text:
Umihara Kawase

Umihara Kawase (海腹川背) is a series of platform games starring the sushi chef Kawase Umihara, who has become lost in a world of surreal salt-water and fresh-water creatures. The series began with Umihara Kawase for the Super Famicom in 1994, which was followed by Umihara Kawase Shun in 1997, Sayonara Umihara Kawase in 2013, Umihara Kawase Fresh! in 2019, and Umihara Kawase Bazooka! in 2020.

Development
The game was an independent collaboration between developer Kiyoshi Sakai, illustrator Toshinobu Kondo, and several others. It was published by TNN, "Think about Needs of Notice for human being".

Gameplay
The game world of Umihara Kawase is constructed from a set of interconnected levels known as fields. Each field connects to one or more fields deeper within the game via doors.

Fields are enclosed areas containing a number of static and moving platforms, ladders, spikes, enemy sea-life and one or more exit doors. The doors are often positioned in hard to reach places and it is the player's goal to plan a safe route to one. Each exit door in a field takes the player to a different field, and the goal is to find a safe route through the fields and arrive at a final exit door (at which point the credits scroll and the game is over). Each of the Umihara Kawase games contains multiple routes through the fields and multiple final exits. Using shortcuts and optimised door routes can allow the game to be completed within minutes in the hands of a skilled player. Enjoyment of the game typically lies not in merely making it to the first or easiest final exit door, but in exploring the game's many routes and mastering the challenging rope physics.

The Umihara Kawase games have simple controls. The eponymous player character is able to run, jump, climb onto ledges, climb ladders and, crucially, throw her fishing line. When thrown, the fishing line will hook onto nearly all surfaces within the games. When the line is firmly hooked onto a surface or an enemy fish the line is able to take her weight. From here Kawase is able to swing between platforms, lower herself down to other ledges and swing herself up to higher ledges. Due to the flexible nature of her line she can also catapult herself great distances by stretching the line to breaking point. The line can also be used to stun fish and reel them in, and once reeled in Kawase will store them in her rucksack and score points in doing so.

While the controls are simple and responsive, an uncompromising physics model means that graceful control of the game's swinging techniques will not come immediately. Out of this, though, comes great scope for advanced techniques through full utilization of the physics. Perfect execution of techniques such as the one- and two-step rocket jump are required both in later fields and for those who intend to improve their field completion times.

The games contain 1ups in the shape of Kawase's pink rucksack but no other collectibles are present.

Umihara Kawase
Umihara Kawase is the first game in the series released in 1994 for the Super Famicom. It was originally in development for the X68000. Umihara Kawase contains a total of 49 fields of which four are exit fields and six are boss fields. The game makes good use of the SFC's colour palette for digitized photographic backgrounds. The rope physics sometimes strain the Super Famicom's CPU, leading to slowdown, but this is rare. The game permits saving speedruns, establishing such play as a principal feature of the series.

The game, along with Shun, was ported for PC in 2015. The slowdown from the Super Famicom version is no longer present though the game remains largely the same with the addition of a practice mode.

Umihara Kawase Shun
Umihara Kawase Shun (海腹川背・旬) is the second game in the series. It was released in 1997 for the PlayStation and developed by the same team as the original. The move to a 3D side-on game world with the PlayStation launch of Shun opened up the fields to more complex layouts using a great deal of angled and jutting blocks. The move to a 3D game world was not universally welcomed, however, as it decreases the ease with which the player can identify the exact point in space where platforms begin and end. Slightly adjusted line physics (the rope is shorter, but more elastic and springy), along with no presence of slowdown, are the other main notable changes from its predecessor.

The game received several re-releases and ports: Umihara Kawase Shun ~second edition~ Maruan Series 1, a version without in-game advertising, Umihara Kawase Portable for PlayStation Portable, and Umihara Kawase Shun ~second edition~ Kanzenban for Nintendo DS. It got a worldwide release for Microsoft Windows in 2015.

Sayonara Umihara Kawase
A third game in the series called Sayonara Umihara Kawase (さよなら 海腹川背) in Japan, initially localized as Yumi's Odd Odyssey, was released in Japan in June 2013 for the Nintendo 3DS. Half of the original staff were involved in its development. The gameplay is similar to past games. The game includes a cast of playable characters including a younger Kawase, her classic self, her future descendant named Noko Yokoyama, and her childhood friend Emiko.

The game was also the first in the series released outside of Asia, with Natsume Inc. publishing it in North America. Agatsuma Entertainment published the game for the European market under its original Japanese title, unlike the North American release. The game was released in North America, Europe and Australia exclusively for Nintendo eShop in March and April 2014, respectively.

Umihara Kawase Fresh!
Another game in the series, entitled Umihara Kawase Fresh!, was released on Nintendo Switch in Japan in April 2019, and later in Europe and North America in July from Nicalis. The game was later released for PlayStation 4 in 2020 in Japan on April 23, May 15 in Europe, and October 30 in North America. A Microsoft Windows port of the game was released worldwide in May 2020.

Other media

 * Umihara Kawase Hyper Technique guidebook (ISBN 4-7962-0273-0. Publication: 29 March 1995'').
 * Stray Sheep Volume 5 - Happy Angel (Toshinobu Kondo Personal Works). This edition of the Japanese illustration magazine contains works by Toshinobu Kondo, many of which are of Umihara Kawase (cover included).
 * Umihara Kawase Shun Capture Guidebook (ISBN 4-900700-37-1. Publisher: T2 Publishing Co. Ltd. Publication: March 31, 1997). Full colour guide book includes gameplay basics, enemies, field maps with routes and "Toshinobu Kondo presents" artwork section.
 * Umihara Kawase Shun Perfect Guide Book (ISBN 4-88199-337-2. Publisher: Shinseisha. Publication: March 1997). Full colour three part techniques section, monochrome field maps and guide.
 * TECH PlayStation Extra CD-ROM magazine. The June, July and August 1997 issues (SLPM-80100, SLPM-80108, and SLPM-80117) of this Japanese publication contain 3 new fields each along with information on techniques required to complete them.
 * Kawase, Noko and Emiko appear as playable characters in the crossover fighting game Blade Strangers. A second version of Kawase, "Summer Kawase", became playable in a later game update.
 * Kawase appears as a playable character in the crossover puzzle game Crystal Crisis.

title: Umihara Kawase


text:
Innogen

Innogen is a character in the Historia Regum Britanniae and subsequent medieval British pseudo-history. She was said to have been a Greek princess, the daughter of King Pandrasus, and to have become Britain's first Queen consort as the wife of Brutus of Troy, the purported first king of Britain who was said to have lived around the 12th century BC. Her sons Locrinus, Camber, and Albanactus went on to rule Loegria, Cambria, and Alba respectively.

Historia Regum Britanniae
Innogen first appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136). She was the eldest daughter of the Greek king Pandrasus, and was given in marriage to Brutus of Troy after he united the enslaved Trojans in Greece and defeated Pandrasus to gain their freedom.

When Innogen left Greece with Brutus and the Trojans, she was inconsolable at leaving her parents and country. They travelled through the Mediterranean, around the coast of Iberia and Gaul, and arrived in Britain, where it was prophesied that Brutus would found an empire.

Innogen had three sons with Brutus, who divided his kingdom between them after his death: the eldest, Locrinus, inherited Loegria (England except for Cornwall, which belonged to Brutus' general Corineus); Camber inherited Cambria (Wales); and the youngest, Albanactus, inherited Alba (Scotland).

Her great-great grandson Ebraucus named one of his thirty daughters Ignogni, who was sent along with her sisters to Alba Silvius in Italy, where they were married to the Trojan nobility there.

Analysis
Academic Fiona Tolhurst suggests that Innogen performs a pivotal function in the foundation of Brutus' Britain, by providing legitimacy to his rule through her bloodline, in the same way that Lavinia did for Aeneas.

Innogen or its equivalent appeared in early Celtic documentations of the legend of Brutus likely to identify her only as being the daughter of Pandrasus, rather than to indicate her proper name.

Name
Innogen's name is spelled a number of different ways in the Historia Regum Britanniae, with the best readings being Innogen and Ignogen, but other spellings include Ignoge, Euogen, and Ygnogen.

