii who emigrated to Britan and Ireland.

Most Scottish people descend from the Picts (which includes other nations such as the Caladonians), along with a strong dash of Irish (hence Scotland) and Viking, plus Norman and others.

When you and I talk about Celtic roots what we really mean is a heritage similar to that of the Celts, including languages that were related to those spoken in the Celtic homelands. However, no one in these isles ever described themselves as Celts in ancient times becase very few of them were actual Celts. They were Picts, Feni, Ulaid, Fir Ol nEchmacht, Caladonians, Fir Bolg, Silurian, Votadini, and much more besides - but not Celts.

For myself, I am well aware of the fact that Britain is not England, and that being British is not English. I would NEVER describe a proud Scotsman as English unless I was tired of having knees in the middle of my legs!

I accecpt that these isles were and continue to be called the British Isles. I'm not disputeing that. Nor am I trying to revise history; what I'm doing is confronting some incorrect assumptions people have of our mutual past. They treat these ideas as fact, and anyone who says otherwise is tagged as a West Brit-Fenian/Orange bastard/historical revisionist when in fact all I am trying to do is show what a rich past we actually have, and how wrong most of our unthinking assumptions of it are (mostly because of political dogmas).

A quick Analogy: Just because we speck English does not mean we are Anglo-Saxon. Just because we and our ancestors spoke a Celtic language does not mean we were Celts. Fergananim 19:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That was a very gracious reply you made on my talk page. Thanks of being so nice (makes a change from some!).

I don't have a problem with Celts per se; its just that I hate it when its used in the wrong context (and often not in a good way) for bashing people about the head (litterally). In any case we are all a wonderful breed of mongrels and have roots in many differnt peoples. Anyway, there's no reason at all why you can't get stuck into this issue either. Check out Celts and especially my extremely smart and titillating explanation at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive_I:_Talk:History_of_Ireland#A_Possible_Explanation

Seriously though, start off from "Celts Did Not Invade Ireland" and work you're way down. I love talk pages like this where everyone throws in their shilling's worth. Hope you do to. Looking forward to hearing more from you. Fergananim 20:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Caught in the Crossfire
Hi Wullie, thanks for dropping by. You know, I'm not even sure how all this began in the first place anymore because the same person uses a number of names and his only logic is vitrolic attacks. I find it impossible to understand why (except that he's anti-British) because he lets his anger and abusesive language dominate his entrys. All I wanted to do was open up some discussion on a few issues in Irish history; I am deeply sorry if you or any other user got caught in the crossfire. Is mise le meas mor, Fergananim 17:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem, I have been around WP researching and editing for a while but only recently opened an account, so I know how these 'debates' can be. I am not sure how I even ended up there, but you know how researching on WP can lead you to some weird and wonderful locations ;-).  I think the anger and vitriol might be explained when he says "... utter b*ll*x i have ever heard in all my 15years alive". I will don the hard hat for the expected entry on my talk page from our friend. Cheers --OorWullie 17:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In all fairness,ferg is not 100% innocent.He called me and my arguments dumb.IMPORTANTI'm not here to abuse user's.I'm one user,Fenian Swine.The other user,Muc Fíníneach, got banned for impersonating me.So I just want to make it clear that I'm not here to abuse but to add to the project.--Play Brian Moore 01:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[the real Fenian Swine]

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

title: User talk:OorWullie


text:
Category:Ugandan musicians

Musicians from the country of Uganda.

title: Category:Ugandan musicians


text:
Salem Channel

The Salem Channel is a channel in the Salem Sound that stretches from Winter Island in the city of Salem to Misery Shoal in the city limits of Beverly.

title: Salem Channel


text:
Istra

Istra may refer to:

Places

 * Istra (river), a river in Russia
 * Istra, Istrinsky District, Moscow Oblast, a town in Istrinsky District of Moscow Oblast, Russia
 * Istra, Krasnogorsky District, Moscow Oblast, an inhabited locality named Istra in Krasnogorsky District, Moscow Oblast
 * Istra Reservoir, a reservoir in Russia near Millerhof palace
 * Istra (Rauma), a river in Rauma municipality in Møre og Romsdal, Norway
 * Istra or Istria, a peninsula in the Adriatic Sea
 * Istria County, the Croatian portion of the Istria peninsula

Sports

 * FC Istra, an association football club in Russia
 * NK Istra, an association football club in Croatia
 * NK Istra 1961, an association football club in Croatia

title: Istra


text: User talk:69.232.198.90

title: User talk:69.232.198.90


text:
George Steel (Manitoba politician)

George Steel (June 3, 1858 –August 20, 1940 ) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1899 to 1915.

Steel was born in Ayrshire, Scotland, the son of John Steel, and was educated at public schools in Lorne and Dallegles. He worked as a farmer, and resided in Glenboro, Manitoba. In religion, Steel was a Presbyterian.

He was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in the 1899 provincial election, defeating Liberal incumbent Alfred Doig by 98 votes in the constituency of Cypress. He identified himself as a "Liberal-Conservative", and sat as a backbench supporter the Conservative administrations led by Hugh John Macdonald and Rodmond Roblin.

Steel was re-elected in the 1903 election as a Liberal-Conservative, and in the elections of 1907, 1910 and 1914 as a Conservative. He continued to serve as a backbench supporter of Roblin's administration throughout this period.

In 1915, the Roblin government was forced to resign amid a serious corruption scandal. A new election was called, which the Liberals won in a landslide. Steel lost his constituency seat to Liberal Andrew Myles by sixty-two votes.

He died in Glenboro at the age of 82.

title: George Steel (Manitoba politician)


text: Template:ABPremiers

title: Template:ABPremiers


text:
User talk:Dr. Zoid

And i'm his friend, Jesus!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Non-free use disputed for Image:Super Duper Symmetric String Theory.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Super Duper Symmetric String Theory.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShadowHalo 05:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dr. Zoid


text:
One A.M. (1916 film)

One A.M. is a unique Charlie Chaplin silent film created for Mutual Film in 1916. It was the first film he starred in alone, and also one of the very few films in which he did not play the Tramp character.

Plot
The film opens with a scene of a wealthy young man (Chaplin) arriving at his house in a taxi in the morning after a night of heavy drinking. He tries in vain to grasp the handle on the outside. He thinks, "They really need to place the handles near the door."

When he finally does find it after some searching, he gets out, with his hand on the open taxi window. However, in his drunkenness, he thinks his hand is stuck, and tries to pull it out. "I never did like taxis," he remarks.

He then takes out his handkerchief, blows his nose on it, and wipes the mucus onto the taxi door, in an attempt to free his hand. However, his handkerchief falls, and Charlie, in his drunkenness, never thinks of the fact that he has to just withdraw his hand and walk from the side to retrieve his handkerchief, almost wrecks the taxi and very nearly kills himself in trying to retrieve his handkerchief the hard way.

All this while, the taxi driver (Albert Austin) never reacts. Thanks to a big miracle (well, according to the drunk, anyway!), Charlie withdraws his hand, and headbutts the taxi door so hard he knocks himself back inside. Fortunately, though, he'd grabbed his hanky by then. This is what has been questioned by critics—how a drunk man can have better reflexes than the average sober man.

He looks at the money he has to pay to the taxi driver. However, the numbers are moving fast—too fast for Charlie. He stares at it for some seconds, then looks back at the scenery, and then stares back at it again, when the numbers are still moving. He thinks the numbers have gone nuts and just puts on his top hat. He then lights up his cigar and, accidentally, burns the taxi driver's hand with the lit end. He hastily pays and decides to leave.

However, he does not observe the fact that his jacket is trapped in the closed door. His hat falls off as he's jerked back towards the taxi. He almost punctures a wheel in his attempt to free the jacket, and the door, unexpectedly, opens with a jolt. Of course, he's knocked back out.

He walks up to his front door. When he reaches it, however, another problem faces him. He thinks that he has forgotten the key and has to enter through the window. He knocks it out and climbs in. In the process, he steps into a fishbowl placed underneath it, and then slips on a mat. He finds his key was in his coat pocket all along, and decides to enter the "proper" way, that is, via the door.

However, when he enters, he slips on a mat, and for 10 seconds of some heart-in-mouth slipping and standing, the door becomes Charlie's only lean-on. Of course, the door is the worst possible option for a lean-on, and Charlie pays the price. He struggles to balance, and wonders whether he's wearing skates. He finally slips when he lets go of the door, regains his balance but soon loses it, considering he has to balance against the jacket-hanger, and then slips again, landing on his jaw.

