text:
Talk:Earl of Carlisle

Untitled
OK, we may need to distinguish Lord Ruthven of Freeland and Lord Ruthven titles. In a 1911 Britannica article, Ruthven (family), we have descriptions of Lords Ruthven of Freeland dating to 1701 at least with dubious claimants after that. When was the title of Lord Ruthven of Freeland attached to the Earldom of Carlisle? Alba 23:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * According to Leigh Rayments's Peerage Page, that was in 1982. VM 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

HA/HP
Does Phillip have an heir? Otherwise the Scottish title will deperate from the earldom and we'll need to list the division. Alci12 17:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Earl of Carlisle


text:
William Villiers, 3rd Earl of Jersey

William Villiers, 3rd Earl of Jersey, 6th Viscount Grandison, (died 28 August 1769) was an English peer and politician from the Villiers family.

Life
He was the son of William Villiers, 2nd Earl of Jersey. Among other achievements, Villiers was a founding Governor of the Foundling Hospital, a charity which received its royal charter on 17 October 1739 to operate an orphanage for abandoned children in London.

On 23 June 1733, he married Anne Russell, Dowager Duchess of Bedford (c. 1704/1709 – 1762). She was the daughter of Scroop Egerton, 1st Duke of Bridgewater, and widow of Wriothesley Russell, 3rd Duke of Bedford. They had two sons, but only one survived them:

 * Frederick William Villiers, Viscount Villiers (25 March 1734 – before 11 October 1742)
 * George Bussy Villiers, 4th Earl of Jersey (1735–1805)

He commissioned the building of the previous Middleton Park, in Middleton Stoney, Oxfordshire.

title: William Villiers, 3rd Earl of Jersey


text:
Talk:Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D

DirectX Price
The chart at the top says Direct3D is not free.. but isn't it free to download and use it in code? Direct3D LieAfterLie (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am also pretty sure OpenGL isn't quite free either. The only two "free implementations available" I know of are the SGI reference implementation and Mesa. Both were licensed a long time ago. I am quite sure the Krohnos group won't allow anybody to slap GL logo on a piece of commercial software/hardware implementation without licensing the trademark.

I agree with you. This is open to interpretation and should be deleted. By your point of view, there's no difference between the two APIs. It is also notable Wine implements some subset of Direct3D.  MaxDZ8 talk  07:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * At the very least it needs to say what it means by "free".. free to implement? Use commercially? Release in free software? Modify? LieAfterLie (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Handedness
Shouldn't there be at least a remark about the handedness difference between OpenGL and Direct3D (right hand vs left hand coordinate system). And matrix storage conventions, row major or column major. These ar for me as a developer important differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Dekkers (talk • contribs) 12:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing a features section with feature comparison table
There is no table with features and when they are introduced in OpenGL and DirectX. It would be good thing to have such a table. Seems best place for it would be a section between Portability and Ease of use in the wikipedia article. Features such as introduction of geometry shaders, geometry instancing, separate blend modes per-MRT, pixel shader per sample, tessellation, compute shaders, texture compression, SPIR-V/DXIL, fast packed 16bit math, deterministic fragment ordering: ARB_fragment_shader_interlock/Rasterizer Ordered Views (ROVs), Conservative Rasterization, and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:5C0C:D400:E883:60A8:2004:4BF (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

About "Direct3D is a proprietary[2][3] API"
Both of these links talk about DirectX (not direct3d) as software, not as a api. They can be used to show that DirectX as a software is not free but they can NOT be used to show if the API is free or not. As for the "Microsoft Windows only", there are multiple free implementations of Direct3d for linux (and other OSes), there is even a implementation for Mesa, just as native as OpenGL. (unlike what the article claims).194.219.140.7 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D. 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/20060906205046/http://nexe.gamedev.net/directKnowledge/default.asp?p=Batching to http://nexe.gamedev.net/directknowledge/default.asp?p=Batching

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) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D


text:
E. G. Squier

Ephraim George Squier (June 17, 1821 – April 17, 1888), usually cited as E. G. Squier, was an American archaeologist, history writer, painter and newspaper editor.

Biography
Squier was born in Bethlehem, New York, the son of a minister, Joel Squier, and his wife, Catharine Squier, née Kilmer or Külmer. His father was of English descent and his mother ethnic Palatine German, from immigrants who settled in New York in the early 1700s. In early youth he worked on a farm, attended and taught school, studied engineering, and became interested in American antiquities. The Panic of 1837 made an engineering career unfeasible, so he pursued literature and journalism. He was associated in the publication of the New York State Mechanic at Albany 1841–1842. In 1843–1848, he engaged in journalism in Hartford, Connecticut and then edited the Chillicothe, Ohio, weekly newspaper the Scioto Gazette.

During this period, Squier collaborated with physician Edwin H. Davis on the book, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, which was issued in 1848. The work was a landmark in American scientific research, the study of the prehistoric Mound Builders of North America, and the early development of archaeology as a scientific discipline. The book was the first volume of the Smithsonian Institution's Contributions to Knowledge series and the Institution's first publication. Among Squier and Davis's most important achievements was their systematic approach to analyzing and documenting the sites they surveyed, including the Serpent Mound in Peebles, Ohio, which they discovered in 1846. They also mapped the Mound City Group in Chillicothe, Ohio, which has been restored using their data and is now part of Hopewell Culture National Historical Park. Squier and Davis's collection of ancient Mound objects is now kept at the British Museum.

Squier was appointed special chargé d'affaires to all the Central American states in 1849, and negotiated treaties with Nicaragua, Honduras, and San Salvador. In 1853 he made a second visit to Central America to examine a line for a projected interoceanic railroad, and to make further study of the archaeology of the country. In 1856 he received the medal of the French Geographical Society for his researches. In 1858, he married Miriam Florence Folline, who had recently had a previous marriage annulled.

About 1860, Squier became editor-in-chief for Frank Leslie's publishing house. He supervised the publication of the first two volumes of Frank Leslie's Pictorial History of the American Civil War. In 1863 Squier was appointed as U. S. commissioner to Peru, where he made an exhaustive investigation of Inca remains and took numerous photographs of them. He later gave a series of 12 lectures on "The Inca Empire" for the Lowell Institute for their 1866–67 season.

In 1868 he was appointed consul-general of Honduras at New York, and in 1871 he was elected as the first president of the Anthropological Institute of New York. He conducted ethnological studies, especially in Nicaragua, Honduras and Peru.

On returning from Peru, he continued working for Frank Leslie, but gave it up when his health failed. In 1873, his wife divorced him, and married Leslie a year later. In 1874 Squier's health became so seriously impaired as to preclude further original research. Though he subsequently recovered sufficiently to direct the final preparation and revision of his work on Peru for publication, the affliction resulted in his death. He was a member of numerous historical, archaeological, and scientific societies. He died in Brooklyn, New York.

Works
Besides many official reports, scientific papers, magazine articles, and contributions to the Encyclopædia Britannica and foreign periodicals, his works include:
 * Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley ("Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge", vol. 1, 1848)
 * Aboriginal Monuments of the State of New York ("Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge", vol. 2, 1849; Buffalo, 1851)
 * Serpent Symbols (1852)
 * Nicaragua: its People, Scenery, Monuments, and the Proposed Interoceanic Canal (2 vols., New York, 1852)
 * Notes on Central America (1854)
 * Waikna, or Adventures on the Mosquito Shore (1855)
 * The States of Central America (1857; revised ed., 1870)
 * Monographs of Authors who have written on the Aboriginal Languages of Central America (1860)
 * Tropical Fibres and their Economic Extraction (1861)
 * Peru: Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the Incas (1877)

title: E. G. Squier


text:
Talk:George M. Leader

Untitled
(User: AMFriedman) Hi, I wrote a very small temp. article on Governor Leader while the copyright issue clears up.

Copyright?
Someone put this article under a "copyright violation ban" while not giving any explanation here or anywhere else. Therefore this looks very, very much like vandalism. I returned the article to normal and edited it for better legibility, and furthermore, I added links and categories. I hope the article will not again be vandalized under the pretense of "copyright violation". --85.74.157.116 12:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It was a clear violation of the copyright of the source http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/governors/leader.asp?secid=31. I've now deleted it and moved the clean copy from its temporary subpage. We cannot accept text material on Wikipedia that isn't licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. This is non-negotiable. --Ngb?!? 15:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Oldest?
anon user comments:

<Actually, if W. Scranton of PA is still alive (and Wikipedia says he is), then Mr. Scranton is the earliest; he was born in 1917. (Maybe there are others?)

Not oldest, earliest
The bio says that Leader is the earliest living governor, not the oldest. Because it is being claimed that Leader is the earliest governor one must look at when they held office, not their age.

If Scranton is still living, then, yes, he is older than Leader. However, Leader held office from 1955-1959, while Scranton held office from 1963-1967. As Leader held office during an earlier period, that would make him the earliest living governor in the United States.

The Elbert N. Carvel article refers to Leader as the current earliest living governor. The Earliest living US governor article does the same. --WayneNight

 * Within the last few months (and at least a year after the message above was posted), I have swithed the terminology to "earliest serving governor" and moved the data to Earliest serving US governor and turned Earliest living US governor into a list of the oldest living U.S. Govenrors... I am considering combing the two lists back on the earliest living page... as I did with Earliest living US senator. All in all, these pages should really look more like Oldest living United States president whcih is a well wikified article--Dr who1975 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More copyright issues
Is it just me, or does this article, as it currently stand, seem to be in violation of copyright rules again?