The name is likely to be Celtic in origin, from Gaelic inghean (Irish iníon and Scottish Gaelic nighean), meaning daughter, girl, or maiden. However, Innogen could instead be derived from the Latin name Innocentia, with a possible intermediate Celtic form of the name being Enogent. Since Innogen is a Greek character, other theories have suggested that it was intended to be a Greek name, with possible reconstructions ἐκγόνη (, a daughter) or —ιγόνη, from the final part of a name such as Erigone or Antigone. Some sources claim Innogen means beloved child in Greek. The name Imogen is also attested from before the Historia Regum Britanniae.

Legacy
Modern uses of the name Imogen probably derive from a misspelling of Innogen in the 1623 First Folio edition of William Shakespeare's Cymbeline. Shakespeare probably took the name from a retelling of the story of Innogen and Brutus in Holinshed's Chronicles (1577), and had used the name Innogen once before for a non-speaking 'ghost character' in Much Ado About Nothing (1600). An early description of Cymbeline by Simon Forman in 1611 consistently spells the name of the character as "Innogen", and the spelling of the character's name as "Imogen" in the First Folio appears to have been the result of "scribal or compositorial error".

Innogen was mentioned in the funeral orations of Anne of Brittany in 1514. In the oration, Guillaume Parvi traced Anne's ancestry back to Innogen, and recounted a story that explained the origin of her family's heraldic ermine coat of arms. According to the story, during a hunt at Le Croisic, a stoat being pursued by Brutus' dogs took refuge with Innogen, who saved and fed it, and adopted it for ordre et armes (order and arms).

Edmund Spenser mentioned Innogen in book two, canto ten of The Faerie Queene (1590), as "fayre Inogene of Italy".

Innogen was a character in a lost play by Henry Chettle and John Day entitled The Conquest of Brute with the First Finding of the Bath which was performed by the Lord Admiral's Men at the Rose in December 1598.

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

title: Innogen


text:
User talk:Vagodin

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave a message below.

Jeez, that wasn't even decent vandalism. Psycho Smiley 14:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. At least if your going to vandalize, do it right. :) --Vagodin 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring is not the way to achieve agreement
Please stop revert warring on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Discuss it on the talk page instead. Thank you. All the best, --Durin 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I was enforcing the consensus of the community by reverting vandalism. -- Vagodin   Talk 19:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Understood. But, when a revert war begins the appropriate action should not be to continue the war. You can make a report at WP:AN/I to get administrator assistance. I applaud your sentiment, just not the actions. --Durin 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

cartoons
Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".--Erdemsenol 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * This is not a Muslim encyclopedia so it does not matter what is forbidden in Islam. The fact that the cartoons offend muslims is not a good enough reason to remove them.  -- Vagodin   Talk 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Critism is different from insult!
Resid Gulerdem 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RAvingAtheist, I saw your posts at eteamrevolutions, and I wanted to extend an invite to visit the ChurchofReality.org (discussion board is at myreality.churchofreality.org)

We would value your contributions and insight, as christians do visit the site and 'try' to argue with us.. heh.

Your friend (sarcasm) montrosse came to our site and gave us the link to eteamrevolutions (how I found you). He also took with him a debate that we were having with him and posted it on the eteam forums.. he intentionally left out some information, never posted the link back to our site. When I tried to post the real link of the discussion to our site, it was deleted, 3 times and then I was banned. heh.

Anyway, I hope you visit RavingAtheist, I go by Castlevania.

Nick

 * Yikes, that wasn't nice then! I'll check out your site.  Sorry for the delayed response, I do not check this as often as I used to. -- Vagodin   Talk 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Mixed martial arts article improvement drive
WikiProject Mixed martial arts is now taking suggestions for the new MMA article improvement drive! Please add your input to decide what our first collaboration should be. VegaDark 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

UFC 84
A discussion is happening right now on the fate of UFC 84. Because the outcome of this discussion could affect other MMA event pages and how/when they are created, your input would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is happening here. Thank you for your assistance! Gromlakh (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Fierz
Not sure if Martin Fierz is notable but your opinion is welcome. SunCreator (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SDnet.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SDnet.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vagodin


text:
Kawauso

Kawauso, meaning "river otter" in Japanese, can refer to:

 * Otters (see Otter)
 * Kawauso-kun, a fictional character from the manga series Uturun Desu.

title: Kawauso


text:
Montsinéry-Tonnegrande

Montsinéry-Tonnegrande (often unofficially spelled Montsinéry-Tonnégrande; Mousinéri-Tonnégrann) is a commune of French Guiana, an overseas region and department of France located in South America.

Montsinéry-Tonnegrande is to the south-west of Cayenne. It contains a botanical garden, and various walking trails. Prison of the Annamites, an internment camp for Indochinese prisoners, was located 38 km outside of town, and connected with a railroad. The camp was in operation between 1931 and 1944.

The commune was previously known as Tonnegrande-Montsinéry, but on 27 March 1969 the name was officially changed into Montsinéry-Tonnegrande.

Geography
The city has 2 population centres spaced by 22 km:
 * Montsinéry
 * Tonnegrande

It used to be isolated to the close main city of French Guiana, Cayenne, but now the RD5 road opens up the city.

Montsinéry is surrounded by rivers and inundated fields. It is located at the convergence of Timouthou and Montsinéry rivers. Life is peaceful in this burg. Tonnegrande, located on the right border of the Tonnegrande River is also peaceful.

History
Montsinéry-Tonnegrande used to be occupied by settlers. They used to run the sugar cane industry and to farm a spices plantation. Amerindians are also present in the city.

The 2 burgs developed with creole houses. In 1836, the population was made up of 1102 slaves and 167 free inhabitants feeding mainly on fishing. In 1878, Montsinnéry and Tonnegrande were gathered in a single municipal entity. In 1941 the Montsinnéry-Tonnegrande city was officially created.

Montsinéry-Tonnegrande is also known for its prisons. Indeed, in 1848, a first penitentiary was built and then closed at the end of the 19th century.

In 1931, a new prison was built, called "Bagne des Anamites", in order to receive Indochinese opponents to the French presence in Indochina. The prisoners men performed manual work and built in particular the railroad into the interior. In December 1944, the camp was closed.

Transmitter site
Montsinéry is home to a shortwave transmission facility operated by the TDF Group that is designed to target listeners in the Americas and West Africa. The site is capable of DRM digital shortwave transmissions. An image of the rotatable curtain array antenna in Montsinéry can be found by searching Flickr for "Montsinery antenne". One of their broadcasting frequencies is the 7335 kHz slot that CHU (Canada) recently abandoned.

Voice of Russia began transmitting to North America from Montsinéry — its first transmissions from the western hemisphere since the early 1990s (it previously broadcast from Havana).

The transmitter site shut down in 2013 due to lack of listeners.

Activities
Montsinéry is the only place in French Guiana where you can find oysters. It is also an eco tourism location offering water bikes on the river and horse rides.

title: Montsinéry-Tonnegrande


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Robert McClenon

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Below is a "Request for comments" for User:Robert McClenon.

Statement of the dispute
''User:Robert McClenon is a POV warrior/bully who has shown no restraint in his effort to push his POV and harrass anyone who stands in his way. Particularly disturbing is his creation of 4 RfC pages against those who disagree with him within a 30 day period. This despite the fact that he has only been a wiki member since July 2005. Famekeeper has irrefutable proof of McClenon's bad faith and on that basis signs this .''

Description
User:Robert McClenon has created RFC's with the intent to intimidate and deny editors the right to work on pages where he pushes his POV, esp. the Ted Kennedy page. On one of his RfC attack pages, he unfairly altered the charges after the RfC was certified and after numerous editors had commented. On the Ted Kennedy page, he created a biased poll designed to misstate the position of those who didn’t agree with him. He repeatedly insults other editors who do not share his POV as sockpuppets. He repeatedly refers to a “consensus” when none exists. He repeatedly pushes his POV into articles about politicians, their relatives and religious subjects. Although not an admin, he has threatened that new users will be blocked who do not agree with his POV. On one of his RFC pages, he offered to withdraw the RfC if conditions were met. When conditions were met, he refused to comply and created new conditions. There is proof that McClenon is at best foolish, in the middle  that he is disingenuous , and at worst  that he is outright  dishonest. His means are those of a bully.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)

Abused RfC process to harass others who do not share his POV
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.147.97.230
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pastorrussell

Altered RfC charges after the RfC was certified and after numerous editors had commented
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21432740&oldid=21413915
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21432785&oldid=21432740

Created a biased poll designed to misstate the position of those who didn’t agree with him
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATed_Kennedy&diff=21088169&oldid=21087373

