text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude

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: 18:32, 2005 August 28 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Monicasdude | talk | contributions)

Description
(this description was completed on August 28)

As stated in description, but missed in response, no part of this RfC concerns any specific content question!

A vandalism complaint was filed against Monicasdude, at. Administrator User:Ryan Delaney determined his actions did not qualify as vandalism, but protected the page while the dispute was ongoing. I accept the conclusion that Monicasdude's behavior does not qualify as vandalism. Ryan Delaney offered (on Talk:Bob Dylan, and user talk pages) to serve as an informal mediator, but Monicasdude declined the offer.

In originally characterizing Monicasdude's edits as vandalism, I realized the case was atypical of simple vandals. He certainly did not insert, e.g. "John Smith is a fag" or the sort of irrelevant graffiti that you see on some pages. But my complaint was also not a matter of any particular factual or POV issue in the article.

Judging by the changelog and the discussion page, since before I ever read or edited that particular Bob Dylan page, Monicasdude has shown a consistent pattern of "bad faith editing." His edit history is mostly on either the Dylan page, or on related pages (albums by Bob Dylan, similar artists), with a clear concentration on the Dylan page itself. It seems that Monicasdude has a great enthusiasm for Dylan; moreover, I think he honestly believes that his edits are correct and of high quality. But at the same time, his immersion in trivia around the particular subject has bred an exaggerated sense of his own writing skills and knowledgeability. Enough that he treats the Bob Dylan WP article as if it were "his page."

In the concrete, Monicasdude frequently removes most wording written by anyone else, and has done so throughout his edit history. Recently I have tried to make some (pretty minor) changes, and encountered unreasonable resistance. In the talk page you can see several past editors who banged their head against the same thing (and eventually left in frustration). When I make an edit (or before I first tried to edit, when other editors did), Monicasdude inevitably rolls back my wording to whatever he had himself earlier written about the same topic (it must only be verbatim his own words). If I try variations that seem to satisfy his stated concerns (with some additional concern for clear expression and factuality), he equally inevitably makes rude comments in the edit history, and again restores his "golden" version. Sometimes he writes long, rambling digressions on the talk page to justify his version, but while rich in trivial footnotes, they relate only very indirectly to the edit in question (not seeing the forest for the trees). His rollbacks are not always literally restoration of an exact prior version, which makes it harder to see if you haven't worked on the page—he might restore the paragraphs he himself wrote several versions back, not necessarily in the same order as other people have modified those paragraphs.

The net effect is that no single edit by Monicasdude is unreasonable if taken in isolation. They are not necessarily particularly good in either factuality or writing quality, but no worse than a lot of edits by good faith editors (on whatever pages, not speaking just of other Dylan editors). But taken together, Monicasdude editing stategy is "this is my page, and no one else is worthy to edit it."

So what to do? Is there an appropriate administrative mechanism to try to get the page to be a cooperative project rather than just Monicasdude's personal user page?

Additional Description by 2nd Certifying User
(Posted 20:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC) with additional paragraphs 20:30, 5 September 2005, 05:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

My part of this RfC refers to a slightly earlier time period than that covered by my co-certifiers (Lulu of the Lotus Eaters and Soul Embrace). Although the editing actions by Monicasdude were of a different type in the period I focus on, the upshot is the same: Monicasdude operates with an extremely anti-collaborative spirit, is too quick and heavy-handed in his use of the revert power, and generally behaves as a super-editor (a position that does not exist in Wikipedia). The net effect has been to stymie contributions by all editors other than himself, and this has now led to the placement of an editing block on the primary article involved (Bob Dylan). The block probably should not be lifted until Monicasdude, hopefully as a result of this RfC, makes a clear statement indicating he has heard and internalized the just complaints of other editors and is now willing to proceed in a more collaborative way. It must be noted that Monicasdude's knowledge of the subject exceeds that of other editors and that the article, once unblocked, would benefit from his assuming and maintaining a leading, but not dictatorial, role. It must also be noted that Monicasdude's acumen as a gatherer of facts exceeds his acumen as a writer of prose, and that the process of folding sourced information on the career of Bob Dylan in a smooth and engaging way into our article constitutes the major faultline in the collaborative difficulties we need to address going forward. Other editors should assume at least an equal role in this process, even as they defer to Monicasdude on questions of fact.

In this Description I will use a sort of inline linking to evidence (internal to this Description) so that I don't confuse the separate "Evidence of disputed behavior" section further down in this RfC. Evidence presented here should, however, be given equal weight with the evidence in that section.

Early in Wikipedia's existence, the Bob Dylan article was composed by User:GWO, a leading early writer of music-related articles. By mid-2003 I and another editor began adding significant content to Bob Dylan and by late 2003 it, along with a few other articles started by GWO and enhanced by others, attained the status of "Brilliant Prose", a title shortly to be changed to "Featured Article". In my opinion, and I suspect in most Wikipedians' opinions, an article that has attained Featured status carries with it a certain weight of consensus, by virtue of the vote elevating it to FA, which should act as a sort of moderate protectant against radical, undiscussed change. This is a whole topic unto itself and its encapsulation in Wikipedia policy is only now underway. Suffice it to say that by May of 2005, the Bob Dylan article was a longstanding FA, thus due a measure of respect that, in practical terms, meant any effort to substantially change its contents would, as a matter of good and fair collaboration practices, need to meet a level of scrutiny greater than that of most other articles.