I didn't realize it until today, but the article once again seems to be almost entirely lifted from http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/governors/leader.asp?secid=31

This is very disappointing. I'd like to have an article on George Leader on wikipedia. I just don't want it to violate the rules. WayneNight 04:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being superstitious. Why can't you just be happy that we've got a good article here? ;) --Maxl 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New article
I fleshed out this article using the information from the PHMC site, but without copying that information directly. I provided links to the PHMC site, and, hopefully, what we have here now is in compliance with copyright requirements.

This article could still use some fleshing out from other sources. Also, I'm sure what I've written could be improved upon. Edits are very welcome. WayneNight 21:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the article?
The article was large and informative and now only a little part of it is still standing. What happened? I think it's not all that funny to first delete everything and then complain about the article not to be "fleshed out". Where the heck are all the edits between Oct 16, 2005 and Sept 30, 2006? To me it looks a lot like some admin went berserk and vandalized the article. --Maxl 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The previous article was a direct copy of the George Leader article on the PHMC site. It therefore represented a copyright violation and was deleted as such (by someone other than myself) according to Wikipedia policy. --WayneNight 00:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George M. Leader. 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/20060925181216/http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/governors/leader.asp?secid=31 to http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/governors/leader.asp?secid=31

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:George M. Leader


text:
Battle of Gettysburg, first day

The first day of the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War took place on July 1, 1863, and began as an engagement between isolated units of the Army of Northern Virginia under Confederate General Robert E. Lee and the Army of the Potomac under Union Maj. Gen. George G. Meade. It soon escalated into a major battle which culminated in the outnumbered and defeated Union forces retreating to the high ground south of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

The first-day battle proceeded in three phases as combatants continued to arrive at the battlefield. In the morning, two brigades of Confederate Maj. Gen. Henry Heth's division (of Lt. Gen. A.P. Hill's Third Corps) were delayed by dismounted Union cavalrymen under Brig. Gen. John Buford. As infantry reinforcements arrived under Maj. Gen. John F. Reynolds of the Union I Corps, the Confederate assaults down the Chambersburg Pike were repulsed, although Gen. Reynolds was killed.

By early afternoon, the Union XI Corps, commanded by Major General Oliver Otis Howard, had arrived, and the Union position was in a semicircle from west to north of the town. The Confederate Second Corps under Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell began a massive assault from the north, with Maj. Gen. Robert E. Rodes's division attacking from Oak Hill and Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early's division attacking across the open fields north of town. The Union lines generally held under extremely heavy pressure, although the salient at Barlow's Knoll was overrun.

The third phase of the battle came as Rodes renewed his assault from the north and Heth returned with his entire division from the west, accompanied by the division of Maj. Gen. W. Dorsey Pender. Heavy fighting in Herbst's Woods (near the Lutheran Theological Seminary) and on Oak Ridge finally caused the Union line to collapse. Some of the Federals conducted a fighting withdrawal through the town, suffering heavy casualties and losing many prisoners; others simply retreated. They took up good defensive positions on Cemetery Hill and waited for additional attacks. Despite discretionary orders from Robert E. Lee to take the heights "if practicable," Richard Ewell chose not to attack. Historians have debated ever since how the battle might have ended differently if he had found it practicable to do so.

Defense by Buford's cavalry
On the morning of July 1, Union cavalry in the division of Brigadier General John Buford were awaiting the approach of Confederate infantry forces from the direction of Cashtown, to the northwest. Confederate forces from the brigade of Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew had briefly clashed with Union forces the day before but believed they were Pennsylvania militia of little consequence, not the regular army cavalry that was screening the approach of the Army of the Potomac.

General Buford recognized the importance of the high ground directly to the south of Gettysburg. He knew that if the Confederates could gain control of the heights, Meade's army would have a hard time dislodging them. He decided to utilize three ridges west of Gettysburg: Herr Ridge, McPherson Ridge, and Seminary Ridge (proceeding west to east toward the town). These were appropriate terrain for a delaying action by his small division against superior Confederate infantry forces, meant to buy time awaiting the arrival of Union infantrymen who could occupy the strong defensive positions south of town, Cemetery Hill, Cemetery Ridge, and Culp's Hill. Early that morning, Reynolds, who was commanding the Left Wing of the Army of the Potomac, ordered his corps to march to Buford's location, with the XI Corps (Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard) to follow closely behind.

Confederate Maj. Gen. Henry Heth's division, from Lt. Gen. A.P. Hill's Third Corps, advanced towards Gettysburg. Heth deployed no cavalry and led, unconventionally, with the artillery battalion of Major William J. Pegram. Two infantry brigades followed, commanded by Brig. Gens. James J. Archer and Joseph R. Davis, proceeding easterly in columns along the Chambersburg Pike. 3 mi west of town, about 7:30 a.m., Heth's two brigades met light resistance from cavalry vedettes and deployed into line. Eventually, they reached dismounted troopers from Col. William Gamble's cavalry brigade. The first shot of the battle was claimed to be fired by Lieutenant Marcellus E. Jones of the 8th Illinois Cavalry, fired at an unidentified man on a gray horse over a half-mile away; the act was merely symbolic. Buford's 2,748 troopers would soon be faced with 7,600 Confederate infantrymen, deploying from columns into line of battle.

Gamble's men mounted determined resistance and delaying tactics from behind fence posts with rapid fire, mostly from their breech-loading carbines. While none of the troopers were armed with multi-shot repeating carbines, they were able to fire two or three times faster than a muzzle-loaded carbine or rifle with their breechloading carbines manufactured by Sharps, Burnside, and others. (A small minority of historians have written that some troopers had Spencer repeating carbines or Spencer repeating rifles but most sources disagree.) The breech-loading design of the carbines and rifles meant that Union troops did not have to stand to reload and could do so safely behind cover. This was a great advantage over the Confederates, who still had to stand to reload, thus providing an easier target. But this was so far a relatively bloodless affair. By 10:20 a.m., the Confederates had reached Herr Ridge and had pushed the Federal cavalrymen east to McPherson Ridge, when the vanguard of the I Corps finally arrived, the division of Maj. Gen. James S. Wadsworth. The troops were led personally by Gen. Reynolds, who conferred briefly with Buford and hurried back to bring more men forward.

Davis versus Cutler
The morning infantry fighting occurred on either side of the Chambersburg Pike, mostly on McPherson Ridge. To the north, an unfinished railroad bed opened three shallow cuts in the ridges. To the south, the dominant features were Willoughby Run and Herbst Woods (sometimes called McPherson Woods, but they were the property of John Herbst). Brig. Gen. Lysander Cutler's Union brigade opposed Davis's brigade; three of Cutler's regiments were north of the Pike, two to the south. To the left of Cutler, Brig. Gen. Solomon Meredith's Iron Brigade opposed Archer.

General Reynolds directed both brigades into position and placed guns from the Maine battery of Capt. James A. Hall where Calef's had stood earlier. While the general rode his horse along the east end of Herbst Woods, shouting "Forward men! Forward for God's sake, and drive those fellows out of the woods," he fell from his horse, killed instantly by a bullet striking him behind the ear. (Some historians believe Reynolds was felled by a sharpshooter, but it is more likely that he was killed by random shot in a volley of rifle fire directed at the 2nd Wisconsin.) Maj. Gen. Abner Doubleday assumed command of the I Corps.

On the right of the Union line, three regiments of Cutler's brigade were fired on by Davis's brigade before they could get into position on the ridge. Davis's line overlapped the right of Cutler's, making the Union position untenable, and Wadsworth ordered Cutler's regiments back to Seminary Ridge. The commander of the 147th New York, Lt. Col. Francis C. Miller, was shot before he could inform his troops of the withdrawal, and they remained to fight under heavy pressure until a second order came. In under 30 minutes, 45% of Gen. Cutler's 1,007 men became casualties, with the 147th losing 207 of its 380 officers and men. Some of Davis's victorious men turned toward the Union positions south of the railroad bed while others drove east toward Seminary Ridge. This defocused the Confederate effort north of the pike.

Archer versus Meredith
South of the pike, Archer's men were expecting an easy fight against dismounted cavalrymen and were astonished to recognize the black Hardee hats worn by the men facing them through the woods: the famous Iron Brigade, formed from regiments in the Western states of Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, had a reputation as fierce, tenacious fighters. As the Confederates crossed Willoughby Run and climbed the slope into Herbst Woods, they were enveloped on their right by the longer Union line, the reverse of the situation north of the pike.

Brig. Gen. Archer was captured in the fighting, the first general officer in Robert E. Lee's army to suffer that fate. Archer was most likely positioned around the 14th Tennessee when he was captured by Private Patrick Moloney of Company G., 2nd Wisconsin, "a brave patriotic and fervent young Irishman." Archer resisted capture, but Moloney overpowered him. Moloney was killed later that day, but he received the Medal of Honor for his exploit. When Archer was taken to the rear, he encountered his former Army colleague Gen. Doubleday, who greeted him good-naturedly, "Good morning, Archer! How are you? I am glad to see you!" Archer replied, "Well, I am not glad to see you by a damn sight!"

Railroad cut
At around 11 a.m., Doubleday sent his reserve regiment, the 6th Wisconsin, an Iron Brigade regiment, commanded by Lt. Col. Rufus R. Dawes, north in the direction of Davis's disorganized brigade. The Wisconsin men paused at the fence along the pike and fired, which halted Davis's attack on Cutler's men and caused many of them to seek cover in the unfinished railroad cut. The 6th joined the 95th New York and the 84th New York (also known as the 14th Brooklyn), a "demi-brigade" commanded by Col. E.B. Fowler, along the pike. The three regiments charged to the railroad cut, where Davis's men were seeking cover. The majority of the 600 ft cut (shown on the map as the center cut of three) was too deep to be an effective firing position—as deep as 15 ft. Making the situation more difficult was the absence of their overall commander, General Davis, whose location was unknown.