Repeatedly insults other editors who do not share his POV by calling them "sockpuppets"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21333806&oldid=21330325
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman#Anonymous_Editors
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.147.97.230

Repeatedly refers to a “consensus” when none exists
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemary_Kennedy&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARosemary_Kennedy&diff=21501935&oldid=21494540
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATed_Kennedy&diff=21088169&oldid=21087373

Repeatedly pushes his POV into articles about politicians, their relatives and religious issues
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Kennedy&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

Threatened the blocking new users who do not agree with his POV
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.147.97.230&diff=21439793&oldid=21439660

'''Offered to withdraw RfC if conditions were met. When conditions were met, refused to comply.'''
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21265560&oldid=21265472
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21333806&oldid=21330325

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Neutral Point of View
 * No Personal Attacks
 * Civility
 * Assume good faith
 * Vandalism

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman&oldid=21246435
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.147.97.230
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ted_Kennedy
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosemary_Kennedy
 * see this Rfc's  talk page ,for Famekeeper's reason

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * 24.147.97.230
 * --Agiantman 18:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ---Ernestocgonzalez 15:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * --Antibully 00:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Famekeeper 07:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * --Sleepnomore 21:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon has admitted to the following, "It is true that I wrote four user conduct RfCs in 30 days" "I think that I was using the Wikipedia process as it is meant to be used,"I then posted a RfC against Agiantman. In retrospect, I recognize that I made two mistakes." "I certainly think that I was making a reasonable argument about consensus." "As to the claim that I offered to withdraw an RfC if conditions were met, and then did not keep my word, that is not true...I admit to having made a mistake," "I admit to having made mistakes. We all make mistakes under stress. Perhaps my mistakes have been trying too hard to engage in dialogue with problematical editors." "I have no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor"

Gee.. Four RFCs in 30 days. That's one a week. All this while admitting to making mistakes. As you write an RFC to have me banned, you are working on three others? What is your problem? Do you see yourself as a police officer of this site? I suggest you drop them all immediately. Not only that, in your persecution of agiantman, you suddenly announce that you will take off 36 hours and then take it up again, like a mother telling a child, "wait until your father gets home". To attack another user via RFC, then hold it over his/her head for days...all the while during a period of admitted mistakes? I think your credibility is rock bottom. I don't see how you fit into this community. I suggest that you either drop all these RFCs now or stand ready to fight for your right to be here. You are nothing more than a wreckless bully of others.24.147.97.230 00:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) [edit]

 * I am new to wikipedia. I visited the Ted Kennedy article to see if he was still on the judiciary committee. When I read the discussion page, it prompted me to join.  The few editors who want balance in the article, such as 24.147.97.230 and giantman, were being constantly put down by Robert McClenon and other bullies.  Everything said in the section above about the harrassment doled out by Robert McClenon is correct.  I think it is great that Robert McClenon is now getting a dose of his own medicine.  Hopefully this will lead to him acting in a more civil fashion and create more balance in the Ted Kennedy article.  (At least I can hope.)--Ernestocgonzalez 15:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Hi! it's me again. this is my 3rd edit on wikipedia. I wrote earlier to support my friend agiantman, and then later to support Mr. 24. Agiantman told me at work today that he is finally charging Robert McClenon with all of the offenses he has been perpetrating against others. My response was that it is about time. I watched as Robert McClenon and his buddies tried to gang up on Agiantman and Mr. 24 because they don't like their politics. now i am reading that these are not the only dudes McClenon has harrassed! He seems to create one of these pages when ever someone is too effective in making a political point. Now the shoe is on the other foot! it also comes out that McClenon is vandalizing pages and lying about a consensus. If wikipedia can discipline an editor, Robert McClenon needs to be spanked for his bullying. Also, agiantman said I should come up with a sign-in name. From now on, I will be known as the antibully. I am not too interested in politics so I will mostly just try to help others who are attacked by bullies like Robert McClenon. If you know someone who needs help against a bully, give me a holla.--66.176.137.204 00:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Awesome! Thanks, buddy! And great new name! --Agiantman 00:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction to Response
I question whether this RfC has been properly certified. It has been certified by one signed-in user and one anonymous editor. However, I am willing to respond to a series of charges and counter-charges, and am willing to receive constructive criticism if I do need to change my Wikipedia behavior.

Please be advised that this response is long, because it addresses all of the points made in the RfC in the order in which they appear. I will provide a summary in the near future.

Overview
My anonymous accuser states that I am a POV warrior and bully and have shown no restraint to harass anyone who stands in my way. I disagree, and I hope that other readers can judge from the record and will agree. I have tried very hard to show restraint against when provoked by several different extremely stubborn editors who were unwilling to try to reach consensus.

I originally came to Wikipedia about six weeks ago because it was not Usenet, and it promised to be an electronic community in which there were policies to maintain civility. Perhaps I made the mistake of believing that it was possible to achieve civility. I had originally intended to submit articles on areas in which I had some knowledge that were not adequately described. However, it turned out some of the areas in which I had an interest and knowledge were areas where there were disputes.

Request for Comment Process in General
It is true that I wrote four user conduct RfCs in 30 days. They were all in response to existing article RfCs that had been posted by other editors, stating that they were having difficulty reaching consensus. In the first two cases, I saw that the problem was, in my judgment, that one editor was being difficult, in each of two different ways. In each of those cases, I tried to provide an outside opinion and to advise the editor who was being stubborn to be more reasonable. In each of those two cases, the user in question did eventually adapt, although not willingly. In each of those cases, I was willing to be bold. The first step had been taken of writing an article Request for Comments. I joined with other editors in taking the second step to resolution, which was discussion, and then took the leadership of taking the third step, which was writing a user conduct RfC. I think that I was using the Wikipedia process as it is meant to be used, which is to try to achieve consensus by discussion, and to take other steps when and as necessary. I am not sure what my accuser thinks should be done when discussion becomes stalled.

I hope that the Wikipedia community, on reviewing the record of those two RfCs, will conclude either that I acted reasonably, or that I made minor errors and will give me constructive criticism.

 * The four RfC's you created were not about stalled discussions; they were about specific editors. Rather than discuss topics, you chose to personalize each issue by attacking the editor with whom you disagreed.  You are now creating RfC's about individual editors at a clip of one per week.  This abuse of the process needs to be halted.  The RfC process is not your personal attack tool to harrass, bully, and intimidate those who disagree with you.--Agiantman 04:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The Ted Kennedy Impasse
In the case of the Ted Kennedy article, the article was already under page protection due to revert wars when I first reviewed it. The article RfC had again been posted by multiple editors. The issue was whether to include a link to the fatboy.cc anti-Kennedy attack site. Links to this site were being repeatedly added from multiple anonymous IP addresses, and deleted by multiple signed-in editors. Kelly Martin then acted as an informal mediator (not via the formal MedCom process) to resolve the situation. Eleven signed-in users thought that the link was inappropriate. One signed-in user and twelve IP addresses favored it. She concluded that there was a consensus that the link to that site from the Ted Kennedy article was not warranted. The page was then removed from protection without the link.

The anonymous editors then attempted to add two more sections to the Ted Kennedy articles. A revert war then resulted in a second round of page protection. I did not request the page protection.

 * User:Kelly Martin's declaration that there was consensus is pure nonsense. Neither User:Robert McClenon nor User:Kelly Martin have any authority to declare when a consensus is reached and they have no right to ignore the legitimate edits of signed-in or anonymous users. User:Kelly Martin appeared to be just another editor who shared the pro-Kennedy POV. I absolutely believe that there should be a link to Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr's www.fatboy.ccsite since it is the largest, most comprehensive site devoted to Kennedy criticism.  User:Robert McClenon has tried to intimidate and harrass anyone who tries to achieve some balance in the Kennedy article.  To help achieve NPOV, there should be link to www.fatboy.ccunder a "Links Critical of Kennedy" section.--Agiantman 04:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * User:Robert McClenon left out one very important fact. Kelly Martin was brought in to help come to an agreement by the anon.  To read the description by User:Robert McClenon one might think that Kelly Martin was brought by some other party to police the anon, nothing could be more distant from what happened.  The anon fed up with reverts and deletes looked for a mediator and brought one in.  When the decision was agianst the anon he stood by it.  Agiantman brings up a valid point, was Kelly Martin charged with the determination of a consensus?  Perhaps that process was flawed and needs to be revisited when the protection is lifted. 24.147.97.230 15:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The User:Agiantman RfC
I then posted a RfC against Agiantman. In retrospect, I recognize that I made two mistakes. First, the greater disruption had been from the anonymous editors rather than from Agiantman. I should have requests comments about the anonymous editors first. I then did request comments about the anonymous editors. Second, I later found one more cause for concern, and added it to the RfC after it had been certified, noting in the talk page that I had made additions.