This principle (that Featured Articles represent consensus and should not be changed lightly) is so obvious and grounded in common sense that it has not yet been enshrined in policy, just as those founding a town will not put a sentence like "Citizens, when walking down the sidewalk, will walk in such manner that those already walking or standing on the sidewalk will not be pushed off the sidewalk" into initial versions of their bylaws. It is taken to be so self-evident that there is no need to spell it out, yet, as with the growing body of law for any community, assumed behaviors eventually are made explicit and required because some in the community are so rowdy or inconsiderate or blinded by self-interest that what was assumed must now be codified. So it is with extensive, undiscussed changes to FA and I expect signatories to this RfC to rule accordingly. Common sense, people.

On 17 May, 2005, a new Wikipedian registered with the name "Monicasdude" and made his first edit to the encyclopedia, in the Sara Lownds (Bob Dylan's ex-wife) article. For the better part of two weeks, Monicasdude made smallish edits to Bob Dylan and other articles generally related to Dylan and to folk music and "folk rock". These edits did not give rise to any notable disputes.

Suddenly, on 30 May, Monicasdude, logged in anonymously, rolls out a radical overhaul of Bob Dylan with this edit summary: "Condensed first part of text (running roughly to 1975), corrected many errors, removed digressions & highly subjective commentary & excessive lyrical excerpts, normalized chronology. More to follow.". Nine minutes later, motivated by the principle stated above regarding the respect due to FAs, I revert with the edit summary: "Whoa, 24.2.207.183. This is a Featured Article. Even one significant change or deletion requires some Talk activity. Plz discuss your ideas in Talk. RV to last by JDG.". Fifteen minutes after this, Monicasdude, now logged in as Monicasdude, reverts in turn with the summary: "Restoring edit. The entry on "Featured articles" says "be bold in updating articles," not "ask for permission in advance." Article laced with long-standing errors. Read it before cancelling (sic) it again.".

We have arrived at the crucial moment in these disputes. A number of complicating factors existed. First, the fact that this radical overhaul to a longstanding FA was apparently being done by an anonymous user raised my sense of alarm. It is bad enough when a known user, even one of unquestioned ability as a researcher and writer, overhauls a FA without notice. An anon user doing so is, I'm sure you will all agree, beyond the pale. On this basis alone my reversion was 100% justified.

A second complicating factor was my somewhat erroneous assumption that Monicasdude (once he had identified himself as the author of this radical overhaul) was a somewhat experienced Wikipedian. As I have stated elsewhere on this RfC and in related discussions, Monicasdude came on the scene in an Athena-like way, springing fully formed from somewhere, wikilinking to other pages and outside sources like an old hand and "speaking" like someone with substantial familiarity with our project. I say "somewhat erroneous" because, as we have discovered, Monicasdude had, over the preceding year or so, used the wiki as an anonymous contributor and so had picked up the knowledge that made him "sound" like a contributor with a past. I looked up the list of "User contributions" under his name, saw they extended back only thirteen days, and concluded he was probably now using a new name for whatever reason. In the immediately ensuing struggle, I basically treated him as a co-editor with appreciable experience in the Wikipedia "culture". This turned out to be unfortunate because in most respects he was a WP neophyte and could not be expected to know the seriousness of his all-at-once reworking of such an established article. My tone would have been much kinder and gentler had I understood this.

To keep this Description under novella size, I will not continue giving a fine-grained account of the ensuing fireworks. You can click on the "Newer edit" links on the diffs already provided to see how it played out. I am confident that most of you will agree Monicasdude was moving too fast, was not displaying the degree of respect due a FA, and should have slowed down to address my concerns at least a little on Talk:Bob_Dylan. Unfortunately for me, I also believe most of you will feel my "tone of voice" could have been better and that Monicasdude can to some degree be excused for taking umbrage and resisting what may have come across as "orders" to an underling. At the same time, I trust you will see that Monicasdude was already displaying that "take no prisoners" approach which is a surefire harbinger of difficulties with all other editors of whatever temperament. The accounts given by other complainants on this RfC show this indeed came to pass.

I ask you to focus on what happened after the first bit of revert sparring here. A characteristic comment from me: "Monicasdude, edit summaries are not the place for 'substantive objections'. Talk is. Why do you not discuss?". A characteristic comment from Monicasdude: "You didn't read the revision before you reverted it. You don't cite any errors in the revisions...My contributions will continue.". As this shows, to this point I had been trying to move the dispute to the Talk page so that we could discuss changes on the merits instead of using the revert power as wholesale enforcements of our viewpoints. Monicasdude would have none of it and insisted his version of the article be "live" notwithstanding the objections by this other Wikipedian, who, as Monicasdude was by this time aware, had been a steady contributor to the article for years. Monicasdude tried to change the issue at hand from "slow down, this is a Featured Article that should not be overhauled in one shot without some discussion" to "you, JDG, are not raising specific objections to specific errors in my edit". But the content of his overhaul was not and should not have been the focus at that point: he was riding roughshod over this longstanding FA which had even been recognized outside Wikipedia for excellence. That was the issue, and the proper response from him would have been to allow the FA version to be "live" as we discussed his plans. Instead, in the face of his anti-collaborative intransigence, I backed off and let the matter sit for a number of days. It is plain who was being cooperative and who was not.

On June 5 I tried again. Another revert from me finally succeeded in getting Monicasdude to abandon his aggressive silence, but it turned out that trying to work things out in Talk wasn't much better than revert warring. He simply would not acknowledge that an all-at-once overhaul to a FA is not a good thing. Squabblng continued for the next few weeks, always with Monicasdude's overhaul live. As you may have read elsewhere, I am unfortunately quite ill (cancer at 42, blech) and I just didn't have the energy to keep challenging his rather obsessive grip on the article. In fact, I took an extended breather from Wikipedia starting in mid-July. By the time I came back a number of other editors were up in arms over Monicasdude's caustic and controlling editing habits. We tried informal mediation but, tellingly, Monicasdude refused to participate. And here we are at this RfC.