The men of the three regiments nevertheless faced daunting fire as they charged toward the cut. The 6th Wisconsin's American flag went down at least three times during the charge. At one point Dawes took up the fallen flag before it was seized from him by a corporal of the color guard. As the Union line neared the Confederates, its flanks became folded back and it took on the appearance of an inverted V. When the Union men reached the railroad cut, vicious hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting broke out. They were able to pour enfilading fire from both ends of the cut, and many Confederates considered surrender. Colonel Dawes took the initiative by shouting "Where is the colonel of this regiment?" Major John Blair of the 2nd Mississippi stood up and responded, "Who are you?" Dawes replied, "I command this regiment. Surrender or I will fire." Dawes later described what happened next:

Despite this surrender, leaving Dawes standing awkwardly holding seven swords, the fighting continued for minutes more and numerous Confederates were able to escape back to Herr Ridge. The three Union regiments lost 390–440 of 1,184 engaged, but they had blunted Davis's attack, prevented them from striking the rear of the Iron Brigade, and so overwhelmed the Confederate brigade that it was unable to participate significantly in combat for the rest of the day. The Confederate losses were about 500 killed and wounded and over 200 prisoners out of 1,707 engaged.

Midday lull
By 11:30 a.m., the battlefield was temporarily quiet. On the Confederate side, Henry Heth faced an embarrassing situation. He had been under orders from General Lee to avoid a general engagement until the full Army of Northern Virginia had concentrated in the area. But his excursion to Gettysburg, ostensibly to find shoes, was essentially a reconnaissance in force conducted by a full infantry division. This indeed had started a general engagement and Heth was on the losing side so far. By 12:30 p.m., his remaining two brigades, under Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew and Col. John M. Brockenbrough, had arrived on the scene, as had the division (four brigades) of Maj. Gen. Dorsey Pender, also from Hill's Corps. Hill's remaining division (Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson) did not arrive until late in the day.

Considerably more Confederate forces were on the way, however. Two divisions of the Second Corps, commanded by Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell, were approaching Gettysburg from the north, from the towns of Carlisle and York. The five brigades of Maj. Gen. Robert E. Rodes marched down the Carlisle Road but left it before reaching town to advance down the wooded crest of Oak Ridge, where they could link up with the left flank of Hill's Corps. The four brigades under Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early approached on the Harrisburg Road. Union cavalry outposts north of the town detected both movements. Ewell's remaining division (Maj. Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson) did not arrive until late in the day.

On the Union side, Doubleday reorganized his lines as more units of the I Corps arrived. First on hand was the Corps Artillery under Col. Charles S. Wainwright, followed by two brigades from Doubleday's division, now commanded by Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Rowley, which Doubleday placed on either end of his line. The XI Corps arrived from the south before noon, moving up the Taneytown and Emmitsburg Roads. Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard was surveying the area from the roof of the Fahnestock Brothers' dry-goods store downtown at about 11:30 when he heard that Reynolds had been killed and that he was now in command of all Union forces on the field. He recalled: "My heart was heavy and the situation was grave indeed, but surely I did not hesitate a moment. God helping us, we will stay here till the Army comes. I assumed the command of the field."

Howard immediately sent messengers to summon reinforcements from the III Corps (Maj. Gen. Daniel E. Sickles) and the XII Corps (Maj. Gen. Henry W. Slocum). Howard's first XI Corps division to arrive, under Maj. Gen. Carl Schurz, was sent north to take a position on Oak Ridge and link up with the right of the I Corps. (The division was commanded temporarily by Brig. Gen. Alexander Schimmelfennig while Schurz filled in for Howard as XI Corps commander.) The division of Brig. Gen. Francis C. Barlow was placed on Schurz's right to support him. The third division to arrive, under Brig. Gen. Adolph von Steinwehr, was placed on Cemetery Hill along with two batteries of artillery to hold the hill as a rallying point if the Union troops could not hold their positions; this placement on the hill corresponded with orders sent earlier in the day to Howard by Reynolds just before he was killed.

However, Rodes beat Schurz to Oak Hill, so the XI Corps division was forced to take up positions in the broad plain north of the town, below and to the east of Oak Hill. They linked up with the I Corps reserve division of Brig. Gen. John C. Robinson, whose two brigades had been sent forward by Doubleday when he heard about Ewell's arrival. Howard's defensive line was not a particularly strong one in the north. He was soon outnumbered (his XI Corps, still suffering the effects of their defeat at the Battle of Chancellorsville, had only 8,700 effectives), and the terrain his men occupied in the north was poorly selected for defense. He held out some hope that reinforcements from Slocum's XII Corps would arrive up the Baltimore Pike in time to make a difference.

Afternoon
In the afternoon, there was fighting both west (Hill's Corps renewing their attacks on the I Corps) and north (Ewell's Corps attacking the I and XI Corps) of Gettysburg. Ewell, on Oak Hill with Rodes, saw Howard's troops deploying before him, and he interpreted this as the start of an attack and implicit permission to set aside Gen. Lee's order not to bring about a general engagement.

Rodes attacks from Oak Hill
Rodes initially sent three brigades south against Union troops that represented the right flank of the I Corps and the left flank of the XI Corps: from east to west, Brig. Gen. George P. Doles, Col. Edward A. O'Neal, and Brig. Gen. Alfred Iverson. Doles's Georgia brigade stood guarding the flank, awaiting the arrival of Early's division. Both O'Neal's and Iverson's attacks fared poorly against the six veteran regiments in the brigade of Brig. Gen. Henry Baxter, manning a line in a shallow inverted V, facing north on the ridge behind the Mummasburg Road. O'Neal's men were sent forward without coordinating with Iverson on their flank and fell back under heavy fire from the I Corps troops.

Iverson failed to perform even a rudimentary reconnaissance and sent his men forward blindly while he stayed in the rear (as had O'Neal, minutes earlier). More of Baxter's men were concealed in woods behind a stone wall and rose to fire withering volleys from less than 100 yd away, creating over 800 casualties among the 1,350 North Carolinians. Stories are told about groups of dead bodies lying in almost parade-ground formations, heels of their boots perfectly aligned. (The bodies were later buried on the scene, and this area is today known as "Iverson's Pits", source of many local tales of supernatural phenomena.)

Baxter's brigade was worn down and out of ammunition. At 3:00 p.m. he withdrew his brigade, and Gen. Robinson replaced it with the brigade of Brig. Gen. Gabriel R. Paul. Rodes then committed his two reserve brigades: Brig. Gens. Junius Daniel and Dodson Ramseur. Ramseur attacked first, but Paul's brigade held its crucial position. Paul had a bullet go in one temple and out the other, blinding him permanently (he survived the wound and lived 20 more years after the battle). Before the end of the day, three other commanders of that brigade were wounded.

Daniel's North Carolina brigade then attempted to break the I Corps line to the southwest along the Chambersburg Pike. They ran into stiff resistance from Col. Roy Stone's Pennsylvania "Bucktail Brigade" in the same area around the railroad cut as the morning's battle. Fierce fighting eventually ground to a standstill.

Heth renews his attack
Gen. Lee arrived on the battlefield at about 2:30 p.m., as Rodes's men were in mid-attack. Seeing that a major assault was underway, he lifted his restriction on a general engagement and gave permission to Hill to resume his attacks from the morning. First in line was Heth's division again, with two fresh brigades: Pettigrew's North Carolinians and Col. John M. Brockenbrough's Virginians. Pettigrew's Brigade was deployed in a line that extended south beyond the ground defended by the Iron Brigade. Enveloping the left flank of the 19th Indiana, Pettigrew's North Carolinians, the largest brigade in the army, drove back the Iron Brigade in some of the fiercest fighting of the war. The Iron Brigade was pushed out of the woods, made three temporary stands in the open ground to the east, but then had to fall back toward the Lutheran Theological Seminary. Gen. Meredith was downed with a head wound, made all the worse when his horse fell on him. To the left of the Iron Brigade was the brigade of Col. Chapman Biddle, defending open ground on McPherson Ridge, but they were outflanked and decimated. To the right, Stone's Bucktails, facing both west and north along the Chambersburg Pike, were attacked by both Brockenbrough and Daniel.

Casualties were severe that afternoon. The 26th North Carolina (the largest regiment of the army with 839 men) lost heavily, leaving the first day's fight with around 212 men. Their commander, Colonel Henry K. Burgwyn, was fatally wounded by a bullet through his chest. By the end of the three-day battle, they had about 152 men standing, the highest casualty percentage for one battle of any regiment, North or South. One of the Union regiments, the 24th Michigan, lost 399 of 496. It had nine color bearers shot down, and its commander, Col. Henry A. Morrow, was wounded in the head and captured. The 151st Pennsylvania of Biddle's brigade lost 337 of 467.

The highest ranking casualty of this engagement was Gen. Heth, who was struck by a bullet in the head. He was apparently saved because he had stuffed wads of paper into a new hat, which was otherwise too large for his head. But there were two consequences to this glancing blow. Heth was unconscious for over 24 hours and had no further command involvement in the three-day battle. He was also unable to urge Pender's division to move forward and supplement his struggling assault. Pender was oddly passive during this phase of the battle; the typically more aggressive tendencies of a young general in Lee's army would have seen him move forward on his own accord. Hill shared the blame for failing to order him forward as well, but he claimed illness. History cannot know Pender's motivations; he was mortally wounded the next day and left no report.