Perhaps the anonymous editor thinks that I should have found the incident of altering the quickpoll sooner. I wish that I had. Perhaps I should have submitted a second RfC against [User:Agiantman|Agiantman]], in which case I would then be accused of submitting 5 rather than 4 RfCs. Perhaps I should have given Agiantman a free pass. Constructive comments are welcome.

 * -Your biased quickpoll was an attempt to distort the views of those with whom you disagree. I fixed it to restore NPOV.  You are not the king of all polls and head poll writer.  You should have learned from the experience that your POV is too extreme for you to to write a poll in a NPOV way.  Instead you chose to personally attack with your RfC pages.  More on this in the next section. --Agiantman 12:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * -Your statements that I should have requests comments about the anonymous editors first. and Perhaps I should have submitted a second RfC against [User:Agiantman|Agiantman]] shows you to be unrepetent and unwilling to learn from your mistakes. Constructive criticism?  YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE CREATED THEM AT ALL.--Agiantman 12:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Biased Poll Claim
It appeared to me that there had been a consensus to include a one-sentence reference to the Palm Beach rape trial, but no consensus for a longer mention. The reason that I requested the poll was to provide one more opportunity to determine what the consensus was. In other words, I was willing to be shown to be mistaken about what I had read as the consensus.

 * You prefaced your biased poll with the following statement: In order for these quickpolls to find a consensus, they must both have two options only. Compromise proposals can be discussed, but the vote is for or against inclusion of the paragraphs as often inserted and deleted in the revert wars. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) You then created two categories: "Those who favor including the longer description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes" and "Those who oppose including the longer description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes."  I wanted a brief mention, i.e. the one paragraph.  You were trying to force those who wanted a single paragraph to sign that they wanted something "longer."  No one wanted anything "long" in the article about the rape incident.  NO ONE. One paragraph is not "long" or "longer." By suggesting that those who wanted a paragraph wanted something "long," you were trying to rig the poll for your position.  I edited the definition of the "in favor" vote, my vote, to say that "Those who favor including the one paragraph description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes."  I did this because it was accurate, neutral, and I should control what my vote is, not you.  An extreme POV pusher such as yourself should never be framing the poll language for those with whom you disgree.--Agiantman 05:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
At no point did I ever use the word "sockpuppet" for anyone except multiple anonymous editors. It is often the policy of the ArbCom to assume that multiple anonymous editors are likely to be sockpuppets. I also note that in the case of one of the three diffs listed, I was criticizing the annotation of the RfC when another editor (agreeing with me on content) noted that some of the signatures were from first-time editors. I said that even if they were sock-puppets, they should not have their signatures annotated in this fashion.

References to Consensus
In two of the references to consensus, I was referring to the consensus that had been stated by Kelly Martin that the fatboy.cc link was not appropriate. It is true that my anonymous accuser disagrees as to whether there was a consensus. I think that the reason is that the anonymous editors think that he or they can outvote signed-in editors by using multiple addresses to game the system. I certainly think that I was making a reasonable argument about consensus.

 * -Again, neither User:Robert McClenon nor User:Kelly Martin have any authority to declare when a consensus is reached and they have no right to ignore the legitimate edits of signed-in or anonymous users. And the medal prominently posted on User:Kelly Martin's user page from User:Robert McClenon documents the POV pushing.--Agiantman 12:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In the third case, the evidence is only a history list and not a link or diff, so that I cannot respond.

Blocking Threat
The claim that I threatened to block new users is silly. I posted a statement on an anonymous IP user page advising any new users at that address that the address might be blocked due to 3RR violations or vandalism, and so suggested that any new users should create signed-in accounts to avoid being blocked. I was not threatening anyone, only noting that an administrator might block the address.

Withdrawal of RfC Issue
As to the claim that I offered to withdraw an RfC if conditions were met, and then did not keep my word, that is not true. The conditions simply were not met. I admit to having made a mistake, which was that I was (in response to some comments) trying too hard to be flexible. I should not have made that offer, and making it was a mistake. However, I would have struck out my signature to the certified RfC if the conditions had been met. They were not.

Summary of Policies
I have been accused of POV pushing. I deny that accusation. I am sure that a few outside opinions will say that I have done that, and I hope that more say that I have not.
 * -You have aggressively reverted numerous edits to the Ted_Kennedy article that might reflect negatively on Ted Kennedy. That is POV pushing.--Agiantman 05:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been accused failing to be civil. I note that my anonymous accuser has not included a single item to support that claim.
 * -Your creation of 4 RfC pages on individual users within 30 days is testament to your incivility.--Agiantman 05:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been accused of vandalism. My anonymous accuser has not included a single item to support that claim. The claim has been made in edit summaries that the deletion of questionable material was vandalism. It is not if it is done, even mistakenly, as a good-faith effort to excise questionable material.
 * -Altering RfC charges after the RfC was certified and after numerous editors had commented is Sneaky vandalism SeeVandalism--Agiantman 05:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been accused of personal attacks. The only evidence that has been submitted has to do with the fact that I suggested that multiple anonymous editors might be sock-puppets. I trust that the majority of outside opinions will agree that multiple anonymous editors may be sock-puppets.
 * -Actually, your frequent accusations that anonymous editors who you disagree with are sockpuppets, is secondary evidence of your personal attacks. Your creation of 4 RfC pages on individual users within 30 days is the primary evidence of your personal attacks.  Interestingly, you have pushed your POV on 4 sites and you selected one editor from each site, the one most outspoken against your POV, to launch your personal attack RfC page. I guess you are thinking that if you can take out the leader, you will be able to intimidate everyone else into accepting your POV pushing.  It is a disgusting and bullying approach to editing.--Agiantman 06:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been accused of not assuming good faith. I am not sure what the basis of that claim is, unless I should have assumed that multiple anonymous editors all were different humans.
 * -It is bad faith to harrass and bully those that disagree with you by creating RfC pages. It is bad faith to engage in sneaky vandalism by adding an extra charge to an Rfc after it was called  a "farce" by one of the certifiers.  It is bad faith to create a poll that distorts the opinions of those who disagree with you.  It is bad faith to refer to a consensus when none exists.--Agiantman 06:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit to having made mistakes. We all make mistakes under stress. Perhaps my mistakes have been trying too hard to engage in dialogue with problematical editors.

Mediation
I am willing to resort to mediation with Agiantman with either JCarriker or Improv as the mediator. Is Agiantman agreeable to mediation?

I have no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor. Robert McClenon 22:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess Robert McClenon is confused, see below. A Request for Arbitration has been filed. Please read it. Robert McClenon 01:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) 24.147.97.230 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ )
 * Robert McClenon 22:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * FuelWagon 04:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not aquainted with the disputes raised, except the one of Famekeeper, I want to say that I cannot reconcile behaviour he's accused of here with his behaviour as far as I know it: Robert McClenon appeared to me as a cooperative, forthcoming and sensible editor, with whom I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Str1977 12:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (My comments would echo those of Str1977 above.) Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I am open to mediation. However, I am skeptical of using User:Robert McClenon's choices as mediator. -- posted 03:37, 22 August 2005 by Agiantman

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside View By Sleepnomore
The RFC's spawned from the Kennedy debate are all rediculous. Each person inolved is guilty of violations of one issue or another. Each person involved could make a valid dispute. Its my opinion that the only way to resolve these issues is to ban each and every person involved -- particularly those that engage in personal attacks. - Sleepnomore 22:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ )
 * - Sleepnomore 22:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Noitall
Perhaps I will say more later, but this RfC is even worse than that filed against Agiantman. Agiantman should have read my comments and noted that I was against the RfC against him because I think RfCs should be for more serious matters, and you can read more on that page. Robert disagreed with the purpose of the RfC and thought they could be used as more of a problem solving tool. Even under that much much lower standard, this RfC should not have been filed. There is no purpose. I am also a little disappointed that Agiantman did not just move on from the issue when he had the chance and when Robert stated he would withdraw his endorsement if he agreed to a few simple little things. Instead, there is some urge to fight it out. I think the energy used in these Admin matters should be better used by cleaning up articles, especially of major POV. Let's move on (that one is for Kizzle) agree to work things out, and get those sockpuppets out of here. --Noitall 00:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Outside View By Jmabel
I think Robert's conduct on these pages has generally been pretty reasonable. Frankly, I don't have a view on whether his accusations of sockpuppetry have been accurate, but I don't see that much difference as to whether we are really dealing with one individual manipulating several accounts or a slew of people previously uninvolved in Wikipedia coming in just to tag-team and try to get clearly POV edits into an article by force of numbers rather than by force of reason. The health of Wikipedia as a credible encyclopedia demands that we be able to resist that, and that is exactly what Robert was doing.