I will let the Descriptions by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters and Soul Embrace speak for themselves. They demonstrate that Monicasdude has not amended his attitude one jot since the difficulties with me in late May-early June. A casual look at some of Monicasdude's work on articles outside the main Dylan page yields the expected results: Wikipedians complaining bitterly. Here is a comment left by one of them, User:BGC, on my Talk page: "''I was previously posting here as PetSounds until late July. My experiences with Monicasdude were extremely unpleasurable and even brought out the worst in me, which I regret. I left in frustration to return with a new identity because of all his stalking a few weeks later and have had a most enjoyable time thus far. One of my key claims was that he was targeting me on purpose. The fact that as BGC I have not been looked at by him, while everything I did as PetSounds was WHOLLY wiped and reverted proves it. Basically, he feels he owns the Dylan pages. I, not him, was responsible for creating proper album articles/infoboxes for many of Dylan's albums, to which I was rudely treated with the caption "stop screwing up the dylan pages!!" (because some of my material went against his views, which he considers to be the official ones) and it went downhill from there.[...] I've never encountered such a self-righteous, all-knowing, pompous and rude individual on these pages. Very narrowminded and impossible to work with. He wasn't even open to collaboration or compromise. I apologize for these last character remarks (I know it's improper), but if you wanted an indication of how I feel, there you are.''". This is the kind of stultifying effect on other editors that we must find a way of getting past, without losing Monicasdude's valuable contributions.

For my specific rebuttals to Monicasdude's specific defenses, go here.

Evidence of disputed behavior
In relation to trying to find a good phrase describing "Dylan's Christian period", Monicasdude repeated removed every wording variation. Each change to the wording was, in large part, an effort to incorporate the observations/claims Monicasdude made on the Talk:Bob Dylan page.

 * 1) : An anonymous editor, 203.208.119.32, adds a phrase about "Christian period", but with some extraneous information.  Removed in whole by Monicasdude.
 * 2) : LotLE restores the core element of edit by 203.208.119.32, skipping extraneous part.
 * 3) : Monicasdude removes core phrase.
 * 4) : Monicasdude again removes (clarification of) core phrase.
 * 5) : Same thing as last (with sophistry in edit comment).
 * 6) : One more.
 * 7) : LotLE adds longer and more nuanced description to address Monicasdude's stated issues (using much of the language Monicasdude provides on talk page).
 * 8) : Monicasdude removes entire description (that had been tweaked by several other editors in the meanwhile), and inserts long, run-on, rambling, and only semi-relevant rant.
 * 9) : LotLE incorporates some material from Monicasdude ramble, but mostly restores version last tweaked (and agreed to) by several editors.
 * 10) : Monicasdude restores his identical rambling section.
 * 11) : Monicasdude again restores rant.
 * 12) : LotLE tries again to incorporate additional issues suggested by Monicasdude's edits (e.g. clarify public->proselytic).
 * 13) : Monicasdude again restores verbatim rant.
 * 14) : LotLE attempts quotation from external source rather than his own words.
 * 15) : Monicasdude removes whole of external quote, stating Allmusic.com is "unreliable."
 * 16)  and : LotLE moves some of Monicasdude langauge to later section (1980s) and tries yet another variation on the language tweaked by several editors (and tries to be clear on exact scope of description).
 * 17) : Monicasdude block deletes all words attempted by other editors (even the unrelated clarification of "classic songs").
 * 18) : And again block deletes.
 * 19) : Yet again.

Pushy editing around the use of the word "apocryphal" (see Talk:Bob_Dylan)

 * 1)
 * 2) ...find the rest

Applicable policies
Chiefly:
 * 1) Ownership of articles

To a large extent:
 * 1) Assume good faith
 * 2) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

To lesser extents:

 * 1) Three-revert rule
 * 2) Civility (I have been guilty of this also; sincerest apologies. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)
 * 3) Editing policy
 * 4) Neutral point of view
 * 5) No original research
 * 6) No personal attacks
 * 7) POV pushing
 * 8) Consensus

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 1) Talk:Bob_Dylan
 * 2) Talk:Bob_Dylan
 * 3) Talk:Bob_Dylan:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:03, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
 * 2) JDG 13:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Soul Embrace 01:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) GWO
 * 2) BGC 10:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC) (used to post as PetSounds but had to adopt new identity due to Monicasdude's incessant badgering and stalking)

Response

 * Monicasdude does not. Monicasdude 01:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC) NOTE: This comment was a reply to an inaccurate statement placed here by user: Lulu, who removed it several days later.

''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

'''User: Lulu tranferred comments that I made in response to user: Robert McClenon here earlier today and falsely presented them as my response to this RfC. I will present my response when user: Lulu and user: JDG complete their initial presentations. Both state here that they are preparing additional material, and I await it.''' Monicasdude 01:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It is now over three days since this page was started, and the initiators have still not completed it; it is therefore not yet appropriate for me to respond to the substance, particularly given the significant revisions that have been made so far. Monicasdude 05:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It is now nearly five days since this page was started, and the initiators have still not completed it; it is therefore not yet appropriate for me to respond to the substance, particularly given the significant revisions that have been made so far. Monicasdude 15:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Response by Monicasdude [in progress]

First, it is now evident that this RfC has not been properly certified, and should be subject to speedy deletion. An RfC may not be brought over multiple disputes that various editors have with a single editor, but must be brought by two (or more) editors who have tried and failed to resolve a particular dispute with another editor. "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users."

Here, User: Lulu has a dispute with me over the characterization of what he calls Bob Dylan's "Christian period." User: JDG had a dispute with me, some months ago, over a general revision of the Bob Dylan article. The third supposed certifier, User: Soul Embrace, was not involved in either dispute, and his certification is therefore ineffective.