Early attacks XI Corps
Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard of the XI Corps had a difficult defensive problem. He had only two divisions (four brigades) to cover the wide expanse of featureless farmland north of town. He and Maj. Gen. Carl Schurz, temporarily in command of the corps while Howard was in overall command on the field, deployed the division of Brig. Gen. Alexander Schimmelfennig on the left and Brig. Gen. Francis C. Barlow on the right. From the left, the brigades were Schimmelfennig's (under Col. George von Amsberg), Col. Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski, Brig. Gen. Adelbert Ames, and Col. Leopold von Gilsa. Howard recalled that he selected this line as a logical continuation of the I Corps line formed on his left. This decision has been criticized by historians, such as Edwin B. Coddington, as being too far forward, with a right flank vulnerable to envelopment by the enemy. (Coddington suggests that a more defensible line would have been along Stevens Run, about 600 feet north of the railroad, a shorter line to defend, with better fields of fire, and with a more secure right flank.)

Making the Federal defense more difficult, Barlow advanced farther north than Schimmelfennig's division, occupying a 50 ft elevation above Rock Creek named Blocher's Knoll (known today as Barlow's Knoll). Barlow's justification was that he wanted to prevent Doles's Brigade, of Rodes's division, from occupying it and using it as an artillery platform against him. General Schurz claimed afterward that Barlow had misunderstood his orders by taking this position. (In Schurz's official report, however, although he also states that Barlow misunderstood his order, he further states that Barlow "had been directing the movements of his troops with the most praiseworthy coolness and intrepidity, unmindful of the shower of bullets around," and "was severely wounded, and had to be carried off the battle-field." ) By taking the knoll, Barlow was following Howard's directive to obstruct the advance of Early's division, and in doing so, deprive him of an artillery platform, as von Steinwehr fortified the position on Cemetery Hill. The position on the knoll turned out to be unfortunate, as it created a salient in the line that could be assaulted from multiple sides. Schurz ordered Krzyżanowski's brigade, which had heretofore been sitting en masse at the north end of town (without further order to position from Schurz) forward to assist Barlow's two brigades on the knoll, but they arrived too late and in insufficient numbers to help. Historian Harry W. Pfanz judges Barlow's decision to be a "blunder" that "ensured the defeat of the corps."

Richard Ewell's second division, under Jubal Early, swept down the Harrisburg Road, deployed in a battle line three brigades wide, almost a mile across (1,600 m) and almost half a mile (800 m) wider than the Union defensive line. Early started with a large-scale artillery bombardment. The Georgia brigade of Brigadier-General John B. Gordon was then directed for a frontal attack against Barlow's Knoll, pinning down the defenders, while the brigades of Brigadier-General Harry T. Hays and Colonel Isaac E. Avery swung around their exposed flank. At the same time the Georgians under Doles launched a synchronized assault with Gordon. The defenders of Barlow's Knoll targeted by Gordon were 900 men of von Gilsa's brigade; in May, two of his regiments had been the initial target of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's flanking attack at Chancellorsville. The men of the 54th and 68th New York held out as long as they could, but they were overwhelmed. Then the 153rd Pennsylvania succumbed. Barlow, attempting to rally his troops, was shot in the side and captured. Barlow's second brigade, under Ames, came under attack by Doles and Gordon. Both Union brigades conducted a disorderly retreat to the south.

The left flank of the XI Corps was held by Gen. Schimmelfennig's division. They were subjected to a deadly artillery crossfire from Rodes' and Early's batteries, and as they deployed they were attacked by Doles' infantry. Doles' and Early's troops were able to employ a flanking attack and roll up three brigade of the corps from the right, and they fell back in confusion toward the town. A desperate counterattack by the 157th New York from von Amsberg's brigade was surrounded on three sides, causing it to suffer 307 casualties (75%).

Gen. Howard, witnessing this disaster, sent forward an artillery battery and an infantry brigade from von Steinwehr's reserve force, under Col. Charles Coster. Coster's battle line just north of the town in Kuhn's brickyard was overwhelmed by Hays and Avery. He provided valuable cover for the retreating soldiers, but at a high price: of Coster's 800 men, 313 were captured, as were two of the four guns from the battery.

The collapse of the XI Corps was completed by 4 p.m., after a fight of less than an hour. They suffered 3,200 casualties (1,400 of them prisoners), about half the number sent forward from Cemetery Hill. The losses in Gordon's and Doles's brigades were under 750.

Rodes and Pender break through
Rodes's original faulty attack at 2:00 had stalled, but he launched his reserve brigade, under Ramseur, against Paul's Brigade in the salient on the Mummasburg Road, with Doles's Brigade against the left flank of the XI Corps. Daniel's Brigade resumed its attack, now to the east against Baxter on Oak Ridge. This time Rodes was more successful, mostly because Early coordinated an attack on his flank.

In the west, the Union troops had fallen back to the Seminary and built hasty breastworks running 600 yd north-south before the western face of Schmucker Hall, bolstered by 20 guns of Wainwright's battalion. Dorsey Pender's division of Hill's Corps stepped through the exhausted lines of Heth's men at about 4:00 p.m. to finish off the I Corps survivors. The brigade of Brig. Gen. Alfred M. Scales attacked first, on the northern flank. His five regiments of 1,400 North Carolinians were virtually annihilated in one of the fiercest artillery barrages of the war, rivaling Pickett's Charge to come, but on a more concentrated scale. Twenty guns spaced only 5 yd apart fired spherical case, explosive shells, canister, and double canister rounds into the approaching brigade, which emerged from the fight with only 500 men standing and a single lieutenant in command. Scales wrote afterwards that he found "only a squad here and there marked the place where regiments had rested."

The attack continued in the southern-central area, where Col. Abner M. Perrin ordered his South Carolina brigade (four regiments of 1,500 men) to advance rapidly without pausing to fire. Perrin was prominently on horseback leading his men but miraculously was untouched. He directed his men to a weak point in the breastworks on the Union left, a 50 yd gap between Biddle's left-hand regiment, the 121st Pennsylvania, and Gamble's cavalrymen, attempting to guard the flank. They broke through, enveloping the Union line and rolling it up to the north as Scales's men continued to pin down the right flank. By 4:30 p.m., the Union position was untenable, and the men could see the XI Corps retreating from the northern battle, pursued by masses of Confederates. Doubleday ordered a withdrawal east to Cemetery Hill.

On the southern flank, the North Carolina brigade of Brig. Gen. James H. Lane contributed little to the assault; he was kept busy by a clash with Union cavalry on the Hagerstown Road. Brig. Gen. Edward L. Thomas's Georgia Brigade was in reserve well to the rear, not summoned by Pender or Hill to assist or exploit the breakthrough.

Union retreat
The sequence of retreating units remains unclear. Each of the two corps cast blame on the other. There are three main versions of events extant. The first, most prevalent, version is that the fiasco on Barlow's Knoll triggered a collapse that ran counterclockwise around the line. The second is that both Barlow's line and the Seminary defense collapsed at about the same time. The third is that Robinson's division in the center gave way and that spread both left and right. Gen. Howard told Gen. Meade that his corps was forced to retreat only because the I Corps collapsed first on his flank, which may have reduced his embarrassment but was unappreciated by Doubleday and his men. (Doubleday's career was effectively ruined by Howard's story.)

Union troops retreated in different states of order. The brigades on Seminary Ridge were said to move deliberately and slowly, keeping in control, although Col. Wainwright's artillery was not informed of the order to retreat and found themselves alone. When Wainwright realized his situation, he ordered his gun crews to withdraw at a walk, not wishing to panic the infantry and start a rout. As pressure eventually increased, Wainwright ordered his 17 remaining guns to gallop down Chambersburg Street, three abreast. A.P. Hill failed to commit any of his reserves to the pursuit of the Seminary defenders, a great missed opportunity.

Near the railroad cut, Daniel's Brigade renewed their assault, and almost 500 Union soldiers surrendered and were taken prisoner. Paul's Brigade, under attack by Ramseur, became seriously isolated and Gen. Robinson ordered it to withdraw. He ordered the 16th Maine to hold its position "at any cost" as a rear guard against the enemy pursuit. The regiment, commanded by Col. Charles Tilden, returned to the stone wall on the Mummasburg Road, and their fierce fire gave sufficient time for the rest of the brigade to escape, which they did, in considerably more disarray than those from the Seminary. The 16th Maine started the day with 298 men, but at the end of this holding action there were only 35 survivors.

For the XI Corps, it was a sad reminder of their retreat at Chancellorsville in May. Under heavy pursuit by Hays and Avery, they clogged the streets of the town; no one in the corps had planned routes for this contingency. Hand-to-hand fighting broke out in various places. Parts of the corps conducted an organized fighting retreat, such as Coster's stand in the brickyard. The private citizens of Gettysburg panicked amidst the turmoil, and artillery shells bursting overhead and fleeing refugees added to the congestion. Some soldiers sought to avoid capture by hiding in basements and in fenced backyards. Gen. Alexander Schimmelfennig was one such person who climbed a fence and hid behind a woodpile in the kitchen garden of the Garlach family for the rest of the three-day battle. The only advantage that the XI Corps soldiers had was that they were familiar with the route to Cemetery Hill, having passed through that way in the morning; many in the I Corps, including senior officers, did not know where the cemetery was.