He retrieves himself, and walks surprisingly steadily for a few steps, until another mat approaches him, and his legs slide out from below him, causing him to fall on his back. He lands between a tiger rug and a stuffed Eurasian lynx, which terrify him as he thinks they are real. He tries edging away from each other, only resulting in more hilarity as Charlie tries kicking the tiger rug away and then later thinks his foot is being eaten by the tiger. However, it doesn't end there. He tries to lure the lynx by giving it an air-kiss, and then walks up to it and kicks it away. That, however, ends when he proceeds onto the table.

There, he tries to pour himself a drink, but his jacket accidentally gets stuck onto a hole in the table, and the table top spins around. Unaware of the jacket that is stuck on the table, he keeps chasing the drinks and never gives up. He tries swatting his hands over to the drinks, but they elude him. Charlie's willpower increases minute-by-minute, and his running gets faster as it does—and so does the table top. "That's the fastest round of drinks I ever saw!" he remarks when the drink keeps eluding him.

By and by, Charlie tires, and stops for a second. However, he sees the drinks have stopped, too, and thinks he can get to them by just walking up to them. But alas! When he does, the table top starts spinning again, and the wild goose-chase resumes. Charlie staggers backwards, and the drinks come within his reach. However, when he tries getting them, the goose-chase resumes and Charlie continues the run.

And then, of all the times, does he realize the jacket was the cause for the spinning table top. He takes it off, and walks towards the drinks, but the table keeps spinning. This is because Charlie's foot is on the jacket, and he resumes running after it. He finally falls down out of sheer exhaustion, and, lo and behold, the table top stops spinning. He looks at the drinks in wonder as they've stopped. "What detained you?" he asks.

He takes the drink—and as fate would have it, poured it on the table. Seeing the glass still empty, he takes another glass and pours the drink on the table again. He then attempts to pour it directly onto the glass, and he found a way to mess that up as well—carelessly, he sloshed it everywhere around the floor and on his shoes.

He then attempts to light a cigarette, but messes that up too. He cannot light it, and dumps it in his hat, that is, thanks to his goose-chase, on the floor, thinking of it as a dustbin, and then burns his hand with the lit end. He walks over to his hat and takes the cigar out, then dumps it on the large pool of beer he's got. "This has been done," he remarks, and throws it in the hat.

He takes out another cigarette from his cigar-pouch, slips on a carpet, unsuccessfully attempts to hang his hat against the peg, puts it on anyway, and then slips on another carpet, his head landing on the bottom of the stairs. He dumps his jacket and hat, and heads towards his drinks. Paranoid that he's in for another goose-chase, he leaps onto them. Of course, he gets them, pours them and chugs them.

He then walks on the lynx, and thinks his leg is trapped between its legs. Of course, instead of just withdrawing his legs, he instead kicks its mouth from his left leg. As a bad element, however, his feet slide out from under him, and he lands flat on his back. All this has drained him. "Good night! I'm off!" he declares, and tries to head up the stairs to his bedroom. But at the last step, he falters, losing his balance, and, of course, slides all the 13 stairs down. He tries again, and gets knocked back down, nearly slipping on the carpet. He walks up to the drinks, drinks another glass, and staggers, falling flat on his back. Cigarette in mouth, he tries again—and fails again. He proceeds to fail several times in climbing the stairs, and a large cuckoo clock on the upstairs landing also poses a problem, due to its pendulum's implausibly wide swing. He becomes increasingly creative with his attempts to climb the stairs, using mountain gear, for instance, in his next attempt.

This does not go down well. The rope is not lengthy, which means Charlie can only use it for a limited length. When he reaches the top, the rope gives in, and Charlie slides down helplessly. "If I knew how to yodel, I'd make it!" he remarks, upon sliding down. He tries climbing again, and, miraculously, reaches upstairs. However, the pendulum knocks into his jaw, and Charlie staggers back towards the stairs—back to where he started.

"I'll try another route." He tries going up the second staircase, walks all the way back down, and then wonders how he got knocked down again. He climbs up the table top, and he's already run a marathon before he can gain his balance. And he's still running the marathon as he looks determinedly to his room. "Light exercise," he thinks—and falls off the next minute.

He tries climbing via the first staircase again, and falls all the way back down again—only this time, he drags the carpet with him. Wrapped up in this carpet, he takes another shot and then tries climbing via the jacket-hanger. It is very dangerous, and Charlie's life hangs in balance for a second, until Charlie grasps hold of the staircase and manages to get to the door of his room.

Alas! The pendulum interferes again. The next thing he knows, Charlie is sliding all the way down. He re-attempts going to his room via the same route, and this time is successful. The pendulum smashes into his jaw again, but Charlie isn't knocked down the stairs, and enters like a four-legged animal into his room.

He searches for his Murphy bed. Soon, the hilarity ensues again, which ends with Charlie wrecking his bed and tearing his hat. He gives up on the idea of sleeping in his bed and goes to bathroom for further inspiration. He enters the shower and, of course, in his drunken state, turns it on. He wets himself, and, soaked, he gets into the bathtub and then falls asleep under a towel.

Review
A reviewer for the Louisville Herald wrote, "Chaplin, by himself, creates all the action that is necessary to produce the laughs for which he has become noted, and there is no doubt that this is the most exacting role the comedian has ever essayed."

Miscellany
Edna Purviance's absence from the cast was a rarity. Apart from His New Job, One A.M. was the only Chaplin film from 1915 to 1923 not to feature Purviance in some role.

Cast

 * Charlie Chaplin - Drunk
 * Albert Austin - Taxi driver

Sound version
In 1932, Amedee Van Beuren of Van Beuren Studios, purchased Chaplin's Mutual comedies for $10,000 each, added music by Gene Rodemich and Winston Sharples and sound effects, and re-released them through RKO Radio Pictures. Chaplin had no legal recourse to stop the RKO release. Many Chaplin fans consider this version of ‘One A.M.’ to be a brilliant combination of music and sound effects with the action.

title: One A.M. (1916 film)


text:
Talk:Software copyright

Missing an important point that many would like to know
Apart from copying and redistibuting someone else's work, how much of that work are you allowed to replicate in your own software. For example, if someone wanted to program a word-like-software how much of the word features is he/she allowed to use as his own noting that he will program it from scratch.

 * I expect you'd be interested in looking at Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., which addresses this very issue. 128.220.159.20 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly biased
I tagged this article as possibly NPOV because the first sentence is awkward:
 * Software copyright, the relatively recent extension of copyright law to software, allowed a market for proprietary software to flourish for some time.

I would have expected a definition of software copyright and what is offered instead is a curious retrospective, wishful, unsupported claim about the alleged decline of proprietary software. Please help to make this article less NPOV. Cheers. --Edcolins 19:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I changed that sentence to read "has allowed", so it now does not suggest that the proprietary software market has dissipated. I've left the NPOV tag, though, until someone can look at the rest of the article more thoroughly. ArthurDenture 18:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This article is unlikely ever to be completely unbiased due to the complicated nature of the subject and the many points of view. This problem is exacerbated by the practice of posting the arguments against software copyright on a separate page, which are also tagged NPOV. Possibly a way to solve this would be simply to post a clear indication of this fact within the context of the page itself, as well as at the end of the article, which sometimes is not donePhil alias Harry 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (sorry, i was for some reason not logged in when i hit the save button)

- Keanu Reeves

 * I have checked this article for any inaccuracies and can now confirm that it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.152.221 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is just about the worst wikipedia article I've ever read. There's not even a summary of what software copyrights govern--it just skips into crap right away. I'm not especially qualified, but can someone who is please clean this up?