And this RFC appears to me to be, likely as not, simply retaliation for a much more appropriate one that he helped initiate.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ )
 * - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * - Gamaliel 04:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Voice of All(MTG) 02:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)Also, all of those who voted for the RfC are obviously sockpuppets.
 * RadicalSubversiv E 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * - RyanFreisling @ 18:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * -Willmcw 22:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC) This appears to be a bad faith RfC. (I also endorse the, though I'll only sign once). -Willmcw 22:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Theo (Talk) 10:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * --Scimitar parley 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Str1977 22:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis 20:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Derex 04:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Bishonen | talk 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Hello? Is this thing still live? Isn't it time this unpleasant document was unlisted, and deleted or archived or something? One of the most cockamamie RfCs I've seen, apparently created to provide a forum for the kinds of personal attacks that aren't allowed on other wiki pages. The "evidence" against Robert consists of no evidence at all, just venting and sneering. Robert does us all a favor in taking the time to read and post reasoned comments on so many RfCs as he does, and this is what he gets for it. :-( Bishonen | talk 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside View by FuelWagon
Robert McClenon creates two RFC's, one against agiantman and one against 24.147.97.230

The RFC against Agiantman was certified by 5 users and endorsed by 6 more. The response was endorsed only by Agiantman. An outside comment by 24.147.97.230 defends Agiantman and attacks all the endorsers as "it's their way or no way".

Soon thereafter, 24.147.97.230 opens an original RFC against Robert McClenon. The entire "evidence" of Robert McClenon's violation of policy is ... filing an RFC against Agiantman and 24.147.97.230. Agiantman makes a large number of additions to the RFC against Robert McClenon, all of which boil down to Robert's RFC against Agiantman and 24.147.97.230.

And despite all the "evidence" against Robert, it appears to me that basically this RFC boils down to nothing more than RFC payback. Robert filed an RFC against Agiantman that about a dozen editors supported, so Agiantman is filing an RFC against Robert.

I also dispute the ability of an anonymous IP editor being able to "endorse" an RFC, but that's a separate matter. FuelWagon 04:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ )
 * - FuelWagon 22:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * - Gamaliel 04:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * · Katefan0(scribble) 04:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC) ... adding: Most of the "evidence" isn't.  Broken links, links to history pages (?) -- in other words, a whole lot of nothing much. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * - RyanFreisling @ 15:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite 15:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC) - Additionally, the lack of edits by the certifiers lend a question as to their uniqueness.
 * Str1977 22:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.


text:
User talk:Bashyr~enwiki

Regarding Australian Kelpie
Bashyr, I can understand that you may be proud of your photo of an Australian Kelpie, but please do not add it to every dog related article as it may not be relevent. Please do not let me discourage you from using wikipedia as we welcome any genuine contributions you may wish to add. If you have any questions, dont hesitate to leave a message on my talk page Tekana 15:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, could you possibly provide a version with the text at the bottom and the little signature doohicky at the lower right removed? If you can't, I can probably do the cropping. Thanks.  Elf | Talk 23:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Bashyr, I've done the edit Elf wanted, and uploaded it. Apart from the text and logo, no part of the pic has been changed. Gordon | Talk, 26 April 2006 @08:48 UTC

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Bashyr. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bashyr~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bashyr~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RibbonGIC its name- should not-Collide with another file now utdtjgf87676.jpg

Image:RibbonGIC_its_name-_should_not-Collide_with_another_file_now_utdtjgf87676.jpg
Copyrighted image, "by permission" (see policy) Jakew 15:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyright problems is down the hall, third door on the left, and Images and media for deletion is in the building across the quad. We deal with articles, and deletion for reasons other than copyright infringement, here. Uncle G 15:25:30, 2005-08-21 (UTC)


text:
British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland

Irish citizens in the United Kingdom enjoy a special status when residing there, due to the close proximity of the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland and the historical ties between the two islands. Irish citizens from the Republic of Ireland are considered to have automatic and permanent permission to live in the United Kingdom and are eligible to vote, stand for public office, and serve in non-reserved government positions.

Background
Since the Norman invasion of Ireland in the late 12th century, England has been politically and militarily involved on the island. English control was largely restricted to the area around Dublin known as The Pale until 1603, when the entire island was assimilated into the Kingdom of Ireland at the completion of the Tudor conquest. After passage of the Acts of Union 1800, Ireland was merged with the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Resistance to the Union and desire for local self-governance led to the Irish War of Independence. Following the war, the island of Ireland was partitioned into two parts. Southern Ireland (which included County Donegal in Ulster) became the Irish Free State in December 1922, while Northern Ireland continues to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Post-independence nationality arrangements
Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the Irish Free State remained part of the British Empire as a self-governing Dominion and the King continued to be the Irish head of state. Accordingly, Irish citizens from the Irish Free State remained British subjects under the prevailing theory of the British nationality law that all subjects within the Empire, including Dominions, held a common Imperial status. Holding citizenship within the Dominions had no effect on possession of the wider British nationality. Because the Irish government disputed that its citizens were British subjects and did not describe them as such on Irish passports, the Foreign Office routinely refused consular protection to Irish citizens during this time unless they possessed other passports describing them as British subjects.

After the declaration of the Republic
Dispute over whether Irish citizens were British subjects continued until most of Ireland formally declared itself a republic in 1948. Since April 1949, Irish citizens who were born and raised in the Republic of Ireland have no longer been automatically considered as British subjects (unlike Irish citizens born and raised in Northern Ireland). Individuals born before April 1949 in what is now the Republic of Ireland may make formal claims to retain British subject status, though this nationality cannot be transferred by descent. The United Kingdom recognised the Republic of Ireland's departure from the Commonwealth of Nations and the end of its Dominion status with the Ireland Act 1949. Irish citizens born and raised in the Republic of Ireland continue to enjoy favoured status in the United Kingdom similar to Commonwealth citizens and are not considered aliens.

The Ireland Act also re-established British citizenship for Irish citizens who were domiciled outside of the Republic when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into effect. Because that Act contained provisions that dealt with "a person who was a British subject and citizen of Éire on 31 December 1948", the conditions laid out in British law determining who became Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) were dependent on who were Irish citizens under the Irish nationality law. When the Irish Free State was established on 6 December 1922, it consisted of the whole of Ireland. Northern Ireland opted out of the Free State on the next day. However, all individuals domiciled on the entire island on 6 December are considered Irish citizens. Consequently, when the BNA 1948 became effective, Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland automatically lost British citizenship, although this was not intended by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Ireland Act restored British citizenship to any individual domiciled in Northern Ireland on 6 December 1949 who otherwise would have had the status if not for Irish law.

The Ireland Act additionally conferred CUKC status on Irish-born persons who did not receive Irish citizenship at any point prior to 18 April 1949. Individuals who left Ireland before 1922, and who were not resident in 1935, were possibly eligible for registration as Irish citizens while also being able to claim British citizenship. A claim to British citizenship may be established by: birth to the first generation emigrant, consular registration of later generation births by married British citizen fathers within one year of birth prior to 1983, registration of birth to unwed British citizen fathers, or registration of birth to mothers who were considered British citizens between 1949 and 1983. In some cases, British citizenship may be available to these descendants in the Irish diaspora even when Irish citizenship registration is not, as in instances of failure of past generations to timely register in a local Irish consulate's Foreign Births Register before the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1986 and before births of later generations.

Prior to 1983, anyone born in the United Kingdom other than children of diplomats were automatically British citizens at birth. After the British Nationality Act 1981 took effect, children are only citizens at birth if at least one parent is also a British citizen or considered "settled" in the UK. Irish citizens from the Republic of Ireland resident in the United Kingdom are automatically considered "settled", and any children born to them in the United Kingdom continue to be British citizens at birth.

After Brexit
Irish citizens from the Republic of Ireland retained their entitlement to enter, live, and work in the United Kingdom after the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020. Brexit did not affect the rights and status in the United Kingdom of Irish citizens who were born and raised in Northern Ireland, as these people were automatically also British citizens from birth, as Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom.