As the Union troops climbed Cemetery Hill, they encountered the determined Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock. At midday, Gen. Meade was 9 mi south of Gettysburg in Taneytown, Maryland, when he heard that Reynolds had been killed. He immediately dispatched Hancock, commander of the II Corps and his most trusted subordinate, to the scene with orders to take command of the field and to determine whether Gettysburg was an appropriate place for a major battle. (Meade's original plan had been to man a defensive line on Pipe Creek, a few miles south in Maryland. But the serious battle underway was making that a difficult option.)

When Hancock arrived on Cemetery Hill, he met with Howard and they had a brief disagreement about Meade's command order. As the senior officer, Howard yielded only grudgingly to Hancock's direction. Although Hancock arrived after 4:00 p.m. and commanded no units on the field that day, he took control of the Union troops arriving on the hill and directed them to defensive positions with his "imperious and defiant" (and profane) persona. As to the choice of Gettysburg as the battlefield, Hancock told Howard "I think this the strongest position by nature upon which to fight a battle that I ever saw." When Howard agreed, Hancock concluded the discussion: "Very well, sir, I select this as the battle-field." Brig. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren, chief engineer of the Army of the Potomac, inspected the ground and concurred with Hancock.

Evening
General Lee also understood the defensive potential to the Union army if they held the high ground of Cemetery Hill. He sent orders to Ewell to "carry the hill occupied by the enemy, if he found it practicable, but to avoid a general engagement until the arrival of the other divisions of the army." In the face of this discretionary, and possibly contradictory, order, Ewell chose not to attempt the assault. One reason posited was the battle fatigue of his men in the late afternoon, although "Allegheny" Johnson's division of Ewell's Corps was within an hour of arriving on the battlefield. Another was the difficulty of assaulting the hill through the narrow corridors afforded by the streets of Gettysburg immediately to the north. Ewell requested assistance from A.P. Hill, but that general felt his corps was too depleted from the day's battle and General Lee did not want to bring up Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson's division from the reserve. Ewell did consider taking Culp's Hill, which would have made the Union position on Cemetery Hill untenable. However, Jubal Early opposed the idea when it was reported that Union troops (probably Slocum's XII Corps) were approaching on the York Pike, and he sent the brigades of John B. Gordon and Brig. Gen. William "Extra Billy" Smith to block that perceived threat; Early urged waiting for Johnson's division to take the hill. After Johnson's division arrived via the Chambersburg Pike, it maneuvered toward the east of town in preparation to take the hill, but a small reconnaissance party sent in advance encountered a picket line of the 7th Indiana Infantry, which opened fire and captured a Confederate officer and soldier. The remainder of the Confederates fled and attempts to seize Culp's Hill on July 1 came to an end.

Lee's order has been criticized because it left too much discretion to Ewell. Numerous historians and proponents of the Lost Cause movement (most prominently Jubal Early, despite his own reluctance to support an attack at the time) have speculated how the more aggressive Stonewall Jackson would have acted on this order if he had lived to command this wing of Lee's army, and how differently the second day of battle would have proceeded with Confederate artillery on Cemetery Hill, commanding the length of Cemetery Ridge and the Federal lines of communications on the Baltimore Pike. Stephen W. Sears has suggested that Gen. Meade would have invoked his original plan for a defensive line on Pipe Creek and withdrawn the Army of the Potomac, although that movement would have been a dangerous operation under pressure from Lee.

Most of the rest of both armies arrived that evening or early the next morning. Johnson's division joined Ewell and Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson's joined Hill. Two of the three divisions of the First Corps, commanded by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, arrived in the morning. Three cavalry brigades under Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart were still out of the area, on a wide-ranging raid to the northeast. Gen. Lee sorely felt the loss of the "eyes and ears of the Army"; Stuart's absence had contributed to the accidental start of the battle that morning and left Lee unsure about enemy dispositions through most of July 2. On the Union side, Meade arrived after midnight. The II Corps and III Corps took up positions on Cemetery Ridge, and the XII Corps and the V Corps were nearby to the east. Only the VI Corps was a significant distance from the battlefield, marching rapidly to join the Army of the Potomac.

The first day at Gettysburg—more significant than simply a prelude to the bloody second and third days—ranks as the 23rd-largest battle of the war by number of troops engaged. About one quarter of Meade's army (22,000 men) and one third of Lee's army (27,000) were engaged. Union casualties were almost 9,000; Confederate slightly over 6,000.

title: Battle of Gettysburg, first day


text:
User talk:Richard Soderberg

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * Try our tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * Keep the Five Pillars of Wikipedia in mind, and remember to write from a neutral point of view.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~, or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!

-- Kirill Lokshin 23:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Richard Soderberg


text:
User talk:A Train/Archive III

Thanks For Being Considerate
I thank you for being a real person and not being demeaning. Illuminus 02:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the fecalcore article is going to be removed. But I'm just messing around with it and learning things more things on Wikipedia, etc. Plus anyways, I'm going to save it either way, make it into a little website or just for my own personal and friend's enjoyment. But yeah, I figure it will be gone soon, so I'll make the most of it. Thanks, I'll see you around.

Looking for some direction.
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence.

I have added a comment to this discusion, and in coresponding to a question from another editor regarding this, I left this memo:

I copied this from Gabrielsimon's user page. Quote "It has been said that I have a very open mind as well.... I have been called inhumanly patient... and inhuman. If you want to know more, ask. I'm on MSN, YIM and AIM. Leave a message at my email address to learn what the IDs are."

I have been watching this sad saga unfold like a slow motion car crash for several days now. Beyond the obvious squabble that has been going on, I have come to some conclusions (based strictly on my own personal observations) that much of this GS, Ketrovin, Khulhy, Gavin the Chosen (and who knows how many others) is a cry for help from a lonely person. I also feel that many of the typographical and grammatical errors are contrived so as to foster a sympathetic response. I am curious as to what lengths the editors and admins are willing to go to in "babysitting" this individual. I am a new user myself, but is it in the best interest of WP to coddle a person who seems to go out of their way to be obtrusive? I wait, with interest to see how the situation plays itself out. There are a few admins here who I have made positive connections with, and I am inclined to copy this memo to their talk pages just to get some outside opinions. Keep up the good work Nickptar, as a new user I can say I've been impressed with your contributions here. See you "round! Hamster Sandwich 23:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC

Fernando, my question to you is; is a comment like this "over the line" of civility? I was hoping to make my opinion clear but not "biting" or invective. Hoping you could add your two cents worth, I trust your judgement. See ya 'round bro! Hamster Sandwich 23:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hamster, I'll definitely check it out. You've caught me at a good time because I'm at work and I've got some time on my hands. I have not been keeping up with this RfAr, so give me a little while before I comment on it. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Obviously, at your leisure. The wheels of Arb turn slowly =-P Have a nice evening t work! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 00:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. I'm not doing so well with this high-minded 'not fragmenting discussions' idea, am I? :) Fernando Rizo T/C 01:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well it all comes out in the wash, as they say User talk:Gavin the Chosen. My opinion is that hes a nut-job. He goes from user to user like a sad sack looking for help. "Whats a sockpuppet?" "Can you help me?" "I got an email from a friend who told me..." Its all very tawdry and pathetic. Sad. Well sorry to take up your time with this, I just saw a pattern and wanted to report it. Mr. Gavin should be very glad I'm not an admin, because quite frankly I wouldn't have the patience for these shenanigans. I hope he becomes a good editor, and makes the extra work you admins have done with him worthwhile. Thanks again. Hamster Sandwich 06:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Message
Fernando, looking forward to see your contribution to "Nadia Russ" in editing. M.

Address to the Deil
I have written an article about this notable Robert Burns poem instead of the transwiki'd poem that was there. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 10:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Address to the Deli
I'll have the pastrami and swiss on rye, and a root beer please...Hamster Sandwich 18:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion talk 07:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

marine team 6
fine i will stop adding it to the special operations forces list but if i do add an article per example lets say some force to that list please ask me why i did it first because i usually do not waste my time or put false information on sites for the heck of it.if i do put something on it is because ive seen it in a book etc. also about marine team six.it is mentioned in george fortys book.if you look at the last paragragh about force recon in the marines section you will see in the last sentence or so it mentions marine team 6 an delta force in saying that if your are so called elite enough you could be accepted to those units.please refer back to this.thanks for your help though even if i'm a pain in the a**.see you on the editing floor.

Adminship?
Having observed some of your thoughtful contributions, it occurred to me that we might benefit from having you as an administrator. If you're interested, I would be happy to nominate you — please let me know. --Michael Snow 03:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, I've posted the nomination at Requests for adminship/Fernando Rizo. As you may know, you should indicate there whether you accept the nomination, and there are some standard questions you can answer for the benefit of people who are not familiar with you yet. --Michael Snow 05:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Operating Thetan
Fernando, I added "fair use" to the bottom of my posting of the church's description of the OT levels to explain my posting it to your talk page, not so that you could simply copy it to the article. I should have explained that you can use your own wording and not post it verbatum. --AI 06:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * AI, I posted it verbatum, but cited it with footnotes and all. It's not a copyright violation because I cited it as a reference. I really feel that the article benefits greatly from its presence, and surely no Church secrets are compromised by posting some content from a freely distributed pamphlet, right? Fernando Rizo T/C 06:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's ok I know you didn't intentionally mean to violate any copyright, but the material is not from a pamphlet but directly from one of the Scientology books. I merely offered it as a reference from which Wikipedia contributors could NPOV the article. The part mentioning OTIII data to explain the OT levels is POV because OTIII is not the only OT level. If you don't mind, I have a question about attribution as I am still a new user and haven't studied all the Wikipedia policies: Is referencing unpublished material proper attribution? Since it is unpublished, it is unverifiable. --AI 08:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FScrumpy_Jack&diff=20933610&oldid=20925988

You falsely attributed the unsigned comment to me. Perhaps you'd like to fix it. Erwin Walsh
 * You're quite right. My apologies. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for amending. Erwin Walsh

HAYEDEH
HI Fernando How do you do? Thanks for your note. As Hayedeh performed in Persian Shah's court after 1979 revolution accused her with a funny term "prootione of 'Royal Music'". They asked her to introduce herself to the revolutionary court.