This article screams POV. I've tagged it as such and am endeavoring to clean up.--Nowa 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags
I've attempted to remove POV, clean up article and add more of world view. OK to remove tags?--Nowa 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say leave the tags until you are done and everyone agrees. If I can help I will try and find information on the subject and that is not straight legal jargon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotboy2008 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

added " and because programs were regarded as a simple list of instructions for the computer to process and hence not copyrightable". if that needs to be rendered into legalese someone conversant should do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

yes this is quite true but it is hard to show a broad overview of everyones opinions in what is meant to be a factual page. How is fact meant to be displayed if everybody has different opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.207.185 (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization
This page will be revised over the next week as part of the IP WikiProject. I intend to recast the overview in more descriptive terms, and then break the US section into subsections for history, rights retained by copyright holders, rights granted to others, etc. Asrabkin (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I will be helping with this edit over the next week as well as a part of the IP WikiProject.Justonlysteve (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. First round of editing is done. We'd like to remove the NPOV tag. Objections? Asrabkin (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kelly v Arriba doesn't fit here
I don't think the material on Kelly v Arriba fits here. The topic of this article is "software copyright", and the copyright material at stake in Kelly was photographs. There's a pretty substantial page on Kelly, so I'm nuking the stuff here.

corporate conspiracy
stallman talks about it here: should that info be put somewhere? 89.216.192.218 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Too US-centric
I think that much of this article is too US-centric. The History section talks only about US law - and even assumes that the reader knows it's US law without mentioning it. Then later on, there's an Around the World section in which a few other countries get a mention, but once again the US is included. As a minimum, the History section should be moved to the US section of Around the World. Or maybe the article needs to be renamed Software copyright in the USA, with similar articles for other countries. Mandolamus (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Software Copyright Law References
Copyright Codex is a free treatise on U.S. copyright law. Its a reorganized and updated version of Prof. Robert Gorman's Copyright Treatise for the Federal Judicial Center (also an excellent free reference).

The Copyright Codex pages on Software Copyright Infringement and Copyright in Software Code could be useful references for this article.

Copyright Codex is my own work, and I don't mean to be spammy. I'm just proposing it on the talk page, I'd never use it or link to it in any of my edits to the actual article. Teachingaway (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the spammy-ness. The material you cited can still be found on archive.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

talk software copyright
find new section serves talk software copyrighte Nurhusien — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.73.53 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

East Germany???
IANAL so I won't edit the page - but is East Germany still relevant now it has been reunited with the rest of the country, so is part of the EU? Number774 (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Software copyright


text: User talk:200.149.244.242

title: User talk:200.149.244.242


text:
Pafawag

Pafawag (Państwowa Fabryka Wagonów) (English: National Rail Carriage Factory) is a Polish locomotive manufacturer based in Wrocław. The company became part of Adtranz in 1997 as Adtranz Pafawag, and in 2001 part of Bombardier Transportation. It is now part of the company Alstom.

History
The factory opened in 1833 as Linke-Hofmann-Werke, Breslau, and became one of the major production centres for rolling stock in Europe.

By the end of the Second World War most of the factory had been destroyed, and after the War the city of Breslau became part of Poland.

In 1953 the company was renamed Pafawag.

In 1953 the company produced the EP-02, the first Polish electric locomotive manufactured after World War II.

In the late 1980s to mid 1990s the company experienced increasing economic problems due to lack of orders causing loss of production and lower employment.

In 1997 ABB DaimlerBenz Transportation (ADtranz) acquired a majority share in the company. The Adtranz group (DaimlerChrysler Rail Systems after 1999) was bought by Bombardier Transportation in 2001; the Wroclaw plant was merged with another Bombardier owned plant based in Łódź to form Bombardier Transportation Polska Sp. z o.o. The plant manufactures the bodyshells of Bombardier locomotives as well as other sub-components for the Bombardier Transportation group.

In 2015 Bombardier contracted Panattoni Europe to construct an additional 18357 m2 manufacturing hall, initially to be used for the construction of Deutsche Bahn's ICx trains.

Products
The main products:
 * locomotives,
 * bodies,
 * frames,
 * running gear for locomotives.

Pafawag was the producer of first Polish modern "fast locomotive" EP09.

title: Pafawag


text:
USS Dewey (DD-349)

The first USS Dewey (DD-349) was a Farragut-class destroyer of the United States Navy, launched in 1934 and named for Admiral George Dewey. Dewey served in the Pacific through World War II. After escaping damage during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, Dewey screened the aircraft carrier USS Lexington (CV-2) until the carrier was lost in the Battle of the Coral Sea; then screened USS Saratoga (CV-3) through the Invasion of Guadalcanal and the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. Following overhaul in San Francisco, Dewey spent 1943 in Alaskan waters supporting the invasions of Attu and Kiska. Dewey spent 1944 supporting raids in the Marshalls, Carolines, and Marianas, including screening carriers during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. After being damaged by Typhoon Cobra during the Recapture of the Philippines, Dewey supported the invasion of Iwo Jima and spent the remainder of the war screening replenishment oilers.

History
Dewey was launched on 28 July 1934 by Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, sponsored by Miss A. M. Dewey, great-grandniece of Admiral Dewey. She was commissioned on 4 October 1934, with Commander H. W. Hill in command.

After two training cruises to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Port-au-Prince, Haiti, the Dewey sailed from Norfolk, Virginia, on 1 April 1935 for San Diego, California, arriving on 14 April. Until 1938 she operated principally from this port on local operations as well as engaging in fleet tactics, battle practice, and scheduled exercises. She cruised along the West Coast as far north as Alaska and as far south as Callao, Peru, and made three cruises to the Hawaiian area. From 4 January to 12 April 1939 she returned to the Atlantic for a fleet problem. Dewey arrived at Pearl Harbor 12 October 1939 and participated in tactical exercises, battle practice, fleet problems, and maneuvers until 1941.

World War II
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Dewey was undergoing tender overhaul. She opened fire on the enemy planes and that afternoon got underway to patrol in the Hawaiian area. On 15 December she joined TF 11 sailing to relieve the Navy and Marine garrison on Wake Island, which fell on 23 December. Dewey returned to her patrol assignment.

In February 1942 she rejoined TF 11 for a projected strike on Rabaul. The force was sighted by two enemy patrol planes and the strike was canceled after Dewey aided in downing several of the 18 Japanese bombers directed to the force by the patrol plane' reports. She continued to screen the Lexington in the strikes on Lae and Salamaua, New Guinea, on 10 March and returned to Pearl Harbor on the 26th.

TF 11 sortied from Pearl Harbor 15 April 1942 for operations in the Solomon Islands. On 5 May word came that the Japanese were advancing on Port Moresby, and Dewey's group joined the USS Yorktown (CV-5) in the battle of the Coral Sea. When the Lexington came under intensive attack, Dewey joined in with antiaircraft fire, having five of her crewmen wounded by enemy strafing. The Lexington was badly hit, and as fires raged out of control, she was abandoned, with Dewey rescuing 112 of the carrier's survivors. She screened the Yorktown into Nouméa 12 May, and then returned to Pearl Harbor 25 May in the screen for the USS Enterprise (CV-6).

Dewey sailed three days later in Enterprise's task force. The Battle of Midway was joined 2 to 6 June, and throughout this action Dewey screened the USS Platte (AO-24). Returning to Pearl Harbor 9 June, Dewey escorted the USS Saratoga (CV-3) as the carrier brought an air squadron to Midway between 22 and 29 June. On 7 July she cleared for the initial landings on Guadalcanal, which she bombarded 7 August. On that day of the first assault, Dewey fired on attacking dive bombers, suffering one crewman wounded. She went to the rescue of two ships, aiding the USS Jarvis (DD-393) to regain power, and towing the USS George F. Elliott (AP-13) until her damage made it necessary to abandon her. Dewey rescued 40 of the transport's survivors.

Dewey remained in the Solomons to protect supply and communication lines, and screened the Saratoga during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons on 24 August 1942. She escorted the Saratoga, damaged by submarine torpedo 31 August, to Pearl Harbor, arriving 23 September, and 6 days later sailed for overhaul at San Francisco. On 27 December 1942 she got underway for duty in Alaskan waters. When the USS Worden (DD-352) ran aground at Amchitka, Dewey attempted to tow her off the rocks, then aided in rescuing her survivors when stormy weather forced her abandonment. On 7 April 1943, Dewey sailed for San Pedro to escort an assault group to Attu for the invasion 11 May. She also took part in the landings at Kiska 15 August, before escorting a group of LSTs to San Francisco, arriving 19 September.

1944
Sailing from San Diego 13 January 1944, Dewey arrived off Kwajalein 31 January and served as escort during the carrier strike on Majuro of 11 February and the invasion landings on Eniwetok on 18 February. She escorted convoys between Eniwetok, Roi, and Majuro, and bombarded Mille Atoll on 17–18 March. From 22 March to 6 June, she operated in the screen of TF 58, taking part in raids on Palau, Yap, Ulithi and Woleai; the invasion of Hollandia on 21 and 22 April; and the strike on Truk of 29 April to 1 May. On 6 June, she sailed to screen carriers in fighter sweeps against Tinian and Saipan on 11 June, then bombarded of Saipan and Tinian on 13 and 14 June, when she fired on enemy barges and started a fire in an oil dump. During the Marianas landings, Dewey screened the carriers during the resulting Battle of the Philippine Sea on 19 and 20 June, and rescued several pilots and crew members who were forced to ditch.