Second, the central premise of the RfC, as framed by user: Lulu, is demonstrably false. He declares in his description that "Monicasdude frequently removes most wording written by anyone else, and has done so throughout his edit history." This is simply not true.

Between June 30, when I finished making revisions to the first half of the article, and August 19, when the revert war which led to this RfC began, there were over 150 individual edits made to the Dylan article, by several dozen editors (including quite a few anons). In that time, I made approximately 12 individual edits (in comparison, user: Lulu made approximately 18). 3 of my edits reverted vandalism. 1 removed a newly introduced error, without dispute. 2 added new entries to the links section, and 1 removed an inappropriate link to a sales portal. 1 edit, in response to discussion initiated by others on the talk page, deleted unsubstantiated/unsourced lists of "best" and "famous" songs. 1 was a minor, uncontroversial "cleanup" of the "fan base" section. 2 discussed the proper way to describe an "urban legend" regarding Pete Seeger's actions at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, in an editing debate which ended with the legend being deleted entirely, without subsequent objection. And 1 deleted a factually unfounded comment that Dylan had returned to practicing Judaism.

Aside from these limited edits, I tried to encourage other editors to provide their own input to the page [] ; []. I also tried to have the "featured article" tag removed from the page, in hopes its removal might encourage other editors to contribute -- an action that was mildly successful, even though the tag remains. [] ("the article needs more work and more contributors").

Third, while I'm not going to go into the substantive details of the underlying dispute here, one point should be made clear. User: Lulu insists that the Dylan article state, as fact, that since 1983, Dylan's songwriting has been "predominantly secular," and has only occasionally written songs that "obliquely suggest Christian themes." While he says that my rejection of this claim rests on my personal, "extremly (sic) novel" thesis, significantly stronger versions of the position I take are found in the last two major book-length Dylan biographies (Sounes' "Down The Highway" and Heylin's "Behind The Shades Revisited"), and the position is reflected in Christopher Ricks' "Dylan's Visions Of Sin." (Ricks is a reasonably distinguished academic, and his book was reviewed in the New York Times Book Review by Jonathan Lethem.) And, on the more down-to-earth level, although user: Lulu avoids mentioning it, I was not the only editor to object to the comments he inserted. []

Fourth, with regard to user: JDG's lengthy comments, nothing he alleges -- and quite a few of his allegations do not accurately reflect what transpired -- indicate that the edits he complains about violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies. The dispute was aired at length on the article's talk page, and no other users supported his position regarding editing policies. Several editors attempted informal mediation, and I complied with all their requests; but user: JDG chose to withdraw rather than presenting his position on the substantive dispute. An RfC is not an appropriate action for an editor to initiate after withdrawing from mediation. And, after three months, for all the time he devotes to tirades, he still hasn't pointed out a single factual error or inappropriate component in the edits he objects to.

It should also be clear, given the misrepresentations described above, that the proponents of this RfC have also violated the applicable RfC guidelines by presenting a laundry list of unfounded charges of policy violations and "then getting their friends to help certify the RFC, or finding people who have had arguments elsewhere with the accused, and inviting them to certify or endorse the RfC in an attempt to snowball the process." Examples: []  [] User: Lulu ; []   [] User: JDG.

(To be completed as rapidly as practicable) Monicasdude

Outside views
''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 Theo
REMOVED because it is characterised as biased by JDG (see below) and I am unwilling to devote further time to this. —Theo (Talk) 21:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Theo (Talk) 13:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) SECProto 12:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC) - this timeline is accurate up until the point where it stops, which, i think, is where the scope of this RfC comes in.
 * 3) --Sambostock 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Note on Accuracy by JDG
Please note, the first item in Theo's list of vignettes above ("26 Jul 2004: Bob Dylan becomes a featured article.") is incorrect. The Dylan article became FA long before that, in early or mid `03 I believe... Update: Theo has changed the above to read "# 15 Feb 2004 Article gains featured article status. [and] # 26 Jul 2004: Article categorized as a featured article." This is still incorrect. "Brilliant Prose" was the forerunner of "Featured Article", and on this page, dated 2 December 2003, we see that Bob Dylan is already listed as Brilliant Prose/FA. The logging of the actual vote seems to have been messed up. I'm pretty sure now that it happened in October `03. Also note, Theo is now giving a selectively skewed view of the dispute (for instance, he makes no mention of my warning to editors on the Dylan Talk page that their edits could be lost due to Monicasdude's constant reversions-- Monicasdude was so quick and adamant in his reverts that his version tended to be "live" most of the time, thus other editors' unrelated changes were usually made while Monicasdude's version was active and were, as warned, subject to reversion). I am forced to withdraw my endorsement of his Outside View. JDG 20:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Ryan Delaney
I still strongly disagree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' characterization of User:Monicasdude's edits as bad faith or vandalism, which appears to be a failure to apply Assume_good_faith. Therefore I cannot certify this version or endorse Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' summary.