This article is my research. How can I cite it? I have to create another page in another website and them cite it as refence?

Yours Pejman persia_1980@yahoo.com

 * Pejman, the official Wikipedia policy No original research prohibits the posting of original research. Don't worry though. Instead of citing your own research as the reference, cite the books and websites that you used to get your research. The "prootione of 'Royal Music'" bit is quite interesting, but doesn't make any sense to someone not familiar with the term. Put it back in, just explain it better so that a common person (like me ;) ) can understand it. Keep contributing! Fernando Rizo T/C 20:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hayedeh 2
Dear Fernando, I have had source (book, website, etc). I continued Hayedeh activities and works and what I wrote are what saw and knew. It's strange for you but as current regime of Iran is very strick with Hayedeh no one can write about her. So there was no source!

Persia
Dear Fernando, PERSIA is simply western name of Iran. It's not racial term and not belong just to ancient time. plesae read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/Persia_naming_controversy

thanks Pejman

African-American History
Sure. I believe it belongs for the following reasons, but I am open to input.

 * 1) Many notable African-Americans have contracted it. I.e. Magic Johnson
 * 2) HIV rates are highest among the African-American community today (2/3 of all new teenage cases). See AIDS in America
 * 3) The CDC indicates the reason for this lies behind genetics. See AIDS
 * 4) Many African-American leaders as of late have spoken out against HIV and the need for more testing among their community, including Al Sharpton who participated in New York City’s gay pride events in order to build bridges between the two communities because he believes the gay population’s experience in dealing with it would be an invaluable resource to African-Americans.

What do you think? 70.57.82.114 21:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's all perfectly reasonable thinking, and the more I consider it the more sense it makes. At first blush it seemed like a racist edit to me, and I'm glad I asked you about it before I reverted it. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

MattC
Hi Fernando, thanks for the links. I've been making minor edits here and there for a few months, for the most part they have not been particularly controversial :) - MattC

Efeesh and Star Trek stubs
I don't know how much of a Star Trek fan you are, or how much about Star Trek you know, but all of my entreys are from actual Star Trek episodes, please don't accuse me of making up stuff, becuase I hate people that just make up thier own Star Trek facts, and I am insulted that you think I am making this up. I don't think you are a Star Trek fan, because most of the stuff I have put there would be well known to a Star Trek fan. I gaurntee all the stuff I add can be confirmed by looking it up in the Star Trek Encyclopedia.

 * Efeesh, please don't take my comments as any kind of accusation. I was afraid that you were going to be put off by the fact that your articles had been nominated for deletion, and I just wanted to explain why. I don't think you're making anything up, although you're quite right, I'm not much of a Star Trek fan. Try not to hold that against me. ;) What I was trying to say is that some of your articles (ex. U.S.S. Lalo) were on subjects that were a bit too trivial for encyclopedic entries. Again, please don't take offense, and I hope that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

PBY table
I've done some heavy tweaking to the style (yay prettytable) and merged the date & differences columns. Everything was getting all squashed with four columns, so I did some width specifying for the left and right columns and did a BR for the date/info sections.

Hopefully this is good for now! I tried to keep the headings short too so they'd stay on a single line, although the "Production period & distinguishing features" label is probably slightly less clear than it could be. Have a good night. -eric ✈ 09:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD, circus vs bedlam
You absolutely killed me today with your comment at Votes for deletion/Title 28. I giggled like an idiot for twenty minutes. Thanks :) Fernando Rizo T/C 08:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * :D Going through too many pages of VfD in one session leads to a kinda madcap mood. I have a lot of patience for cruft of all sorts - rightly or wrongly it matters more to people than dusty history and other 'obviously noteworthy' subjects, and brings a lot of people into the project. The main problem is stuff seems to get blind keep/deletes based on whether a particular bit of cruft is 'encyclopedic' rather than the sensible option of just sticking the info somewhere more appropriate until there *is* enough information to require having a dedicated article. --zippedmartin 15:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

SW fluff
There are over 1 jillion tags out there, don't know if I would have picked "tone" so much as "needs to be trimmed / consolidated" type tag. IF it exists, organization on wikipedia is usually spotty and/or counter-intuitive. If it were de-fluffed I think it would slice out most of the fanboy style clutter at the same time... being a moderate fan of the EU (books) and the main films, my eye is probably somewhat jaundiced. Zotel - the Stub Maker 04:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Right on, man. I would suggest a tag, then. Keep doing your thing. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Poked around a bit, I guess that is the best tag that can be used for now. Sigh. I wish I could find a more precise one, ie,  ,  or similar. Oh well. Zotel - the Stub Maker 04:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey brother, take the initiative and make it. I'd back you 100%. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

up next...
Once we're done with the Catalina, maybe we should work on finding references and (massively) streamlining the work done by User:GarageBay9 on the P-61 Black Widow article. Interesting plane, headache-inducing article.

Also, I'm planning to at least stub out some more Consolidated flying boats. My Jane's doesn't go far enough back to cover the 1930s designs, although there's a bit of fascinating background on the Vectorsite's Martin flying boats page — apparently Martin ripped off all their subsequent 'boats from a Consolidated design! -eric ✈ 17:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's it brother. Lots of great information at the Black Widow article, just needs tweaking like you said. I've got some more research to put into the Catalina article today. Two more days and I'll be through with the content dump, and we should be ready to just clean her up and nominate it. I'll be back on later today or tonight. There's a great anecdote in Roscoe Creed's book that I want to tell you later. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent CoS Edits
You wrote; I've been somewhat busy this week, but rest assured that I am watching this page and I do try to pitch in to keep it NPOV as much as I can.

-Fernando Rizo T/C 02:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Go back to the last edit by Antaeus Feldspar, and compare versions to the current one. You'll see what I mean.  I think that some CoSer's might have come on to the idea that by listing irrelevant editorial comments, they could get away with more.

 * Thanks,

 * -Scott P. 02:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * I'm all over it. Thanks for the heads-up, Scott. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:45, 17 August 2005

 * Thanks, check out your email when you get a chance. Scott P. 02:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for watching my back, but I just registered that username for future use as a bot. I don't think I rate an impostor quite yet. ;-) android  79  03:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

A Link To The Past
Finally someone agrees with me on his behaviour. He has no respect for others opinion or input in anything they do. Havok (T/C) 09:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Link is a good guy and a valuable contributor, but he lets his emotions get the better of him in a debate sometimes, that's all. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

popups config
Hi, glad you like the popups! I've looked at your monobook.js and you've added a line with a plus sign (+). If you remove that then it should work. It's also good form to put a semicolon at the end of the line. So give this a try:

// User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line

document.write(' '); popupDelay = 2.0;

Lupin 14:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Foregone conclusion?
I don't want to jinx you, but I'd be making some room in my broom closet if I were you! Oh, and that is a pretty spiffy picture of a PBY Catalina you got there mister. Or are you just happy to see me? Regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Ham, thanks buddy! I've been trying to keep some distance between myself and the people that weighed in on my RfA this week to avoid the appearance of impropriety, so sorry that you haven't seen my face much. Thanks for supporting me, brother. My first act as an admin will be to ban you indefinitely, of course. ;) Fernando Rizo T/C 23:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have it any other way! Feel free to delete all my articles too! Hamster Sandwich 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ever see a fat man laughing his ass off? OMG...*wipes a tear... Hamster Sandwich 23:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I found that damn picture the other day at work when I was searching for something else entirely, and I figured I had to tack that thing onto your user page as soon as I saw it. I'm still laughing about it. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Something has been eating at me all day....
I was going to post this to Tony Sidaways talk page...

"*Well done! I see you were able to pawn your decision off in a very tidy way. And appearently you were able to completely circumvent not only the spirit but the letter of WP:Faith. Hopefully I now fall outside the purview of your caprice and can be treated as an actual user rather than some supposed, or suspected sockpuppet."

Please see the discussion that I've been engaged in there for the past few hours. Would my comment be construed as a personal attack? Hamster Sandwich 02:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Havok  (T/C) 07:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Fernando. You'll do a fantastic job! Joyous  (talk) 17:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! I, too, hope to see you around.  --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:58, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hoooo YES! I am sure you'll do a great job, you have been doing so all along. Hell I thought you were an admin my first day here! All the best of luck to you, and don't let the weirdos (like me) and freaks (again, me) get you down bro! See ya 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 19:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA
I've just spent too much time working with personality disorders. I've seen perfectly friendly and nice people freak out unexpectedly and irrevocably many times, or just burn out and fade away after a year of furious productivity, and as such it makes me more circumspect. I'm glad you have the community's support, and I hope everything goes well. siafu 19:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the honest thoughts. I hope I don't become one of those headcases, but only time will tell I guess. ;) Fernando Rizo T/C 19:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

hello you
i like wipedia

the only problem is

- the pictures are a little dark sometimes

bye

i love wikipedia

Wikipedia
wikipedia is great

the biography sometimes are small and the pictures a little dark

I LIKE WIKIPEDIA

BYE

regarding style problems
hello, i guess i should thank you for getting a hold of me. i have been using wikipedia for both business and amusement for some time now and just got sick and tired of some of the dead links and blank stubs on here. although i would not call myself an expert on anything other than my chosen profession, most of the articles that i have written and posted have been about something i know about personally. all of them have to the best of my ability been drafted to be both as briefly informative as possible and, more importantly, to attract the attention of more knowledgable people who are better writers than i am. Since i have apparently drawn your eye and perhaps ire for doing so, i apologize for not, as you might put it, wikifying my text. i confess that i have not done so out of both a bit of laziness and the desire to avoid the risk of doing it wrong, confusing people, and having my contribution rewritten anyway. The manual is rather informative and would be of great help if i were a professional writer rather than an engineer. i would not mind one bit if any or all of my work underwent the process of wikification in the interest of greater clarity or usability. however, should my sentences be deemed too tedious to quickly edit rather having nothing in their place as they were when i came across them, i will either attempt to structure them with the notation your website suggests or will more likely stop contributing. Again, sorry if i made a nusiance of myself and i thank you for your time. yours, bef

style problems p.s.
oh yes, and if i did not say so, wikipedia is a fantastic thing.