Dewey joined the transport screen 1 July 1944 for the invasion of Guam. She furnished close fire support for reconnaissance groups, covered the work of underwater demolition teams, conducted night harassing fire, and patrolled off the island until 28 July, when she sailed for a brief overhaul at Puget Sound Navy Yard.

Dewey put to sea 30 September 1944 to join the logistics group for the 3rd Fleet on 10 October. She screened this group in its refueling operations for the Philippines invasion until the typhoon of 18 December, which heavily damaged the units of the 3rd Fleet. Dewey had lost all power by noon, and was rolling more than 75 degrees; her number one stack was torn and thrown against the boat deck. She rejoined her group 8 February 1945, after repairs had been completed at Ulithi, and arrived at Iwo Jima 17 February, where she assisted in putting out fires on USS Patuxent (AO-44). Aiding the Marines who assaulted the island 19 February, she helped break up a Japanese counter-attack by firing star shell illumination on 23 February.

After escorting a convoy to Leyte from 4 to 6 March 1945, Dewey rejoined the logistics group for the Okinawa operation, screening the oilers as they refueled the carriers in preinvasion air strikes and the raids in the Far East, which continued until the end of the war.

Fate
On 21 August, she got underway for San Diego, arriving 7 September. She continued to the east coast, arriving at Brooklyn Navy Yard 25 September. Dewey was decommissioned 19 October 1945 and sold 20 December 1946.

Awards
Dewey received 13 battle stars for World War II service.

title: USS Dewey (DD-349)


text:
Via Caecilia

Via Caecilia, an ancient highroad of Italy, which diverged from the Via Salaria at the 35th mile (56 km) from Rome, and ran by Amiternum to the Adriatic coast, passing probably by Hadria (Atri). A branch ran to Interamna Praetuttiorum (Teramo) and thence probably to the sea at Castrum Novum (Giulianova), a distance of about 151 miles (243 km) from Rome. It was probably constructed by Lucius Caecilius Metellus Diadematus (consul in 117 BC, censor 115).

title: Via Caecilia


text:
WINK-TV

WINK-TV (channel 11) is a television station licensed to Fort Myers, Florida, United States, serving as the CBS affiliate for Southwest Florida. It is owned by the McBride family and their Fort Myers Broadcasting Company, making it one of a handful of TV stations today to have locally-based ownership. Fort Myers Broadcasting also provides certain services to three Naples-licensed stations under a shared services agreement (SSA) with Sun Broadcasting: CW affiliate WXCW (channel 46), low-power Univision affiliate WUVF-LD (channel 2), and low-power Azteca América affiliate WANA-LD (channel 18). The stations share studios on Palm Beach Boulevard (SR 80) in northeast Fort Myers; WINK-TV's transmitter is located north of Fort Myers Shores, near the Charlotte–Lee county line.

History
The station began broadcasting on March 18, 1954, owned by the family of taxicab magnate and Cleveland Browns founder Mickey McBride along with WINK radio (1240 AM, later used on 1200 AM; and 96.9 FM). WINK-TV was the first television station in Southwest Florida and is the fifth-oldest surviving station in the state. Although the call letters appear to be an outgrowth of its CBS affiliation, in fact they were simply carried over from its radio sister, which adopted them in 1944—seven years before the CBS Eye made its first appearance. It carried programming from the four major networks of its era: CBS, NBC, ABC and DuMont in the first two decades of its existence. However, it has always been a primary CBS affiliate.

Channel 11 lost DuMont when that network ended operations in 1956. In December 1968, WINK-TV finally gained a local competitor when WBBH-TV signed on and took the NBC affiliation. The two stations continued to share ABC until WEVU-TV (now WZVN-TV) signed on in 1974. However, viewers could watch the full ABC and NBC schedules via stations from Miami–Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Tampa–St. Petersburg, which were and continue to be available with outdoor antennas.

WINK-TV was a major beneficiary of a quirk in the FCC's plan for allocating stations. In the early days of broadcast television, there were twelve VHF channels available and 69 UHF channels (later reduced to 55 in 1983). The VHF bands were more desirable because they carried longer distances. Since there were only twelve VHF channels available, there were limitations as to how closely the stations could be spaced.

After the FCC's Sixth Report and Order ended the license freeze and opened the UHF band in 1952, it devised a plan for allocating VHF licenses. Under this plan, almost all of the country would be able to receive two commercial VHF channels plus one noncommercial channel. Most of the rest of the country ("1/2") would be able to receive a third VHF channel. Other areas would be designated as "UHF islands" since they were too close to larger cities for VHF service. The "2" networks became CBS and NBC, "+1" represented non-commercial educational stations, and "1/2" became ABC (which was the weakest network then usually winding up with the UHF allocation where no VHF was available).

However, Fort Myers is sandwiched between Miami–Fort Lauderdale (channels 2, 4, 6, 7 and 10) and West Palm Beach (channels 5 and 12) to the east and Tampa Bay (channels 3, 8, 10, and 13) to the north. This created a large doughnut in southwest Florida where there could be only one VHF license. WINK-TV was fortunate to gain that license, and as a result was the only local station that provided a clear picture to outlying portions of the market until cable television arrived in the mid-1970s. Although there was no station on channel 9 in the immediate area, it was occupied in Orlando, which was too close to Fort Myers to reallocate.

The station has identified almost exclusively with its call letters since the mid-1980s. This is due in large part to the extremely high penetration of cable and satellite in Southwest Florida—one of the highest in the nation. Cable and satellite are all but essential for acceptable television reception in much of the market, even in the digital age.

On October 20, 2007, WINK-TV became the first television station in Southwest Florida to begin broadcasting in high definition. In January 2008, several programming changes were made on WINK-TV. It began airing The Early Show (which was replaced by CBS This Morning in January 2012, which in turn was replaced by CBS Mornings in September 2021) in its entirety after CBS began requiring all of its affiliates to air the full two-hour broadcast of the program.

During the landfall of Hurricane Ian on September 28, 2022, the station's studio in downtown Fort Myers was inundated by storm surge flooding from nearby Billy Creek, knocking WINK-TV, WXCW and their sister radio stations off the air. On September 30, WINK-TV returned to the air from a makeshift studio at its transmitter site, though using WXCW's main channel to broadcast the WINK-TV schedule.

Controversy
On September 28, 2022, WINK-TV staff endured extensive criticism on social media after meteorologist Dylan Federico filmed and tweeted a young cat struggling outside the studio during Hurricane Ian. After extensive criticism focused on the station sharing the video without attempting to help the cat, the staff ultimately attempted to bring the animal inside but failed. The cat was rescued by emergency personnel later in the evening when evacuating staff from the building. Following additional criticism, staff deleted their original tweets featuring the video and Federico disabled responses and chose to hide critical responses on his account.

News operation
WINK-TV presently broadcasts 46 hours of locally produced newscasts each week (with $7 1/2$ hours each weekday, $3 1/2$ hours on Saturdays and five hours on Sundays). The McBrides have always devoted significant resources to channel 11's news operation, resulting in a higher-quality product than conventional wisdom would suggest for Fort Myers, which has always been a small-to-medium-sized market. It was the undisputed market leader until the 1990s, and has spent most of the last quarter-century in a spirited battle with WBBH.

WINK-TV operates two news bureaus: the Charlotte County Bureau in the Charlotte Sun newsroom in Charlotte Harbor and the Collier County Bureau in Naples. The Boston Red Sox have held spring training in Fort Myers since 1993, and WINK-TV shares its coverage of the team with fellow CBS station WBZ-TV in Boston.

On May 26, 2011, WINK-TV debuted an hour-long 4 p.m. newscast, one of many added on television stations around the United States on that date to replace The Oprah Winfrey Show, which ended its 25-year run the day before. On June 11, 2011, WINK-TV debuted a 90-minute morning newscast on Saturday and Sunday mornings. WINK-TV also added a half-hour late morning newscast at 10 a.m. on September 6, 2011 (which was later dropped). On September 16, 2013, WINK-TV expanded its weekday morning newscast a half-hour early to 4:30 a.m. and expanded the extension of that program on WXCW by one hour to 7 to 10 a.m. In January 2015, WINK-TV expanded the 6:30 p.m. newscast to weekends on WXCW.