However, I believe that Monicasdude has been, despite being a good faith editor, extremely stubborn and disinterested in negotiation or consensus building. He has displayed an overall lack of concern for the views of other editors, and disinterest in resolving the dispute. When I offered to mediate the dispute, he was the only editor who refused mediation. Monicasdude seems to believe that the article Bob Dylan is his, or that he has a greater privilege to write articles than other editors do. Simply put, he does not play well with others. Hopefully this RFC will be a wakeup call for all involved, and bring things back to the mediation table.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) JDG 06:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) - with only one caveat this time: I agree Monicasdude cannot be seen as a vandal, but his behavior at least borders on bad faith. To meet calls for discussion during his extensive rewrite of a Featured Article with silence (aside from utterly counterproductive, untrue edit summaries) and to in effect block most other editors for months certainly approaches bad faith, and we'll need some recognition from him of this for this RfC to achieve anything.
 * 3) GWO 09:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) -- good edits made in bad faith are worse for wikipedia than bad edits made in good faith. This is a co-operative project, and the co-operation is the most (only) important thing needed.
 * 4) Soul Embrace 01:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Ccoll
To me, at the core of this dispute lies a clash in visions for what Wikipedia is to be. JDG was fond of the general style and tone of a previous version of the page; Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has said more than once that for him, WP is about "cooperation." Monicasdude is one of the web's leading authorities on the subject of the article. All of his changes are either plainly correct or in line with the latest research on Dylan, as he has substantiated. I would agree with others' comments about his manner, but Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's turn toward insulting him for his superior knowledge -- as well his suggestion that users of rec.music.dylan "get a life" -- should raise questions about what WP is for, whom it is meant to serve. JDG and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters enjoy using WP, and maybe that's all the site should do; Monicasdude perhaps enjoys it as well, but he provides superior content. Is WP meant to be a fulfilling process to participate in for its users, or the best information resource of its kind? Should better information be eliminated by a consensus of less well informed editors? Should it aim to apprise general readers of the common wisdom about its topics, or to think critically about the common wisdom? I imagine this debate has been carried on at some higher level toward a policy that could be applied here.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Ccoll (Talk) --Ccoll 03:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC))
 * 2) Tearlach 13:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Sambostock 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional comment by Tearlach
I don't see any problem with coexistence of editors of different levels of knowledge, since superior/inferior knowledge is not the sole criterion for usefulness of edits. I wouldn't put the stylistic criticism as extremely as Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters did, but I think there's a deal of subjective purple prose in Bob Dylan that needs editing. For example:
 * ''The song "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall" occupies a plane perhaps above even "Blowin' In The Wind", with its hard-hitting imagery and almost God's-eye perspective. It represents a nearly alchemical moment in modern songwriting in which time-tested folk structures are reworked into a latter-day idiom encompassing world events and deep personal reflection...

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Tearlach 13:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
 * 3) Ccoll 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Akamad 01:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) GWO 09:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC) -- Good example of an awful paragraph. I wrote the original long Dylan article, almost out of the whole cloth and (even if I say so myself) as the factual content has increased, the overall prose quality has tended to go into the toilet.
 * 6) Ryan Delaney talk 15:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Soul Embrace 01:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) BGC 10:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) SECProto 12:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Robert McClenon 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) JDG 18:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) --Sambostock 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by McClenon
I see three parts to this dispute. The first is disputes about the accuracy of content, such as about the extent of continuing Christian themes in Dylan's music in recent years. I don't claim to have any basis to judge who is correct or who has more knowledge. I see that there are factual disputes between Monicasdude and the other editors, and haven't read the talk pages in enough detail to konw whether they reflect original research, unsourced work, or disagreement as to reliability of sources. I would like to know what Monicasdude's explanation is for these content disputes.

The second part is disputes about the stylistic quality of prose content. The paragraph that is cited above, for instance, is a sort of poetic commentary that may or may not be appropriate in a critical essay, but is not encyclopedic. The issues of prose quality illustrate why even superior knowledge should not allow an editor to claim ownership of an article.

The third part, and the only part that is directly relevant in this Request for Comments (or Request for Corrective Action, as user conduct RfCs should be called), is user conduct, in particular compliance with policy. What I do see is a disregard for consensus and the community. I see Monicasdude's failure to respond to this RfC because it is evolving is a troubling and all too telling sign of what is wrong. It appears that Monicasdude does not understand the concept of works in progress either in encyclopedic articles or in the dispute resolution process (which is inherently incremental).

Could Monicasdude please respond to this Request for Comments or Request for Corrective Action?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:38, 2005 September 2 (UTC). With the caveat that this dispute is in no way about factual accuracy.  Yes, Monicasdude wants a pedantic 10k words of convoluted details about a universally recognized matter instead of a fair (and true) two sentence generalization; but even there, the problem is solely a refusal to cooperate and compromise.
 * 3) JDG 18:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Soul Embrace 01:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Tearlach 18:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

additional comment by Monicasdude
''I have not responded substantively to this RfC because, according to its initiators, it has not been completed. Both user: Lulu and user: JDG say that they have not finished presenting their side of the matter. I have not seen any other RfC framed as series of periodically altered, running complaints against a user. Nor have I seen another RfC where the person complained of was asked to respond before the RfC was completed.''

''On your substantive points. First, with regard to the differences between editors: there were four editors who made comments regarding the supposed existence of Dylan's "Christian period," after which he returned to "predominantly" secular music with no more than "obliquely" religious content. Editors Lulu and SECProto generally took the position that such a period was well-defined and should be noted in the article. Editor Tixity and I opposed the position. (There was a fifth editor who stated that Dylan had returned to practicing Judaism, without commenting on the nature of the music.) I do not believe that this can fairly be termed consensus.''

''I'd note that I have extensively cited sources which document the points I've made, both from published Dylan biographies and from online resources. User: Lulu has cited only a selection of superficial opinions, none of which actually support the broad claim he advances. My position, as stated on the talk page, is that, given the differences of opinion on the matter, that if the article addresses the idea of a "Christian period" at all, it should present all significant points of view fairly, rather than presenting a simplified, conclusory statement representing only one stance in an ongoing debate.''

''Second, with regard to the quality of prose: If you compare the article as it stood before I began editing it and the version after my major edits, to date, were completed, you will see, I hope, that I removed much of the effusive, "purple," non-encyclopedic prose. [] I'd also note that the prose which has drawn attention above was  originally written by user: JDG, and the effusive content is essentially unaltered from his original edit.''