Rights and privileges
Irish citizens from the Republic of Ireland are exempted from obtaining a visa or entry certificate when entering the United Kingdom and do not require approval to live or work there. They are not considered foreign nationals and are entitled to certain rights similar to those of some Commonwealth citizens. These include exemption from voting eligibility in UK (and, formerly, EU) elections, and the ability to enlist in the British Armed Forces. They are also eligible to serve in non-reserved Civil Service posts, be granted British honours, receive peerages, and sit in the House of Lords. Additionally, Irish citizens from the Republic of Ireland may stand for election to the House of Commons and local government.

Irish citizens from the Republic of Ireland born before 1949 may make formal claims at any time to retain status as British subjects based on: Crown service in the UK, existing passports or certificates of entitlement describing holders as British subjects, or proof of other associations with the UK or any former British territory. British subject status claimed in connection with Ireland additionally grants holders right of abode in the UK, eligibility to serve in reserved government positions, and the right to apply for British passports. While Irish citizens from the Republic of Ireland have no preferred path to citizenship, British subjects may become British citizens by registration, rather than naturalisation. However, both registration and naturalisation have the same residence requirement of five years before individuals may qualify to apply through either process.

The passing of the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 provides a new route for all Irish citizens with five years of residence in the UK to acquire British Nationality via registration, instead of via naturalisation. As this is a registration route, there is no requirement to pass the Life in the UK test or provide any evidence of English language knowledge. This is intended to allow Irish Citizens to acquire British Nationality for a lower cost and with reduced administrative complexity. However, this route is not yet in place and registration costs are yet to be defined.


text: User talk:69.19.1.88

title: User talk:69.19.1.88


text:
User talk:Haley93

Hello everyone--haley93 15:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Haley93


text:
VESA Digital Flat Panel

The VESA Digital Flat Panel (DFP) interface standard specifies a video connector and digital TMDS signaling for flat-panel displays. It features 20 pins and uses the PanelLink protocol; the standard is based on the preceding VESA Plug and Display (P&D) standard, ratified in 1997. Unlike the later, electrically-compatible Digital Visual Interface (DVI, 1999), DFP never achieved widespread implementation.

History
P&D combined analog and digital video with data over USB and FireWire to reduce cable clutter, but the feature creep resulted in an unpopular, expensive connector. Compaq described DFP as a "transition" step between the analog VGA connector and P&D: DFP was designed by a consortium including Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, and ATI Technologies as a smaller, simpler connector, dropping support for analog video and data in favor of transmitting exclusively digital video signals.

The connector was used by displays such as the Compaq Presario FP400, FP500, FP700, Fp720, 5204, and 5280. It was offered on graphics cards such as the Xpert LCD, and Rage LT Pro by ATI Technologies, and the Oxygen GVX1 by 3Dlabs.

Design
DFP is compatible electrically with P&D (and by extension, DVI); DFP uses the Display Data Channel (DDC) standard level DDC2B for operation and the Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) protocol to identify the display to the host. Like the preceding P&D, DFP uses the PanelLink TMDS protocol developed by Silicon Image for digital video signals.

The DFP standard specifies a 20-pin mini D ribbon connector; however, as the signal protocols are identical, DFP connectors generally are compatible with devices equipped with a DVI interface by using a passive adaptor.

All DFP-compliant devices are required to support resolutions of 640×400, 720×400, and 640×480 (each at a refresh rate of 60Hz) as a minimum level of interoperability, although the resulting display may not necessarily be centered or scaled.

DFP was superseded by DVI because DFP, like P&D, is limited to a single-link TMDS signal. In contrast, DVI is capable of higher maximum resolutions because it supports a dual-link TMDS signal; in addition, DVI also supports analog video, which makes the VGA connector redundant.

title: VESA Digital Flat Panel


text:
User talk:Eric Guez

Added the Italian Gambit reference per your suggestion -- I have that book as well. Feel free to add as you see fit. Thanks! ThreeE 15:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DSCN1619.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:DSCN1619.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 08:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:DSCN1619.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:DSCN1619.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Sherool (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Jenny-bruges-2004.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jenny-bruges-2004.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:HAL_9000_vs._Frank_Poole.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HAL_9000_vs._Frank_Poole.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HAL_9000_vs._Frank_Poole.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HAL_9000_vs._Frank_Poole.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eric Guez


text:
Tempo Beer Industries

Tempo Beer Industries (Tempo) is Israel's largest brewer and the country's second-largest beverage company.

Beers
Tempo produces three brands of pale lager:

 * Goldstar, which was acquired in a 1985 merger
 * Maccabee, also marketed in the United States and Europe
 * Nesher Malt, brewed in both alcoholic and non-alcoholic versions

Goldstar (גולדסטאר) is a 4.9% ABV pale lager which has been produced since the 1950s. It is marketed as a dark lager beer ("בירה לאגר כהה"), though it is pale golden in appearance. In January 2007, Tempo introduced 4% Goldstar Light with a commercial starring Moshe Datz, from the Israeli duet Duo Datz. The beer is certified kosher by the Chief Rabbi of Netanya, Israel.

Maccabee (מכבי) is a 4.9% ABV pale lager that was first brewed in 1968. It is distributed in Israel and is also marketed in the United States and Europe.

Nesher Malt was the first commercial beer to be brewed in Israel. It is produced in both alcoholic and non-alcoholic styles, and has been brewed since 1935.

Soft drinks
Tempo produces juice-based drinks under the Jump brand and is also the local bottler of PepsiCo soft drinks.

Distribution
Since 1992, Tempo has been an importer of Heineken lager, and in 2005 they became the sole distributor in Israel for Samuel Adams lager. Heineken International owns a 40% share of Tempo, which has its main office in Netanya.

Barkan Wine Cellars
In September 2004, Tempo acquired a 39% controlling interest in Barkan Wine Cellars, which is Israel's second-largest winery. Barkan produces the Segal brand of wine.

Popular culture

 * Goldstar beer was referred to in the song "Tel Aviv" by Duran Duran in their 1981 album Duran Duran.
 * For some reason, at many American Reform Jewish summer camps an old Tempo commercial jingle is often sung. Tempo was once one of Israel's largest soft drink brands, with a line of drinks called Tempo Kan-Kan (טמפו קן-קן), which featured several flavors, such as orange and cola. Today, Tempo is Pepsi's Israeli bottler.

title: Tempo Beer Industries


text:
Excimer laser-assisted nonocclusive anastomosis

In neurosurgery, excimer laser-assisted non-occlusive anastomosis (ELANA) is a technique used to create a bypass without interrupting the patient's blood supply. The technique reduces the risk of stroke and aneurysm rupture.

ELANA is similar to other cerebral bypass techniques, such as anastomosis. Both conventional and ELANA techniques require a donor vessel that is first attached to the artery. Once the donor vessel is attached, the artery is opened and blood flow is redirected. ELANA is differentiated from other techniques in how the artery is opened. In most conventional techniques, the flow of recipient artery is temporarily interrupted, typically via occlusion with clips, and is opened using surgical scissors or a scalpel. By contrast, ELANA uses a 308 nm excimer laser delivered through a catheter, which is inserted into the chosen blood vessel. This technique does not interrupt blood flow and thus reduces the risk that areas supplied by the targeted artery will become ischemic. This makes the technique invaluable in neurosurgery, as brain cells are particularly sensitive to ischemia. It is often used in bypasses between major cerebral arteries, both extracranial to intracranial as well as intracranial to intracranial. The technique has also been used for cardiac surgery and has been made to be sutureless in both neuro and cardiac applications.

ELANA was first developed in 1993. It has since been widely discussed in medical literature as well as the general news media.


text: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indiana/to do


text:
Talk:Semi-detached

From PNA/Architecture

 * Semi-detached -- needs some historical & sociological data, and also a picture. Anyone living in a semi-detached, please go ahead. Wikikiwi 22:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree with above. Any houseagent's advertisement will furnish images. Alexander Harvey, architect of Cadbury's village at Bourneville from 1900 might be a good chap to research - many of his Arts and Crafts motifs survive in the middle-upper income model suburban semis of the interwar period. The speculative cheaper building of the late 1920s and mid thirties also draws on Bournville at several removes, and on Art Deco.