Notable former staff include Hoda Kotb (1989–1991), Trey Radel and Kerry Sanders.

Subchannels
The station's signal is multiplexed:

WINK-TV operates the Naples–Fort Myers market's Antenna TV affiliate on its DT2 subchannel (as of March 1, 2019), replacing a standard definition simulcast of the primary/CBS feed that had been airing over that subchannel since 2016, that simulcast having replaced an affiliation with a 24/7 Weather service that aired over WINK-DT2 between 2012 and 2015. As of March 4, 2019, WINK-DT2 also carries the MyNetworkTV programming service on weeknights, filling in programming for all time slots outside of the MyNetworkTV programming schedule with the Antenna TV schedule; the March 2019 relaunch of WINK-DT2 as a dual Antenna TV/MyNetworkTV affiliate restored in-market access to the MyNetworkTV programming service to southwest Florida for the first time since Comcast's July 1, 2015, closure of former cable-exclusive dual MyNetworkTV/This TV affiliate, WNFM-TV.

Analog-to-digital conversion
WINK has been digital-only since February 17, 2009. It moved its digital signal to UHF channel 50 in mid-2011.

Out-of-market cable coverage
WINK-TV is one of two Fort Myers stations carried by Xfinity in Venice and Wauchula. It is the only Southwest Florida-based station carried on Xfinity's Sebring system.

title: WINK-TV


text:
Talk:Guard (computer science)

Add non-Haskel language example
The guard clause topic should inclue the real world and cross-language pattern of returning from a method/function at the beginning if the boolean condition is met. This reduces the number of nesting levels.

C# example

bool A(int X, int Y, int Z) { if (X > Y) return; if (X > Z) return;

code to process X, Y and Z }

Just another name?
Is this just Haskell's name for a switch statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk • contribs)

 * Guard is a way more general concept, and any switch, case, or cond statement that uses guards in choosing the branch to take is more expressive than the alternative statements that use equality or set containment tests. --TuukkaH 20:51:12, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

 * I know nothing about Haskell beyond what is written here, but reading this article it looks like a guard is basically a conditional in Haskell, as covered by the the section Guard (computer science). In contrast, in most language is refers to a way of writing the code to avoid some levels of nesting, as covered by Guard (computer science).  If that is the case, this should be made clear.  If that isn't the case, we need to do a much better job of explaining what is the case.  Yaris678 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Guard vs conditional
Is there a good reason to discuss Guard (computing) separately from Conditional (programming)? --Abdull (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guard (computer science). 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/20050408114902/http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/book/section-2.3.5 to http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/book/section-2.3.5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051129140339/http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html to http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html

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) 22:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Needs first example to be in a language with simpler grammar
Including python's isInstance in the first example requires special knowledge of Python. Use something more generic with typed and named parameters without relying on a language feature, library call or exception throw.

int Foo(int x) { if (x < 0) return 0; return X + 1; } 107.197.56.204 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Guard (computer science)


text:
Tullywiggan

Tullywiggan (possibly  ) is a small village outside Cookstown, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. It lies within the civil parish of Derryloran, the historic barony of Dungannon Upper, and is situated within Cookstown District Council.

Excavations have shown signs of a New Stone Age and early Bronze Age settlement.

title: Tullywiggan


text:
Masterpiece (The Temptations song)

"Masterpiece" is a 1973 soul single written by Norman Whitfield and performed by American vocal group the Temptations.

Background
Whitfield, who also produced the track, entitled it "Masterpiece" because he felt it was a perfect blending of strings, horns, rhythm players, voices, studio tricks, and sweetening elements. However, the word 'masterpiece' does not appear in the song's lyrics, which do not point to anything obvious from which to draw a title. As with their Whitfield-produced hit from the previous year, "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone", the Temptations do not make their first appearance until after a long instrumental section. This added to already building tension between the group and Whitfield and led some music writers to start referring to the Temps as "the Norman Whitfield Choral Singers".

Personnel

 * Lead and background vocals by Dennis Edwards, Richard Street, Damon Harris, Melvin Franklin (song verses), and Otis Williams (spoken introduction)
 * Instrumentation by the Funk Brothers

Chart history
Released from the album of the same title, the title track reached number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart and spent two weeks at number one on the Hot Soul Singles chart. It was their last Top Ten pop hit with Motown Records, and perhaps the last such hit in their career, not counting "The Motown Song," their collaboration with Rod Stewart in 1991.

title: Masterpiece (The Temptations song)


text:
Talk:509th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Unit number maze
Comments by Habap removed by Habap because they were inane. --Habap 19:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that this unit went thru a lot or organizational changes, I guess that's what happens when you're the first of your kind. Thankfully the number-swapping calmed down once they went into combat, or it really would be hard to track them.  It is hard enough to track them from startup to England.  Beanbatch 20:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pib509patch.jpg
Image:Pib509patch.jpg 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

REfs
add REFs PLEASE. Harland1 (t/c) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Go for it, man! -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Infantry Regiment or Battalion?
The title uses one, the lead of the article uses another. I understand the unit was renamed more than once, but the article title and lead should match. Which is it? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. Could someone please explain to me whether this is a battalion or a regiment? --Ferbess (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I took the initiative and updated the article. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I am going to begin significant work on this page. I look forward to collaborating with anyone interested in the 509th. I will align its content and construction with other military unit history pages that have earned an A-rating. More to follow. Usfmicah (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 - Major Changes
Significant improvement to the current subsections under unit history require revision. My goal is to balance content over the course of major operations conducted by the battalions of the 509th. Currently, information regarding action in the Global War on Terror is disproportionate to the unit's contribution to WWII. I moved Organization Timeline and Major events to the bottom. Much of that information is copied directly from the US Army Heraldry page. I will remove the information which is contained on the linked Army pages. I added a table with images of the unit awards for 1st BN and 3rd BN to eliminate confusion about who has earned what. I added a table of the five combat parachute jumps the 509th executed in WWII. I updated the content box to align with other military unit pages in Wikipedia. The engagements reflect unit participation through 2019. I plan to replace direct quotations from unit awards with documented narrative about the unit's actions. I will add photographs in accordance with the fair use policy. I will add substantive citation to this article. I am currently researching the following items and am open to further suggestions: DVD Geronimo (2003) D790.G47 Books Geronimo! D 769.347 B74 (1999) UD 483.R4S War Isn't the Only Hell (2018) PS 374.W65 G38 Usfmicah (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


text:
Andy Dehnart

Andy Dehnart (born August 26, 1977) is an American journalist and television critic. He may be best known as reality television's "longest-standing critic" for his online journalism, as he is the creator of the genre's first tracking website, realityblurred.com. He is a member of the Television Critics Association.

Currently a contributor of television criticism and cultural journalism to NPR, The Daily Beast and msnbc.com, Dehnart has also written for Salon.com, Wired.com, The Boston Globe, Metro, the Chicago Tribune and Playboy. He regularly appears on television and the radio to discuss reality TV and popular culture.

USA Today named Dehnart one of the Top 100 People in Pop Culture in 2001.

Dehnart earned an MFA in nonfiction writing from Bennington College, where his non-fiction studies included a lecture which explored the cultural impact of blogging, then a relatively unknown phenomenon in popular culture.

Dehnart now teaches writing, journalism, and communication studies at Stetson University in DeLand, Florida, where he advises the student newspaper. He has also taught for Johns Hopkins University's Center for Talented Youth.

Earlier, Dehnart moved to Chicago in 1999 to work as managing editor of a non-profit website, and later he worked as a producer for thepavement.com, a site for recent college graduates, and BrassRing, a recruiting solutions company. A native of Naples, Florida, Dehnart received his BS from Stetson, where he majored in journalism and earned minors in political science and religious studies. While an undergraduate, he edited the weekly campus newspaper, The Reporter, for two years; both years, it was named the best private college newspaper in the state of Florida.

Dehnart is openly gay.

Reality Blurred
Reality Blurred is an American entertainment news website Dehnart created in July 2000, and the daily-updated site quickly became a primary source for devotees of the reality TV explosion. It was the first website to cover reality television.

It tracks reality TV shows and includes reporting, analysis, commentary, interviews, and show reviews.