''Third, I would note that the substantive issues in the underlying edit dispute should have been resolved by admin: Ryan Blanchard's comments on the article's talk page, that characterizations of musical works as "religious" or "secular," without any citation of external references or commentary, are inappropriate under the "no original research" Wikipolicy since they represent only the opinions/conclusions of the single editor. "According to WP:NOR, [you] may not insert your own interpretations into Wikipedia articles, only the published and peer-reviewed interpretations of others. You may say 'Rolling Stone said this song means X', but not 'This song means X.'"I have accepted this standard; the two proponents of this RfC have not. Under this standard, the sections repeatedly (and variously) proposed by user: Lulu should not be inserted. Edits which substantively violate established Wikipedia policy are not acceptable, whatever the nature of the supposed "consensus" which supports them.''

''I would also note user: Lulu's comment that "factual accuracy" is not involved in the dispute is hardly accurate. His early versions of the disputed text made plain factual statements which could be verifiably disproved. If, as he now maintains, the disputed text is not subtantially factual, it represents opinion or commentary; a range of opinion on the point should be presented, not simply the POV he agrees with -- a POV that, for example, authors of the two most recently published major works on Dylan (Heylin's "Behind The Shades Revisited" and Ricks' "Dylan's Vision Of Sin") reject.''

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Monicasdude 21:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 64.154.26.251 16:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside View By Monkeyman1235
"What is this shit"? Bill Monica's Dude Clinton has been one of the point men about Bob on the WWW for at least 10 years. He is The Man to go to when you need the word. 3 weeks ago he complained about the credits on the new BobBootleg 7 and Columbia Records corrected them. You guys are just jealous that a man who knows what's up has come along and showed you up. Or else you're bootleg pimps who he's putting out of business.

Note: This user is a sockpuppet (self-described as such on his/her user page; no edits elsewhere).

Users who endorse this summary (sign with &lt;nowiki>Sambostock 23:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC) ):
 * 1) Monkeyman1235 19:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside View By 216.119.etc.
Note: I am the same user who endorsed Monicasdude's Additional Comment to McClenon's Outside View (using the user:64.154.26.251 sig)

JDG claims his dispute with Monicasdude was based on a certain editing principle, expressed in this claim: "Monicasdude tried to change the issue at hand from 'slow down, this is a Featured Article that should not be overhauled in one shot without some discussion' to 'You, JDG, are not raising specific objections to specific errors in my edit'.  But at the beginning of the dispute on May 30, 2005 as rehearsed by user:TheoClarke, it's JDG who claims "you introduced probably more factual errors than you fixed," so really it's JDG who changes the subject from complaining about Monicasdude making a large edit without the advice of past editors to claiming the presence of specific errors.

Despite JDG's May 30th claim, there has never been any undisputed evidence in talk that Monicasdude's large edit has diminished the quality of the featured article, and such evidence, if it exists at all, certainly hasn't been provided in this Request for Comment. Indeed, the Bob Dylan entry remains a featured article.

Also, there is no evidence that Monicasdude isn't willing to defend any of his edits if they are specifically challenged.

JDG, on the same day he made the claim about "changing the issue at hand", insisted that any changes made to the article "will have to be on a statement-by-statement basis". Why JDG supposed this to be the case is not known. But had Monicasdude defended his large edit in such a way, and successfully maintained his changes, he probably would have been even further subjected to such charges implied by User:Lulu that the only reason why he was changing the article was because he likes to have things his own way.

As Dylan himself phrased it, Monicasdude "can't help it if he's lucky", that is, lucky enough to have the aptitude for the skills to digest Dylan's biographies, chronologies and works, come to appropriate conclusions and write about them articulately.

There is also no evidence presented here that Monicasdude "made deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories" which is the caveat to the WP admonition to "be bold" in editing Featured Articles.

Therefore, I don't see any basis for JDG's insistence that Monicasdude now should hold, or should have in the past held, what would amount to some kind of four-king summit where the participants bloviate on the merits of each and every change he introduced. For all we know, this could simply be a trap to force Monicasdude to either retract some of his appropriate changes or to create an appearance that he's bossing everybody around, an appearance fostered by everything about his edit being up for discussion (implying falsely that everything about it was subject to doubt to begin with) and by Monicasdude's ability to succeed in such discussions simply because of the fact that he was right or mostly right in the first place.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) 216.119.139.12 19:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Sambostock 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside View By Sambostock
I have been asked by JDG on my talk page to provide some reasons for as he sees it, supporting Mdude. I respond to this RfC as someone who stumbled upon the Dylan article, and then ploughed through the discussion page, and then this page. I am not qualified to comment on factual accuracy, and I have not compared the different versions, so have no position on writing style etc.

It seems to me that:

1. There are two issues here: a) JDG disputed with Mdude about keeping the article in substantially the same state that it was when featured, and Mdudes heavy handed edits. b) Mdude and Lula have various disputes culminating in the Christian period debate. I do not suggest that these issues are not linked, but they are different disputes, and will require different resolutions.

In respect of a), Mdude's edits appear to have been factually correct (I find no dissent), made in good faith, and according to JDG, well writen. Mdude's defence of the drastic nature of the edit - that to untangle the chronology needs a single big edit - seems reasonable to me. JDG's oft-repeated complaint that Mdude should discuss changes in the talk page actually seems to have been taken on eventually by Mdude, as he certainly discusses changes with Lula. I suggest that Mdude's edits, while perhaps a little brash, seem useful, should stand, and we should move on.

In respect of b), using the Christian debate as exemplar of this issue, Mdude does seem to have been unconstructive by not suggesting his own wording (at least, as far as I can see, in talk). However, he does have a point regarding whether or not Bob's Christian era has ended. Based on my knowledge, it seems pretty obvious that 3 of his albums are especially religious, but perhaps this needs to be described less absolutely than 'the Christian era'. I hope and trust that all sides agree that whether the Christian era has ended or not, or more likely something in between, is controverted. I suggest that Mdude drafts phrasing about this issue, as I have not seen any from this user, and then this can be modified from there.