I replied to the 2 comments above at User talk:67.87.0.133. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.
I'll take it to heart. His descision and comments pretty much frosted my apples though, and I have read somewhere or other that a two thirds majority can be construed as a concensus in terms of closing VfD articles. Sidaway obviously has an agenda to push, concering "inclusionism", and as I've been doing some investigation of his VfD closures this is readily appearant. Also he responded at his RfC that he will not deign to respond to the issues that users and admins have put forward there and he claims to be "innordinately proud" of his own contributions. This strikes me as more than passingly egomanaical. Oh well. It would be interesting to see what kind of support he could expect if he were nominated for admin at this stage of his WP service. As I said mentioned to him in one of my posts, there will be no possible reason for me to refer to a "Religion and schizotypy" article at any rate. That "facts" in that article are completely subjective and unverifyable. I'll bet you a dollar that nobody does anything like a useful edit to that page in the next year. Lets make that a slurpee...I'd bet a Huge gigantic brain feezing slurpee on it. Sidaway disregards WP:Faith, Don't bite the newbies and probably a couple other cornerstones of the WP with his arbitrary, out of hand and capricious dismissal of my votes. OK...that was my rant...patience and tolerance, patience and tolerance... Thanks for looking the thing over for me. Of course I appreciate your advice. Good luck with the mop and bucket bro! Hamster Sandwich 03:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: RFA
Considering that my views here have been so marganalized, it very difficlut for people to see past what i belive some on here want them to see, which is anything aginst the "norm" in consideration of how this site is run and the policies are used (or i should say abused), i am not supprised by your responce. Yes i do have a minimum cretieria that i consider, but i also have other factors that i consider as well. Consider that amount of power and responsibility that an admin is suppose to have and use, as i do belive that it is a sigificant deapature from being a standard user much more so then going from an anon to registered, that i think the standardships for adminission need to be extremely stridgent as well. I'll spare you the rest as i could go on for a while. Basically in the flawed system that we have, I rather be proven wrong with an oppose vote then a apporve vote. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I responded on Boothy's talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It good to see that their are some people that can think for them selves. I hope nooffence was taken with my vote, none was intended, and i hope that you end up being one of the better admins, which is a group few and far between. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocks
Except for the Bob Dylan vandal, who knew he was violating 3RR because he mentioned it, I didn't see any point in repeatedly warning all of the VfD vandal IDs, which were obviously the same person. I warned them twice and they kept doing it by new IDs, so I just started blocking. I am going to be going to bed now, though, so somebody else will have to take over. :) Zoe 09:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I replied on Zoe's talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Congratulations on the adminship, by the way.  I haven't been back long enough yet to know the people who are being nominated, so I haven't been voting.  Zoe 09:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your message to me,
I have pasted the information about the department as I am a student of the department itself. If you think then I can type the things. But I cant change the history, the names of the labs and the research areas of the department. if you still think then I can type the things, but they are better as they are.

kapil

title: User talk:A Train/Archive III


text:
Talk:Uncle

Say uncle!
I'm looking for an article about "uncle" in the expression "Say uncle", which bullies force their victims to say. From the context it is used in I guess I understand what it means but I don't have the slightest idea of its origin. I would greatly appreciate if anyone could write something about it.
 * A non-american (as can be seen in my poor spelling and grammar) visitor ;-)212.65.19.208 23:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems ;ike something that should be in Uncle, although it is not.. --Mysidia (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I took a look there also, but I wasn't sure where the right place for somethin like that would be. On the Internet I found something in the "Urban Dictionary". The entry there defines the meaning in the mentioned context as something like "surrender" but doesn't give any hints about the origin.
 * The same strange visitor (can anyone guess where I'm from? :-) ... and no cheating by looking up my IP) --212.65.19.208 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's from the use of 'uncle' as a term of respect, mentioned in this article? I'm only guessing though. --Oolong (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * From the article: "'say uncle' or just 'uncle'". No, "Uncle!" is the

submission term, not "say uncle". "Say uncle" is the demand for submission. "Say uncle" and "Uncle!" are opposites. One is the demand for submission, the other is the submission. The article treats them as equivalent, which is wrong, so I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Offensive...?
Uncle Remus refers to 'uncle', in that context, as something that many people find offensive, but there's nothing about that here. Should there be? For context, the 1913 Webster entry for 'uncle' includes this: An eldery man; -- used chiefly as a kindly or familiar appellation, esp. (Southern U. S.) for a worthy old negro; as, "Uncle Remus." [Colloq.] --Oolong (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Term of Respect?
"It is also a title of respect for elders (for example older cousins, neighbors, acquaintances, as well as total strangers), especially in Russia, Japan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Jamaica, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, China, Maori culture, and most Pacific Islands."

Could someone go through this list and separate out the people who actually use the term 'Uncle' out of respect, and those which use an equivalent word in their own language? I'm fairly certain that Russian and Japanese, at least, do not need to borrow an English word to create a term of respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.147.17 (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of locations has been remove which probably makes the most sense since I'm sure it was unsourced or poorly sourced. I'd note though that there's no reason to assuming any "borrowing" or "own language". The logical reading of the text is that it's the word they use when they speak English, and possibly they use an equivalent word in a different language when speaking that language. Just because someone is Russian or Japanese doesn't mean they never speak English. Indeed in the case of 'total strangers', it may be reasonable to expect given (for better or worse) the global dominance that English will often be the language spoken when engaging with foreign tourists. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Other Non-Direct Uncles?
What relation would my Grandfather's brother's son, be to me? Would he be an Uncle once removed?Wenin (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 * First cousin once removed. (Your father and him are first cousins, so you and him are first cousins once removed.) 91.105.31.47 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Great uncle
The article states: "Although the term "great uncle/aunt" is often used, it is, strictly speaking, incorrect." The reference that claims that "great-uncle" is not correct is very biased. The terms grandaunt and granduncle were first used in the 1800s while greataunt and granduncle were used in the 1600s. Apparently some Americans in the 1800s forgot the middle-English origins of the relationship and reanalysed it in terms of "grand". Someone later invented the idea that "great" is an incorrect prefix for aunt and uncle. Not sure what references could be used to refute this error but the usage of great-aunt and great uncle long precede this usage. Dutch uses a similar construction grootoom for great-uncle. I suppose the logic in claiming that it is not correct is at fault: Since grand means a familial relationship one step removed, and great means a familial relationship once removed that in all other cases is associated with grand, it then must imply that using great for some familial relationship (aunt or uncle) cannot be correct. However, it is one thing to claim this, but another thing to be correct. Obviously the terms great-aunt and great-uncle were used prior to any dictionaries making a claim about the prefixes grand or great. Perhaps the terms grandaunt and granduncle were coined by Webster along with his correction of the not correct English? Twocs (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. Not only is the second paragraph prescriptive rather than descriptive, it has an entirely inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Particularly the final sentence, which ends, "...so to be consistent why use "great" in conjunction with uncles and aunts." Most of it needs to be deleted entirely.174.60.46.129 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Also agree. Great uncle is a much more popular usage . I've removed all the contentious content. Martin Tod (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were going to add Grunkle here because when I made that wiki page Largo Plazo said and I quote "that article would created under the topic Grand uncle because that would still be the main word for the concept. The term Grunkle would then redirect there." Source of my claim is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grunkle#Contested_deletion Dogsteeves (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Uncle and Aunt are currently separate articles but overlap too much in their content. I suggest a merger to uncle and aunt similar to nephew and niece. There are more important familial relations where the genders aren't separated as they are in this case. Brother and sister both redirect to sibling while grandmother and grandfather both redirect to grandparents.