History
Reality Blurred launched July 2000 as an entertainment blog modeled after Jim Romenesko's MediaNews but focused on early reality television shows such as Survivor and Making the Band. Media coverage of the website said it "analyzes the reality TV genre" and "tracks daily press coverage of all the currently running unscripted TV series."

In 2010, the website published the Survivor contract and rule book. Much of the website's focus is based on its negative view of the show's evolution in recent years, and disagreement with almost everything Jeff Probst says or does in his roles as host and producer of the series.

Reality Blurred was first to report news such as CBS's plans for a season of Big Brother on CBS All Access, which became Big Brother: Over the Top., and Netflix casting journalist Alex Wagner to host The Mole.

Dehnart still writes for the website. Other contributors to Reality Blurred have included Stephen Fishbach, The Challenge: Spies, Lies & Allies contestant Corey Lay and Jane McGonigal.

Reception
Two months after its launch, Entertainment Weekly graded Reality Blurred an "A," calling the website "a Virgil to guide you through television’s latest ring of hell" and a "smartly dressed compendium of so-real-it’s-real links." Slate named Reality Blurred the best culture blog about television in 2003.

Reality Blurred won the 2021 Los Angeles Press Club’s award for Entertainment Blog by an Individual Not Tied to an Organization in the National Arts and Entertainment Journalism Awards.

title: Andy Dehnart


text:
Stolen body hypothesis

The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. It theorises that his tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Both the stolen body hypothesis and the debate over it presume the basic historicity of the gospel accounts of the tomb discovery. The stolen body hypothesis finds the idea that the body was not in the tomb plausible – such a claim could be checked if early Christians made it – but considers it more likely that early Christians had been misled into believing the resurrection by the theft of Jesus's body.

The hypothesis has existed since the days of Early Christianity; it is discussed in the Gospel of Matthew, generally agreed to have been written between AD 70 and 100. Matthew's gospel raises the hypothesis only to refute it; according to it, the claim that the body was stolen is a lie spread by the High Priests of Israel.

Historicity and gospel account
The primary sources of details about Jesus are the Gospels. Roman records provide less information – there is no extant contemporary record of the execution of Jesus, for example, not that such a thing would be expected, and thus no details about what was done with the body afterward. As such, accounts of the days between Jesus's execution and the discovery of the empty tomb are almost exclusively based on the Gospel accounts and knowledge of society at the time, and it is difficult to say more than scenarios such as the stolen body hypothesis are "plausible" or "unlikely," rather than "proven" or "disproven".

According to the Gospel of Mark, generally thought to be the oldest of the gospels, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pontius Pilate for the body of Jesus. Afterward, a group of women went to the tomb, and found the stone rolled away, an angel there, and no body. The Gospel of Luke largely concurs with this account, though the list of women slightly differs. According to the Gospel of John, Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea with the burial of Jesus. It also notes that Jesus was buried in a garden near the site of the crucifixion, and that no body had lain there before. In John, Simon Peter and the beloved disciple also come to the tomb to verify Mary Magdalene's claim of an empty tomb; there is no direct reference to this in Mark and Luke, where it is implied that the apostles only believe upon seeing the resurrected Jesus.

The Gospel of Matthew includes a distinct account of the period between Jesus's death and the discovery of the empty tomb not in the other gospels, and directly addresses skepticism about the resurrection. In Matthew's account, the chief priests and the Pharisees know of prophecies that Jesus will return in three days, and fear that his disciples will steal the body to make it appear that he has been resurrected. They ask Pilate to secure the tomb, and Pilate sends a guard to watch the tomb. When Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb, unlike the accounts in the other gospels, there is an earthquake and the tomb rolls open in front of her. An angel appears and scares away the guards, and the empty tomb is revealed. When the guards report this to the chief priests, the priests bribe the guards to lie about the events:

"...some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. After the priests had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, "You must say, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day."

- (NRSV)

This is the chief reference to the stolen body hypothesis in the New Testament.

The disciples
According to this version of the stolen body hypothesis, some of the disciples stole away Jesus's body. Potential reasons include wishing to bury Jesus themselves; believing that Jesus would soon return and wanting his body in their possession; a "pious deceit" to restore Jesus's good name after being crucified as a criminal; or an outright plot to fake a resurrection. In the pious deceit theory, the proposed motive is that if people believed God had taken Jesus's body up to heaven, this would "prove" Jesus was a true holy man and vindicate his name. The "faked resurrection" theory is the only scenario discussed in the gospels, although Matthew brings it up solely to refute it and claim that the tale was a concoction of Jerusalem's high priests. According to proponents of this theory, the fact that Matthew raises the issue makes it likely that such an anti-Christian narrative already existed at the time. Jesus's entourage may have been at least as many as seventy (the Seventy Disciples), so it is not improbable according to proponents that at least one or two of them might have been willing to undertake such a plot. This theory also obviates the need for a miraculous resurrection.

A Jewish anti-Christian work dating from the 5th-century, the Toledoth Yeshu, contains the claim that the disciples planned to steal Jesus's body from his tomb. In this account, the body had already been moved, and when the disciples arrived at the empty tomb they came to the incorrect conclusion that he had risen from the dead. Later, the corpse was sold to the Jewish leaders for thirty pieces of silver, who confirmed Jesus's death; Jesus's corpse was then dragged through the streets of Jerusalem. Another variant comes from a record of a 2nd-century debate between a Christian and a Jew, Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho: "his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven."

Later works suggesting this include some of the "form critics" and the predecessors in Germany. One early example is Hermann Samuel Reimarus, who wrote in the 1700s. According to Reimarus, Jesus himself never imagined a religion like Christianity, and both he and his followers had been revolutionaries working for an earthly Kingdom of God after an overthrow of Roman rule. After Jesus's death, his devastated followers who had expected important roles in a coming government still wished to wield power, and transformed Jesus's political message into a spiritual one. In order for the switch in focus to work, they stole the body and left an empty tomb so that they could be respected leaders of a new religion, chosen by a resurrected prophet.

Sincerity of the disciples
Christian apologists find the idea that the disciples stole the body unconvincing. Both Eusebius and church tradition hold that a large number of apostles were martyred for their faith. Therefore, it is unlikely that any conspirators would preach and ultimately die for something they knew to be false. J.N.D. Anderson, dean of the faculty of law at the University of London and Christian apologist, said "This [the stolen body theory] would run totally contrary to all we know of them [the apostles]: their ethical teaching, the quality of their lives. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle."

E.P. Sanders agrees with apologists that it is unlikely that the disciples would create a fraud but looks at it differently. He claims: ""It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.""

Graverobbers
Graverobbing was a known problem in 1st century Judaea; the famous Nazareth Inscription details an edict of Caesar that mandates capital punishment for meddling with tombs. Several other pieces of evidence exist as well, such as a decree of Emperor Septimius Severus reasserting the existing law, implying that its violation continued to be a problem in the 2nd century AD. It is thus possible that Jesus's body was taken by graverobbers. Gary Habermas finds this unlikely; he writes: "Robbing a tomb for valuables is one thing – taking the body with you is something else! Why take a male body with you when you are trying to escape?" Nevertheless, it appears some ancient graverobbers did steal bodies. A possible motive for such would be the usage of Jesus's body in necromancy; several rites of the time required "one untimely dead" or the body of a holy person. For example, a person could insert a scroll into a corpse's mouth and ask questions of the dead according to one belief of the time. Tacitus notes that "the remains of human bodies" were found along with curse paraphernalia in the quarters of Germanicus. William Lane Craig dismisses these cases from elsewhere in the Roman Empire as too remote as they are "non-Jewish, non-Palestinian, and non-contemporary – in other words, irrelevant to Jesus." Craig Keener also considers evidence for the theft of corpses to be too distant from 1st century Jerusalem. Dale Allison writes that "...some tomb inscriptions in pre-70 Jerusalem warn against moving or disturbing corpses, which is consistent with anxiety about theft". Evidence of necromancy being practised likewise does appears in Judea, but after the region was repopulated by the Romans following the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 2nd century AD.

Jewish leadership
Historian Charles Freeman posits that Caiaphas and members of the Sanhedrin removed Jesus's body to stave off possible civil disorder from Jesus's followers. By emptying the tomb, the Sanhedrin hoped to prevent it from becoming a shrine. Also, he noted that the gospels of Matthew and Mark both record that one or more young men (or angels) dressed in white appeared to the myrrhbearers and told them to seek Jesus in Galilee. Freeman argued that these young men or angels could have been priests from the Temple in Jerusalem, as their Gospel description matches that of temple priests (white clothes). By encouraging Jesus's followers to return to Galilee, then, the priests were trying to get them to leave Jerusalem and avoid unrest.