I don't see the relevance of the elder Shaw, and the younger one needs a bit of evidence. Curiously, the Arts and Crafts influence worked side by side with a rural Georgian revival from models (later) documented by Thomas Sharp, in, for example, the council houses built by West Bromwich Corporation in the later 1920s and early 1930s, which owed their internal planning to Bourneville and their exteriors to Georgian models. Georgian models also influenced some of the Wythenshawe housing of the 1930s.Delahays (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplex
A duplex is a building with two units, this article desribes a twin. (Source: Webster, describing a duplex as "a 2-family house.")

 * Duplexes here almost always fit this description: "pairs of houses built side by side as units sharing a party wall and usually in such a way that each house's layout is a mirror image of its twin," which is what this article describes. Sometimes they're not exact mirror images, but usually pretty close. Elf | Talk 23:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In New York, a duplex means an apartment on 2 levels (a triplex is on 3). A house attached on one side is a semi-attached or semi-detached house. Alexisr 06:56 03 January 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Canada (Kitchener, Ontario) from 1993 to mid-1997. We lived in a semi-detached house (two storeys and a basement). Everyone called houses of this sort "semi-detached" or "semis" — contrary to what the article text suggests, no one in our area ever called them "duplexes". Note that, in Canada, the prefix "semi" is always pronounced "SEM-ee" — never "SEM-eye" as is common in the US. We had our own, separate basement; I never saw a "linked" semi and didn't even know any such thing existed anywhere until I saw this article. Richwales 04:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I also live in Canada (Montreal), and duplexes are only one apartment on top of another. Triplexes are in common use here (three apartments on top of the other). You can also have, eg, six-plexes (2 triplexes next to each other) or five-plexes (6plex where the bottom floor is just one apt). Semi-detached are only two places next to each other.

I live in Canada too, and we don't call them "duplexes" either. The word "Townhouse" is more common where I live - the GTA.

When I lived in Saskatoon, people did call them 'Duplexes', but in Calgary, I've mainly heard "semi-detached". What is this linked basement business? Does anyone have an example of this? I've never heard of it. --Churowa 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am from Ohio. I used to live in what was rented to me as a "duplex". It had a living room and an eat in-kitchen on the first floor, two bedrooms and a bath on the top floor, and an unfinished basement. My neighbors had a mirror image of my apartment on the other side of the wall. I have never heard of something like that reffered to as a "semi", or as anything else other then duplex/triplex/quadplex. Where I come from a townhouse is more then 4 units up and down in a building, or more then 4 flat (or 'garden' style units). Really though, why are there seprate articles for semi-detached and duplex? Maybe I am wrong, but after reading both of these they seem like the same thing. As far as a photo, let me look around, I might have one of my old place, although it might only be of my side.... -tash
 * I live in Québec. Here, people would look at you funny if you were to call a semi-detached a duplex, because we have a ton of duplexes which are one unit made up of the ground floor and basement, and another unit on the second floor. I would argue that it is fully justified to keep two separate words for these types of buildings, because they have completely different potentials in terms of ownership. A semi-detached is essentially a detached home that just happens to share a wall with its neighbor. Though they are usually built together, you could destroy one and retain the other, and most of these are individually sold to different owners. A duplex with two apartments one on top of each other is completely different, they share 4 walls, a basement, a roof, a front yard and a back yard. The units cannot be owned separately, at best they can be co-owned (condo). This means that the buyer of a duplex has to become a landlord for one or both units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.221.36.36 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Duplex vs. twin seems to vary by region in the US
I clicked discussion to post that what's described as a "duplex" in the article is actually a "twin" in the US, at least the northeastern part. I'll just add my support, that here in the Philadelphia area (and other places I've been in this region) semi-detached housing is not uncommon and is always referred to as a twin. However, I've read discussions with Americans from other parts of the country (South and Midwest, I believe) who would call semi-detached housing a "duplex". It would be nice to get a source for this. Contemplative 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

British 1930s 3-bed semi
It would be nice to also include a photo of one of these, since they are the archetypal semi in the UK. The current photo, although possibly having historical interest, does not look like the typical semi in the UK. 80.2.205.119

merge with duplex (building)
As a look in some dictionaries shows(,,, "duplex" is a synonym for a semi-detached house in certain English-speaking countries, but it is also used to refer to apartments. The comment about Boston is apparently a joke/vandalism. --Espoo 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I would like to formally propose that Duplex (building) be merged into this article. It seems that while there is some regional variation, the subject is essentially the same. FWIW, In Calgary, Alberta, while duplex is used colloquially to refer to semi-detached buildings, the Calgary Land Use Bylaw distinguishes the two—a duplex is one unit over another and a semi-detached is one unit beside one another. If general useage was this clear, I would suggest keeping the two articles separate. As it is, we should have one article that tries to describe the terms and their meaning. --Jrsnbarn (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. The two terms are substantially synonymous. Quokly (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree BUT we should note that in America (and increasingly in Australia) the term duplex is being used for semi-detached dwellings. I don't know if there is a term for two-storey apartments in those places, apart from townhouses (as they're rare). Nick (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Disagree' A double house is commonly misrepresented as a duplex in suburban enviroments, but a duplex is usually made of two flats one above the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.77.182 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Now that I have done some research on Duplex (building) with regards to Urban Planning, I now disagree with my own merger proposal. There seems to be enough information to suggest that duplex is a different idea than semi-detached as the latter is only sometimes included in the definition of the former and often has its own specific meaning. --Jrsnbarn (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Partial agree - merge all text refering to the form of building that consists of two vertically-divided houses sharing a party wall to Semi-detached. Rewrite duplex (building) to cover only the form of building that is a horizontally-divided apartment spread over more than one floor (usually with an internal staircase). I would remark that the term "duplex apartment" is also used in the United Kingdom to refer to this form of construction where, although quite unusual, it is not unheard-of. DWaterson (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

UK section
I think we should get rid of the sentence "During the house price boom in the years to 2004 many UK property developers found they could create value by demolishing semi-detached houses and building two detached houses on the same site, often with a very narrow gap between the new units." if no reference can be found. I have never seen this or even heard of it happening. While no doubt it must have happened somewhere, "many" is impossibly vague and misleading as the total number demolished must have been a tiny fraction of the total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose amending the structure of the article so that the 'History' heading is abolished and the material in it is transferred to 'United Kingdom'. At the same time the sentence referring to the Shaws could be removed. A minor edit would remove 'In the U.K.' from the beginning of the sentence about house sales in 2008. Finally I could add a picture of semi-detached housing which I took yesterday. Chrisemms (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Agreed. There should history section but only if someone can find a reference for where the semi originated. It may well be that it was in the UK but we need a reference for that. There should also be a picture of a typical semi at the beginning of the article rather than the rather untypical one that's used now. I've been meaning to take one myself but if you already have one please go ahead. Richerman (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The suggestion that the History section should start with the origin of the semi-detached house is an interesting challenge, as nothing has been written on it, so what I could contribute would smack too much of research, one of the 'No's of Wikipedia. I would welcome the advice of an oldie on this (I presume that is the opposite of newbie!). There are references in documents accessible on the internet such as Old Bailey Proceedings to 'double houses', the earliest of which is a will of a Londoner in 1660 (See: http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/g-s-gilbert-sidney-parry/genealogical-abstracts-of-parry-wills-proved-in-the-perogative-court-of-canterb-rra/page-7-genealogical-abstracts-of-parry-wills-proved-in-the-perogative-court-of-canterb-rra.shtml; accessed 6 October 2011). Although I have gathered sufficient original material to convince that a double house was what we would call a semi-detached house, I expect that for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia all that I could legitimately do is to refer briefly to 'double houses', without making the connection explicit. Chrisemms (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wordwide view tag
I see User:I dream of horses has decided to deface this article with a tag to say that the article doesn't represent a wordlwide view because it doesn't have examples from non English speaking countries. My answer to that is wp:sofixit. In my experience these lazy tags sit above articles for years on end and serve no useful purpose. If you feel there is something missing from the article then go and find the information and add it. Are semi-detached houses used in non-English speaking countries - if so where are we going to find that information? I don't think anyone else is going to go looking for the information just because you think they should. You will note it says on the tag "discuss the issue on the talk page". That means it's incumbent upon you to start off a discussion and say why you think this information is missing. For instance, have you been to lots of non-English speaking countries and seen semi-detached houses there? If not, maybe they are only a feature of the countries already mentioned in the article. Richerman ''  (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I put up templates on articles because I lack the research and study skills necessary to make extensive changes to content. I honestly don't know where to look, online or offline.
 * I don't put a discussion on the talk page, because it's tedious for me to check the talk page every day, and I often forget to do so. I'm not sure if this flaw of mine is entirely fixable. I truly do forget to check! Add to the fact that people often don't read the talk pages of little-known, little-watched articles, and I've basically decided it isn't worth it to do so. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I also have a terrible memory so I just put the talk page on on my watchlist and check that each time I log on. If you read the documentation for the tag you used it says:

As a courtesy to other editors and as a means of respecting their time, and also as a means of maximizing the likelihood that your concerns will be addressed, you should initiate a talk section detailing your concerns when hanging any maintenance tag. Without such explanations, it may be difficult for editors to understand what concerned you and to figure out whether subsequent changes have addressed your concerns...If you do not explain your concerns on the article's talk page, you may expect this tag to be promptly and justifiably removed as "unexplained" by the first editor who happens to not understand why you added this tag.