2. Some general points just to smack both sides around like a teacher:

a)There is a LOT of hypocrisy floating around this debate! As an example, Mdude has been charged with acting as a guard over 'his' page. It seems to me this is just what JDG was doing initially. No doubt JDG will respond saying he was open to constructive change, but so will Mdude, so get over it.

b) JDG and Lula both seem to be quite agressive to what is a newish user. Their paranoia on the talk page of this page seems ridiculous - they should remember that this is not a war should not round up wiki friends in response to some supposed sockpuppeting!

c) Mdude for his part has a tendancy to take affront, but not advice, and to resond with pedantry rather than constructive comment.

d) JDG and Lula fear that all that will come out of this is resolution that Mdude should play nicer. I'm afraid that that is surely all they can reasonably expect from bringing a RfC against an individual whose edits, they admit, are not, taken individually, a hinderence, but collectively seem somewhat brash. I feel that JDG and Lula's tones throughout this dispute have been very similar to Mdude's, just that their arrogence is that of experienced Wikipedians, whereas Mdude's is that of the hardcore dylanologist.

3. The good thing about this dispute is that it is a clash of styles that, if this conflict is resolved, should be complementary. To polarise their skills, JDG and Lula represent the experienced wikiers, while Mdude's got the knowledge (not that Lula and JDG appear to particularly lack it, just that Mdude seems to have corrected them a few times). Work it out, and don't blame each others' intransigence, please!

Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Sambostock 23:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC).  I'm more-or-less on board with Sambostock's characterization.  Except it's not that I "fear that all will come out of this is ... Mdude should play nicer".  Such is the most I ever hoped for; and so far, Monicasdude has only contemptuously dismissed the notion of "playing nicer" (well, also the minor claim that Monicasdude ever "corrected" any fact I added, but I limit myself to those edits I know factually).  FWIW, though I've been a fan of Luiz Inácio da Silva since his 1989 unsuccessful candidacy, my username is actually "Lulu".

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:
Talk:Elanora Heights, New South Wales

Page move
This page was moved from "Elanora" to "Elanora Heights, New South Wales" as per the naming convention set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) – Ianblair23 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Elanora Heights, New South Wales


text:
Pilot Butte (Oregon)

Pilot Butte is a lava dome that was created from an extinct volcano located in Bend, Oregon. It is a cinder cone butte which rises nearly 500 ft above the surrounding plains. Bend is one of six cities in the United States to have a volcano within its boundaries. The other examples are Mount Tabor in Portland, Oregon, Jackson Volcano in Jackson, Mississippi, Diamond Head in Honolulu, Glassford Hill in Prescott Valley and Pilot Knob in Austin, Texas.

The 114.22 acre Pilot Butte State Scenic Viewpoint, presented as a gift to the State of Oregon in 1928, is a Bend icon. Pilot Butte itself is a popular hiking destination with two trails to the summit, each gaining about 490 ft in elevation. There is also a 1.8 mile trail around the base of the butte. A scenic road also winds up and around the cone. In 2018, the park was the most visited Oregon state park east of the Cascade Mountains. From the top, the entire city of Bend is visible, as well as several major Cascade peaks. Most prominent are the Three Sisters, Broken Top, and Mount Bachelor, which are located about 20 mi to the west. The City of Bend launches Fourth of July fireworks from Pilot Butte each year.

Geography
Pilot Butte is located in Deschutes County, Oregon. The volcano lies north of Newberry Volcano, east of the Cascade Range, and southwest of the Ochoco Mountains. It sits at the eastern edge of the city of Bend. The Geographic Names Information System database lists its summit elevation as 4141 ft; the National Geodetic Survey lists its elevation as 4142 ft.

Geology and eruptive history
Pilot Butte is a Pleistocene cinder cone volcano. It lies just outside the southeastern margin of the Crooked River caldera, which collapsed and formed volcanic fields of rhyolitic lava flows, lava domes, and dikes including Powell Buttes, Gray Butte, Grizzly Mountain, and Barnes Butte. During the late Pleistocene, eruptions at Newberry Volcano produced voluminous basalt lava flows that extended into the area now occupied by Bend and Redmond. About 78,000 years ago, similar eruptive activity formed lava flows that surrounded Pilot Butte and filled the Deschutes riverbed, altering the course of the river by redirecting it to form a new channel to the west. The interior of these lava flows can be explored at Lava River Cave.

Pilot Butte erupted basaltic andesite, which underlies other lava flows dating to the Quaternary near Bend. There are four major faults in the Bend area, which run from the northern side of Newberry Volcano to 2 km north of the point where Oregon Highway 20 and 97 meet. These faults have produced vertical surface separation of up to 12 to 20 m in their southern components, including displacement of 10 m northeast of Pilot Butte. One of the four is a normal fault that runs for 10.3 km in length with an average strike of 26° trending north–west, one of its endpoints approximately 3 km southeast of Pilot Butte. Deposits on Pilot Butte's northeastern side exhibit variable degrees of displacement, implying several distinct surface ruptures, and lava deposited by Pilot Butte has an escarpment of more than 20 m. Pleistocene activity produced highly porphyritic lava with 10 to 15 percent plagioclase phenocrysts reaching diameters of up to 5 mm. The lava is composed of 53.5 percent silica and 20 percent aluminum oxide. The volcano's lower southwest flank is covered with white, rhyolitic tephra, which is similar in composition to tephra found at Tumalo Creek; Sherrod et al. (2004) attribute the Tumalo Creek pumice to Pilot Butte. The pumice deposit at Tumalo Creek has a thickness of at least 2 m with lapilli reaching up to 7 cm in length. White lapilli have phenocrysts of plagioclase and clinopyroxene ranging from 1 to 1 mm. Darker lapilli are mostly aphyric (lacking phenocrysts).