Jesus's family, or unknown thieves
According to this version of the stolen body hypothesis, there was no conspiracy; Jesus's body was moved from the tomb for unknown or irrelevant reasons. The apostles then found an empty tomb and became genuinely convinced that Jesus had been resurrected, which would explain their later fervor in the spread of Christianity. Author and textual critic Bart Ehrman contends that while the stolen body hypothesis is unlikely, from a historical perspective it is still far more probable than the resurrection. Ehrman also says that there are plenty of motives for stealing the body, for instance, his family desiring to rebury his remains in a family tomb of some kind.

Another possibility, if a rather bizarre one, is the gardener. Tertullian, in De Spectaculis 30, mentions that in addition to the theory that the disciples stole the body the theory that the gardener did the deed such that "his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants [to the body]." Tertullian, an early Christian polemicist, may have merely meant to mock those who doubted the resurrection by putting the petty gardener theory in their mouths. The passage also perhaps only references a joke at the time or other non-serious accusation. However, the gospel of John possibly addresses the issue, as does Tatian's Diatessaron. In and the Diatessaron Section 53, Mary, after supposing the resurrected Jesus to be the gardener, asks him what he had done with the body – implying that the gardener may in fact have had a motive to move the body. In addition, in the Toledoth Yeshu, it is a gardener named Juda who originally moves the body, and then later sells the body of Jesus to the Jewish leadership. Even if this all only attests to a Jewish polemic against Christianity, it implies that people at that time found the gardener having a motive to steal the body plausible, even if this motive is unknown today.

The guard at the tomb
According to the Gospel of Matthew, a guard was sent to the tomb: "Pilate said to them, 'You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.' So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone." It is unclear whether Roman soldiers were used, or if the priests were to use their own temple guard. Nevertheless, Christian tradition has generally claimed that Roman guards were used. Apologists consider it implausible that grave robbers would risk robbing a guarded tomb when surely many unguarded ones existed. Furthermore, while traditionally depicted as two guards, Matthew does not specify how many there were; since "some" guards report the tale to the chief priests, it's plausible to assume there may have been more than two, which would render a raid even chancier. Apologists also doubt that the disciples could possibly have sneaked past a Roman guard at a sealed tomb, and that attacking the guards would be even more implausible. In response, it could be hypothesized that the guard was not on duty at night, and thus the thieves would be able to have struck then. A bribe to the soldiers is also possible, although most of the disciples were of modest means.

Alternatively, the entire account of the guard and the chief priests can be discounted as likely to be an ahistorical addition written by Matthew to make the stolen body hypothesis appear implausible. Among scholars, it "is widely regarded as an apologetic legend"; L. Michael White and Helmut Koester argue the story was probably added as an attempt to refute the Jewish claims that the disciples stole the body which were circulating at the time. Atheist and historian Richard Carrier writes: "The authors create a rhetorical means of putting the theft story into question by inventing guards on the tomb ... it is most suspicious that the other gospel accounts omit any mention of a guard, even when Mary visits the tomb (compare Matthew 28:1-15 with Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:1-9), and also do not mention the theft story—this claim is not even reported in Acts, where a lot of hostile Jewish attacks on the church are recorded, yet somehow this one fails to be mentioned. Neither Peter nor Paul mention either fact, either, even though their letters predate the gospels by decades. Worse, Matthew's account involves reporting privileged conversations between priests and Pilate, and then secret ones between priests and guards that no Christian could have known about (27.62-65, 28.11-15). This is always a very suspicious sign of fiction... (Matthew) had the motive to make it up, to answer the objections of later skeptics (just like the Thomas story in John), and the story looks like an invention, because it narrates events that could not be known by the author."

Christian apologist William Lane Craig considers the historicity of the guards plausible, although he suspects it was more likely Jewish temple guards, especially considering the chief priests' promises to keep them "out of trouble" would mean little to Roman soldiers who might be executed for claiming to have slept on duty. The best objection to Matthew's version, to Craig, is that Matthew's account "presupposes not only that Jesus predicted his resurrection in three days, but also that the Jews understood this clearly while the disciples remained in ignorance." While the gospel accounts give good reason to believe that the disciples would not understand the resurrection until it happened, Craig grants that it is indeed harder to explain the chief priest's actions, although far from impossible – perhaps it was simply an attempt to ensure no trouble started. In favor of the existence of the guards being historical, however, Craig notes that the non-canonical Gospel of Peter also includes a story of guards being placed at the tomb, yet one that is quite different, suggesting that the guards are less likely to have been invented entirely by Matthew. Additionally, Matthew's account isn't as foolproof as an invented or exaggerated account could be – the Gospel of Peter has an explicitly Roman guard guarding the tomb sent immediately on Good Friday (rather than Matthew's Saturday), the tomb is sealed seven times, and the Jewish elders keep watch the entire time. On Easter Sunday, Jesus rises, flanked by two angels, in front of the Jews and a crowd from Jerusalem out to see him. This account, given credence by neither Christians nor historians, clearly makes a secret theft of the body impossible. Additionally, Craig writes that the polemic mentioned by Matthew suggests that Jews didn't contest the existence of a guard at the time. In other words, if the guard didn't exist, the logical Jewish counterargument would be to argue against that Christian claim; instead, Matthew's story has the Jewish side using the weak "but the guards were asleep when the theft occurred" argument, suggesting the Jews of the time knew guards had been placed.

The guards were used as an apologetic argument in Early Christianity as well; various Christian works expanded the Gospel of Matthew's account, albeit in a fashion considered unreliable by modern readers. An example is the apocryphal text the Letter of Pilate to Claudius, which would later be included in the Acts of Peter and Paul. According to it, the bribed guards reported the truth to Pontius Pilate, who then reported to the emperor (Tiberius historically, but Claudius in the letter).

Burial cloths
The gospels of Luke and John record that the burial wrappings of Jesus were left inside the tomb. The head wrapping was folded and placed separate from the other linens. Christian apologists contend that a grave robber would probably have stolen everything, especially since Joseph of Arimathea was a man of means and the wrappings were likely to have been valuable. Further, carefully removing, then wrapping and folding the linens would be difficult and serve no useful purpose. Thus these claims in the gospel are also brought into contention by the theory, especially if a grave robber is proposed as the culprit. Replies from proponents include noting that if the motive of the graverobbers was body parts for necromancy, the cloths might be irrelevant; and if the culprit was a conspirator out to "prove" Jesus's holiness, then the wrappings might have been deliberately left behind to foster the notion of the body miraculously disappearing. Richard Carrier also considers the mention of the cloths "a natural embellishment to such a narrative and thus cannot be trusted to be historical," since historians of the era would often illustrate such scenes with plausible minor details that lack a source, similar to military historians describing specific sword interplay.

Ritual purity
Some apologists note that the disciples, as practicing Jews, could not come near a dead body without breaking ritual purity regulations. Exceptions included the nearest male relative could claim a dead body and women. Thus, the fact that women discovered the empty tomb first is seen as very plausible, and the (presumably devout) disciples taking the body is seen as a less likely explanation. However, if a genuine conspiracy was afoot, breaking purity is unlikely to have stopped the conspirators, and grave robbers violate this law constantly by profession. If Jesus's family reclaimed the body, this would not apply either. It does, however, make it less plausible other Jews would have stolen the body.

title: Stolen body hypothesis


text:
Mental Notes (Split Enz album)

Mental Notes is the debut studio album by New Zealand band Split Enz. The album cover was painted by band member Phil Judd. Original vinyl copies featured Judd saying "Make a mental note" in the runout groove of the record's second side, causing the phrase to be looped ad infinitum on manual turntables until the stylus is removed.

Recording
Bassist Mike Chunn later complained about the "totally unsympathetic treatment we'd had when we were recording in Australia. The engineer in Sydney thought we couldn't tune our guitars and that we were unprofessional and he just showed total disinterest right through."

Much of the material derived from Tim Finn's and Phil Judd's fascination with the work of the renowned English writer and artist Mervyn Peake – notably "Spellbound" the epic track "Stranger Than Fiction" (their concert centrepiece) and "Titus", named after the hero of Peake's Gormenghast trilogy.

Track listing

 * * These songs were re-recorded for the Second Thoughts album.
 * † This version has Phil Judd singing lead vocals. An earlier version (found on The Beginning of the Enz) recorded in 1974 has Tim Finn singing lead.