 * If, however, an article is little-known or little-watched no-one is likely to see any tags you put on either so they will just sit there forever. I will leave the tag there for a week and if no-one responds I will remove it. Richerman ''   (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't this be at Semi-detached housing? Lots of things are semi-detached. 216.8.175.138 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Love and attention
I suspect that this page is being ignored by most editors as there is so much wrong. I stepped by while looking for references, and floor plans for Council house- which has to be sorted first. Brunskill give references to mediaeval semi-detached cottages in Traditional Buildings of Britain but that is a start. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, someone has to start somewhere. So I will have a go and leave it in a state where others can decide what to call it- and whether to redefine it as a UK article linking back to a disamb page. I will be relying heavily on the references already in the article : The Development of English Semi-detached Dwellings During the Nineteenth Century Authors: Pamela Lofthouse  http://doi.org/10.5334/pia.404. I will start by destroying unreferenced text and speculation, then reverse the structure. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The history section has been expanded- missing refs to come from council house and its relatives. Clem Rutter (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've had to revert your changes en masse as they just aren't an improvement. There's far too much general stuff on 19th-century housing in Britain, which is excellent, but not for here. Much of it should go to Housing in the United Kingdom, which has no history section at all, and/or Public housing in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile Real estate in the United Kingdom needs merging somewhere.  I must say, it was rather bad manners to start such massive changes 30 minutes after my last edit, with only a 3 minute warning!  The article is, and should remain, a global one, and by using only one main source you have unbalanced it, temporally, socially and geographically. It is an essentially architectural article about a type of house plan, and should remain so. The lead was far too short, the section sequence illogical and eccentric, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you have reverted me, and I will let you run with it - please let me know when you have finished. But what I say above still stands. I must say this in particular shows some nerve, given how far off this topic much of your stuff is. I'd urge you consider better locations for this useful material, as suggested above. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I missed the three minutes bit- sorry about that. I also missed your first comment before reverting - I blame that on reallife interfering. Now in general- everything you criticise I basically agree with but it is the only way I can see to turn the article into something useful-  so at the moment it is detail heavy. Basically there are two of us doing any editing on this article and in a months time I imagine this article will be a lot shorter- and other articles will benefit from the text, I will not want to defend anything if you know a better way. (Incidently your Blackheath piece that I efn ed, I had already restored to its glory in a later edit.)

 * The SemiD form is primarily a UK form, caused and promoted by different factors and I have no referenced information on how these factors influenced the development in the colonies, the US and Europe. The factors are different in London and the rest of the UK. I don't see a need to stifle the article by trying to make the whole article accommodate duplex, which I assume was parked here in prehistory. The ground plan of a semiD is dependant on age- closely mirroring that of an equivalent terraced until the street layout was liberalised under the Addison Act, I am short of CC illustrations of ground plans, I had to draw a complex svg for the article on Pre-regulation terraced houses in the UK- and if needs be that must be the solution.  Clem Rutter (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Message of welcome on User talk:Arjayay- reporting to keep the discussion together.  Clem Rutter (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Rambling, too technical?
A lot of research has gone into this page, but it's not ideal for a cogent overview of the subject. The History section is very long and detailed, with convoluted and occasionally archaic language. I've made numerous small changes to grammar, spelling and syntax without substantially altering the text. But I find that the really useful statements (eg. " They built double cottages as a means of reducing cost," "Semi-detached houses first began to be planned systematically in late 18th-century Georgian architecture," "After the Second World War, there was a chronic shortage of houses") are buried here and there among among wordy and overly technical ones (eg. "Estate villages followed vernacular patterns," "The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 (Addison Act) incorporated those recommendations including one that allowed for Radburn style estate layout").

The wording often presumes the reader is already familiar with the subject (eg. "At Bournville in 1879 the Cadbury development started with a detached house for the manager," "The examples of Bournville, and Port Sunlight were seized by Ebenezer Howard and became key models for the Garden City movement," "The model villages in Lancashire came later"), and each section starts somewhere other than the logical beginning. For example, the 'Housing the Urban Working Classes' launches straight into a general discussion about population shifts and societal restructuring without really signposting where it's going. It really needs to start out with a simple sentence explaining that there was a need for more, and cheaper, housing.

I don't know anywhere near enough about the subject to take this on myself, but I hope someone will consider trimming some of the detail, minimising superfluous technical detail, and making this a readable and accessible overview of the subject. Sadiemonster (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the edits and comments. It is indeed a massive topic and I do tread carefully to accurately reflect the sources trying to avoid OR. If you look back at the article in 2013 it was in a sorry state- the semi-D is the principal housing type in middle England and appears to be a rarity elsewhere but we had one editor demanding a a more global approach and equal prominence for other countries, back then there were merger suggestions and no details. The article was written backwards timewise- and I avoided the temptation to delete early off focus work- so your description 'rambling' is fair. Looking at it today I can see it is underlinked, or the link should be repeated for readers who are just reading one paragraph. But too technical- no. I haven't started to add the heavy weight technical detail such as floor pans, regional differences in land availability and the individual styles of individual mass builders complying with building regs and standards. I still haven't fully mined Burnett and I am looking for other sources. Time is the limiting factor. I believe that all articles have a life cycle- stub to B and over long. Then we float sections to become new articles and aim for the perfect FA but we are not their yet. It would be really useful if you could look at each paragraph individually and comment on them- an article can always be strengthen by cooperation and I could be accused of being too close- I'll have a go at a few more links. -ClemRutter (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, ClemRutter. I know the article has come a long way, and like I said, it's been well-researched and there's a lot of good information there, it just needs reorganising. I'll try to find the time to put together some suggestions for you. We probably have different definitions of "technical." You clearly have knowledge of the history of architecture - I don't, and I felt that the way the article is written presumes a certain level of knowledge that I don't have. Certainly floor plans would be a lot more technical for someone acquainted with the subject matter - but for the average reader, it would help if more general, explanatory information was prioritised over secondary detail. For example, the sentence "The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 (Addison Act) incorporated those recommendations including one that allowed for Radburn style estate layout" should perhaps be replaced by a simple sentence explaining that there was a need for economical housing after WWI. In the 'Housing the Rural Working Classes' section, you get 3/4 of the way through the paragraph before you get to the point: "landowners...built double cottages as a means of reducing cost." That sentence could be shifted to the beginning. I'll have another look at this just from a readability angle if I can find the time. Thanks again, Sadiemonster (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussions
The suggestion is to merge in Duplex (building), paired home
 * Oppose for the very reasons I gave on 21 February 2016 (UTC) above. ClemRutter (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the variable meanings of "duplex" - but is this the right place? Discussion also seems ongoing at the other page, though the notice points here. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See. Talk:Duplex (building) ClemRutter (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose The Duplex article is about something else and the paired homw article needs deleting. I'll add the Duplex article to See also. Richerman    (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In Canada, semi-detached qualifies a building sharing an outside wall with another building, and has nothing to do with the concept of duplex that means two independent housing units in a given residential building. --Laddo (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Because regardless of how the two units are attached to each other, they still comprise two separate housing units that share one structure. --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"often abbreviated to semi-D"
I've lived in the UK my whole life and I have never heard the term "semi-D", nor encountered it before I read this page. Is it common elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.53.154 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Zapped. The problem is the word often- it may be Estate-agent speak- but no longer current. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

High UK focus
this article focuses a lot on the UK. Why is the article primarily about UK semi-detacheds? Serperior 1245, a Pokemon, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Doctor who nerd 01:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serperior 1245 (talk • contribs)

fdgfdg
fdgdfg 81.131.36.97 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Semi-detached