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Merging two unreferenced messes into one at least reduces the number of problems. And while I can see the merged articles having separate subsections for some aspects, I certainly don't see the need to have them split at the current moment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support I agree with the rationale provided by the nominator, but the grandparent comparison concerns me. If you go to Grandparent, you'll note that there's no interwiki link to Swedish, because Swedish has no single word for "grandparent" — they have separate words for different "types" of grandparents ([discussion]), just like we have separate words for different types of parents' siblings and spouses thereof.  I'm concerned that merging these two will cause problems with Wikidata; it might not be a problem for most articles, but for such a basic topic, there are tons of articles on other projects that will stop having any link to a merged Uncle and aunt article.  Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Per nom; there is no need for separate entries for this basic topic.  GabeMc  (talk|contribs)  17:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. If there's one article for siblings, there should be one article for parents' sibilings, by an a fortiori. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, that might increase the quality of these articles. Uncle and aunt are barely even encyclopedic topics to begin with, so having two separate stubs for the topic in the first place is very odd, especially when articles like sibling exist. I'm not even really sure if this topic should have an article in the first place, and would support a move to Wiktionary. What kind of sources could we use for this article? ~ Mable ( chat ) 14:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support move to Aunt and Uncle - (I've always used "Aunt & Uncle" so to me makes more sense this way) - I was originally gonna Oppose per the fact "Although they're related they're still 2 different things entirely" .... I then realized Nan/Grandad redirect back to Grandparents and Brother/Sister redirects back to Sibling so IMHO it would now make sense to redirect this too, It's better to have one big article IMHO... – Davey 2010 Talk 14:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have left a message on the talk pages of recent editors to these articles and on the relevant WikiProject talk pages notifying them on this proposal. Gizza ( t )( c ) 04:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose if anyone were to actually dive into the literature on kinship, there would be more than enough to write about each of the two categories. They are both highly salient cultural categories and the fact that by necessity they overlap to some degree should have no impact on whether they are treated separately. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I doubt this is a good idea unless strong evidence is provided to the contrary by experts on kinship relations. Cobblet (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Maunus. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Good grief, they are two different things, two completely different words, two different genders. And each has its own set of connotations, usages, legends, phrases, idioms, etc. Not to mention the confusion created when foreign-wikis link to the article if they were joined. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, per Maunus. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose unless mother and father are also merged. I like how u rotate (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Nobody has still given an explanation as to why brother/sister and uncle/aunt should be treated differently. Not to mention grandfather/grandmother. Non-English languages wikis links will be a headache no matter what path is chosen. There are languages with 4 different common words for each grandparent unlike English. Gizza (t)(c) 09:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

30% genetic overlap?
Surely this should be 25%. Kostaki mou (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

List of uncles
Why have a long list of uncles in music, film, tv etc? These in popular culture-sections are getting out of hand. Edward Mordake (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Uncle-in-law?
Isn't the whole bit about Uncle-In-Laws nonsense? At least in English. Your aunt's husband is commonly referred to as your uncle (by marriage) and never as your uncle-in-law. Granted it's a failing of the English language that there is no distinction between your parents siblings and the spouses who marry them. It's a quirk of the language but there it is. If you marry a woman her sons from her previous marriage become your stepsons, the guys who marry your daughters are your son-in-laws but when you marry your wife her nephews become your nephews as well. There's no new terminology there.

And is there even a term for your spouse's aunts or uncles to begin with?

--Meteor

A great-uncle is the brother of one's grandparent
However, Wiktionary reads "a brother or brother-in-law of one's grandparent." --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uncle


text:
Leo Mol

Leonid Molodozhanyn (January 15, 1915 – July 4, 2009), known as Leo Mol, was a Ukrainian Canadian stained glass artist, painter and sculptor.

History
Born Leonid Molodozhanyn in Polonne, Russian Empire (now Ukraine), Mol learned the art of ceramics in his father's pottery workshop. Mol studied sculpture at the Leningrad Academy of Arts from 1936 to 1940.

Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union he was deported to Germany where he was influenced by Arno Breker. In 1945, he moved to The Hague, and in December, 1948, he and his wife, Margareth (whom he married in 1943), emigrated to Winnipeg, Manitoba. In 1949, he held his first ceramics exhibition in Winnipeg.

More than three hundred of Mol's works are displayed in the 1.2 hectare Leo Mol Sculpture Garden in Winnipeg's Assiniboine Park which comprises a gallery, a renovated studio, and an outdoor display. The garden was unveiled on June 18, 1992 and has been expanded twice since. It is supported by private donations, and Mol personally donated 200 bronze sculptures to the city of Winnipeg. The sculptures are of religious leaders, prominent people, the human form, and wildlife.

Mol died July 4, 2009, at St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He was 94.

Works
In 2002, his monumental bronze sculpture Lumberjacks (1990), which now stands in Assiniboine Park was featured on a 48¢ Canadian postage stamp in the sculptors series. Mol's small bronze sculpture of lumberjacks (1978) was his inspiration for a monumental bronze sculpture.

He was always known as a particularly prolific artist and some of his most famous works include likenesses of three different Popes which stand in museums in the Vatican. He also has a sculpture of Taras Shevchenko on display on Washington's Embassy Row.

Other important subjects who Mol sculpted include members of the Group of Seven, A. J. Casson, A.Y. Jackson and Frederick Varley. Mol also sculpted Sir Winston Churchill 1966, Winnipeg editorial cartoonist Peter Kuch (1917-1980), Dwight D. Eisenhower 1965, John F. Kennedy 1969, Elizabeth Bradford Holbrook ca. 1970, Terry Fox 1982. On Parliament Hill in Ottawa stands his impressive over life-size standing portrait figure of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker 1985. Also on Parliament Hill stands an impressive bronze statue of Elizabeth II. The maquette of Sir William Stephenson C.C. (code-named "Intrepid") is displayed in a place of honour within CIA Headquarters, Langley, VA, USA

Honours
In 1989, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. In 2000, he was awarded the Order of Manitoba. He was a member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts.

He received honorary degrees from the University of Winnipeg, the University of Alberta and the University of Manitoba.

Mol was also made an honorary academician of the Canadian Portrait Academy (Hon. CPA) in 2000.

Leo Mol's papers are held by the University of Manitoba Archives and Special Collections.

title: Leo Mol


text:
One World Film Festival

One World (Czech: Jeden svět) is a human rights film festival (125,947 spectators in 2018), held annually in Prague and other 36 cities of the Czech Republic, with a selection later shown in Brussels and other countries. The festival highlights quality documentary films on social, political, environmental, media and human rights issues. One World presents over a 100 documentary films from all around the globe and organizes numerous Q&As with filmmakers and experts.

History
Established in 1999 by Igor Blaževič and the Czech NGO People in Need, the One World Festival presents over a100 documentary films during nine days in Spring from around the world. It is a founding member of the Human Rights Film Network, which brings together 33 festivals around the world.

In 2006, the festival received a Special Mention from UNESCO for its contribution to human rights and peace education. Three years later, in 2009, One World published a handbook entitled Setting Up a Human Rights Film Festival, which offers practical advice as well as case studies of prominent human rights events.

In 2018, the One World Festival was in its 20th year and took place from 5–14 March, presenting 128 documentaries and 9 virtual reality projects from more than 40 countries around the world. In the same year, the festival and the NGO, People In Need, published the handbook, Explore Impact: How To Reach New Audiences And Boost impact, that should serve as an important guideline for the festival (or other cultural events) organizers who care about the social dimension and impact of their work.

One World was held under the auspices of Václav Havel, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel Schwarzenberg, the Minister of Culture Jiří Besser, and the Mayor of Prague Bohuslav Svoboda.

The 2020 edition of the festival was postponed due to rising concerns over COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak.

Competitions and awards
One World's program consists of three competitive categories, a variety of non-competitive thematic categories as well as Docs for Kids section. Films are judged by One World's selection committee that concentrates equally on both human rights content and artistic quality. Six main awards are given to the winning films:

 * International Competition Award
 * Award for the Best Director in the International Competition
 * The Václav Havel Jury Award for a film that makes an exceptional contribution to the defense of human rights
 * Czech Competition Award
 * Audience Award
 * Student Jury Award

Homo Homini Award
During the festival, People in Need grants the annual Homo Homini Award to individuals in recognition of their dedication to promoting human rights, democracy and nonviolent solutions to political conflicts. The 2011 award went to the underground network of Syrian doctors, Doctors Coordinate of Damascus, for their work in aiding victims of violence in Syria.

Winners of the Homo Homini Award
 * 1994: Sergei Kovalev
 * 1997: Szeto Wah
 * 1998: Ibrahim Rugova
 * 1999: Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas
 * 2000: Min Ko Naing
 * 2001: Zackie Achmat
 * 2002: Thích Huyền Quang, Thích Quảng Độ and Nguyễn Văn Lý
 * 2003: Nataša Kandić
 * 2004: Gheorghe Briceag
 * 2005: Ales Bialatski and the Belarusian organisation Viasna
 * 2006: Svetlana Gannushkina
 * 2007: Su Su Nway, Phyu Phyu Thin, and Nilar Thein
 * 2008: Liu Xiaobo
 * 2009: Majid Tavakoli and Abdollah Momeni
 * 2010: Azimjan Askarov
 * 2011: Doctors Coordinate of Damascus
 * 2012: Intigam Aliyev
 * 2013: Sapiyat Magomedova
 * 2014: Souad Nawfal
 * 2015: Black Spring (Cuba): Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, Jorge Olivera Castillo, Ángel Juan Moya Acosta, José Daniel Ferrer García, Félix Navarro Rodríguez, Iván Hernández Carrillo, Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez, Óscar Elías Biscet González, Eduardo Díaz Fleitas, Librado Ricardo Linares García, Arnaldo Ramos Lauzurique
 * 2016: Committee for the Prevention of Torture (Russia)
 * 2017: Pham Doan Trang
 * 2018: Francisca Ramirez
 * 2019: Buzurgmehr Yorov
 * 2020: Marfa Rabkova, Andrei Chapiuk, Leanid Sudalenka, and Tatsiana Lasitsa
 * 2021: Mahienour El-Massry

title: One World Film Festival


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clown Combat

 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 17:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Clown_Combat
Is this information or marketing? An unreleased niche game for an unreleased console... 193.190.253.144 23:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Maybe just add it to some sort of category about Beta software? It seems too sparse to be any sort of plug for the game or the console. If anything it's a really bad stub... kvidell 00:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Too early for this game. Could be a better article next year. Thunderbrand 12:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:18, 28 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.