Personnel
Split Enz
 * Tim Finn - vocals, piano
 * Phil Judd - vocals, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, mandolin
 * Eddie Rayner - acoustic and electric piano, mellotron, synthesizer, organ, clavinet
 * Wally Wilkinson - lead guitar
 * Mike Chunn - bass, piano on 'Titus'
 * Emlyn Crowther - drums
 * Noel Crombie - percussion

title: Mental Notes (Split Enz album)


text:
David Sahadi

David Sahadi (born October 24, 1961, in Brooklyn, New York) is an American multimedia producer, who worked for the professional wrestling promotions Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) and World Wrestling Federation.

Biography
Sahadi attended college and earned a degree in mathematics, but had grown disenchanted with mathematics by the time he graduated. He spent the summer following his graduation painting houses before his father obtained him a Sunday job working for NBC Sports as a "logger", a job which required him to watch football games broadcast on NBC and take a detailed record of the events of the game in order to help with the production of highlight reels.

After the football season ended, Sahadi began working in the sports promotions department as a production assistant. Two years later, he was made Highlight Supervisor, producing packages which would be sent to Bob Costas, who would add a voiceover. Sahadi was eventually promoted to the position of Manager of On-Air Promotions for NBC Sports, and produced advertising campaigns for the NFL, NBA and the 1992 Summer Olympics. It was then that Sahadi began to come into conflict with his employees, as, while he wanted to create fast-paced video packages, NBC favored a more sedate editing style. When he was approached by the World Wrestling Federation (a national professional wrestling promotion) before the 1992 Olympics, Sahadi accepted their job offer.

World Wrestling Federation / Entertainment (1992–2003)
Sahadi began working for the WWF on October 19, 1992, and was appointed Creative Director of On-air Promotions. In 1995, he headed the production of an opening video for Raw, the flagship television program of the WWF. The ambitious video featured a band playing atop Titan Towers, the corporate headquarters of the WWF, and a helicopter circling the roof. Sahadi would go on to head a team of seven technicians who produced video packages and vignettes designed to promote and advertise wrestlers, television programs, pay-per-views and merchandise.

Prior to WrestleMania XIV on March 29, 1998, Sahadi produced a video featuring Pat Patterson, Gorilla Monsoon, Ernie Ladd, Killer Kowalski and Sahadi's close friend "Classy" Freddie Blassie which reduced WWF owner Vince McMahon to tears. At the 2001 Promax & BDA award ceremony in Miami Beach, Florida, Sahadi, along with two members of his team, Kevin Sullivan and Barry Bross, received seven awards for promotional material.

Throughout 2002 and 2003, Sahadi began to grow unhappy which hindered his creative ability with the WWF (now renamed World Wrestling Entertainment, or WWE) product. He objected to the controversial and almost universally unpopular "Katie Vick" storyline (which culminated in a vignette in which Triple H, dressed as Kane, simulated necrophilia with a mannequin), but was informed that any dissenters would be released from the company. In addition to his creative objections, Sahadi became disillusioned with his executive position and high salary, claiming that "I had reached a point in my life where this illusory world had lost all its appeal. I wanted something deeper, more profound in life." In June 2003 Sahadi decided to leave WWE, and negotiated a release with his superior, the WWE Executive Vice President of Television Production, Kevin Dunn. He left WWE one month later.

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling / Impact Wrestling / Global Force Wrestling (2004–2017)
Sahadi sold his house, he then proceeded to spend a year hiking through several American national parks before settling in the mountains of North Carolina, where he wrote a novel, Last Call of the Gods. In the summer of 2004, CDHM, an advertising agency based in Connecticut, asked Sahadi to arrange a meeting with Jeff Jarrett, the vice president of TNA Entertainment, LLC, the parent company of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, the second biggest professional wrestling promotion in the United States. In the course of setting up the meeting, Sahadi befriended Jarrett, and eventually agreed to join TNA as a producer for three months, starting in August 2004.

After joining TNA, Sahadi quickly made his presence felt, with a near unanimous consensus that the production values of TNA rose sharply after he joined the promotion. His first major piece of work was the production of the introductory video to Victory Road, the first monthly pay-per-view held by TNA, which was broadcast on November 7, 2004. After the three months had expired, Sahadi decided to remain with TNA.

In November 2004, Sahadi discovered that WWE was filming an advertisement for the 2005 Royal Rumble in the Orlando, Florida-based Universal Studios, not far from SoundStage 21, where TNA recorded pay-per-views and episodes of TNA Impact!. TNA decided to send wrestlers Abyss, Traci, Shane Douglas and the 3Live Kru, along with backstage personnel Jeremy Borash, Bill Banks, and Tim Welch, to welcome the WWE employees, bringing them milk, cookies and balloons. The TNA employees confronted their WWE contemporaries outside of the studio in which the commercial was being filmed and handed out their balloons. 3Live Kru member B.G. James commented on the opulence of the WWE buffet, asking if he could have some mahi-mahi, and then asked to speak with Vince McMahon as "I made him a bunch of money back in the day" (as one-half of the New Age Outlaws and a member of D-Generation X, James was partly responsible for large merchandise sales throughout 1998 and 1999), while fellow 3Live Kru member Konnan commented that McMahon "...is a stand up guy, but sometimes he has to sit down to aim".

Following the event, WWE filed a complaint with Universal Studios and ordered TNA to hand over the footage or face a lawsuit, while several WWE employees contacted and harassed Sahadi, with some threatening physical violence. Possibly as a form of retaliation against Sahadi, Sahadi's father, Lou Sahadi, a long term WWE employee working in the public relations department (and the proposed ghostwriter for Mick Foley's autobiography, Have a Nice Day: A Tale of Blood and Sweatsocks) was fired. In addition, Kevin Dunn allegedly threatened to fire any WWE employee who contacted Sahadi. TNA aired the footage at their December 2004 pay-per-view, Turning Point, albeit with the faces of all WWE employees and all instances of the WWE logo blurred.

In May 2005 Sahadi began writing a column for TNA called "The Spirit of Wrestling". The May 24, 2007, column was written in honor of Jeff Jarrett's wife Jill, who died the day prior. Sahadi left Impact Wrestling on December 12, 2017.

Major League Wrestling (2019)
In early April 2019, Sahadi signed to Major League Wrestling in a backstage role.

Return to Impact Wrestling / TNA (2019–2024)
In November 2019, Sahadi announced he would be returning to Impact Wrestling as producer on full time. He was released on May 2024.

Return to MLW (2024-present)
In June 2024, Sahadi returned to MLW as Executive Producer.

title: David Sahadi


text:
Julio Linares

Julio E. Linares (born August 7, 1930 – October 27, 1993) was a Panamanian diplomat and politician.

Early life and education
He was born in Panama City, Panama. He studied law and political sciences from the University of Panama, Panama, and held a Doctor of Law degree from the Central University of Madrid, Spain. He created the diploma training in law and international politics at the Free International University of Social Studies in Rome, Italy. He was the chair of public international law professor at the University of Panama. He served the University of Panama in various capacities such as the secretary, deputy dean and interim dean.

Career
He held various important positions in several institutions. He was a member of the National Assembly, main member of the National Council of Foreign Affairs, president of the directive board of the Institute of housing and urbanism and the Gaming Control Board, Minister Counselor of the permanent delegation of Panama at the UN, Governor of Panama to the World Bank, the principal representative of Panama to the Inter-American Economic and Social Council, and at the V Assembly of Governors of the Bank of Inter-American Development, he was elected President of the same. He was Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance and Treasury and acting Minister of Labour and Social Welfare.

He was also a partner of the law firms Tapia, Linares and Alfaro, president of the Union Club, president of the Nationalist Party, secretary general of the Instituto Hispano-Luso - Americano de Derecho Internacional, member of the International Law Association, American Society of International Law, Panamanian Academy of law, National Bar Association, Panamanian Institute of Hispanic Culture, Bolivarian Society of Panama, Latin American Institute for advanced studies, Panamanian Academy of History, Association Argentina of International Law, Active 20-30 Club of Panama and the Kiwanis Club of Panama.

He died in New York City.

Books

 * The Civil Cassation in the Panamanian legislation    (1968)
 * International Law (1977)
 * The Treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal (1983)
 * Enrique Linares in the political history of Panama (1869–1949) - calvary of a people to consolidate their sovereignty (1989).

title: Julio Linares