Pilot Butte is extinct. Its exact age is unknown, though one study dated the volcano to about 188,000 ± 42,000 years ago. The volcanic rock has normal magnetic polarity, suggesting that it was laid down after the most recent geomagnetic reversal about 780,000 years ago. The butte's light-colored soil contains some ash from the eruption of Mount Mazama (which formed Crater Lake).

Ecology
The most common tree on Pilot Butte is Western juniper, which is sometimes parasitized by witches' broom mistletoe. Also abundant are sagebrush and the similar plants bitterbrush and rabbitbrush. The invasive species cheatgrass is likely the most common grass on the butte. Wildflowers that appear include sand lily, rock cress, penstemon, paintbrush, buckwheat, yarrow, blazing star, mariposa lily, lupine, and monkeyflower. Ponderosa pine and red currant can also be found. Birds and deer feed on some of the plants, and some animals use snags as shelter.

History
Pilot Butte has been a landmark in the Bend area for many years, including for the Farewell Bend Park campground for travelers crossing the Deschutes River. It was also historically known as Red Butte, though this name is no longer used. The property encompassing the lava dome and its summit park were donated to the state of Oregon by F. R. Welles, Kempster B. Miller, and Charles A. Brown in memory of their business associate Terrence Hardinton Foley in September of 1928. Foley was the leader of the local Elks lodge until his death in a 1926 automobile accident, and the summit park has a memorial tablet dedicated to him.

Pilot Butte was named in 1851 by Thomas Clark, leader of the first party of European settlers to camp on the future site of Bend. The Clark wagon train approached the area from the east after recovering from the Clark massacre.

In 1983, a drive-in hamburger restaurant called Pilot Butte Drive-In was opened next to the butte on Greenwood Avenue. It remained open until 2020, when it was closed in response to COVID-19 lockdowns. The property was sold and later reopened as a pizza, beer, and poker establishment, known as the Pilot Butte Taproom or the Bend Poker Room.

A National Geodetic Survey station sits at the top of the volcano about 1 mi east of Bend. It sits in the center of a traffic circle and was placed in 1932. It can be reached from traveling east on U.S. Route 20 and following a winding paved road to the highest point on the volcano.

Recreation
A road extends to the top of the summit, which is accessible by car during daylight hours, although it closes during the winter season. Several hiking trails traverse the volcano, all reaching the summit. Other volcanoes in the Cascades can be seen from Pilot Butte's summit, including the Three Sisters, Black Butte, Mount Jefferson, and Mount Hood. In 2010, a 1.8 mile trail was constructed around the base of the butte.

Pilot Butte State Scenic Viewpoint includes more than 7 mi of trails on the volcano. The park had 949,968 annual visits in 2018, making it the most visited Oregon State Park east of the Cascade Mountains and the ninth most popular in the state.

title: Pilot Butte (Oregon)


text: File:Proboards look.png

title: File:Proboards look.png


text:
USS Tattnall

USS Tattnall may refer to the following ships of the United States Navy:

 * USS Tattnall (DD-125), a Wickes-class destroyer launched in 1918; converted to a high-speed transport and redesignated APD-19 in 1943; struck in 1946
 * USS Tattnall (DDG-19), a Charles F. Adams-class guided missile destroyer launched in 1961 and struck in 1993

title: USS Tattnall


text:
DPJ

DPJ may refer to:

 * Delta Private Jets (ICAO: DPJ), a defunct American airline
 * Democratic Party of Japan, a defunct Japanese liberal political party
 * Dharmapuri railway station (Indian Railways station code: DPJ), a railway station in Tamil Nadu, India

title: DPJ


text:
Talk:List of visitors to the International Space Station

Update needed after Discovery flight
Update needed after Discovery flight. Kember 01:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Updated for July 2006 flight. Rmhermen 16:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed nationalities
Today, an anonymous user from Tokyo has placed an Australian flag at Andy Thomas’ name. It is true that he grew up in Australia, but it was as an US-citizen he flew in space.

What do my fellow Wikipedians believe; should we place flags of people’s countries of birth, and cloud the nationality information, or should we only show the flag of their citizenship at the time of space flight?--Necessary Evil 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it - he was not a dual citizen. Rmhermen 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I think we should keep the dual flag to pinpoint the nationality of the person's profile, this is the only way to keep accuracy, if you have sure somebody is NOT A DUAL CITIZEN, please update HIS / HER profile with that information too Onsly 10:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that dual flags should be kept next to their name. I am re-adding Andy Thomas' Australian flag unless Rmhermen (or another user) can provide documentation that he is not an Australian citizen. If he was born and raised in Australia, then naturalization laws should have made him an Australian citizen. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The government of Kazakhstan officially regards Aubakirov and Musabayev as their cosmonauts № 1 and № 2 exclusively because of their ethnic origin forgetting that Shatalov, Patsayev, Viktorenko, Lonchakov were the natives of Kazakhstan too. Furthermore, Aubakirov and Musabayev were Soviet (later Russian) Air Force officers and could not be foreigners by definition. Aubakirov carried out his spaceflight in 1991, before Kazakhstan got independence. As for Musabayev, he has got Kazakhstan sitizenship only last year (2007), when was retired from Russian Forces. It is obviously that Aubakirov and Musabayev should be considered as Soviet and Russian cosmonauts (or even primarily). I believe that the nation of any astronaut in space statistics is determined by his sitizenship at the moment of the spaceflight but not his birthplace, former or current residence and ethnic origin. In my opinion, the country that sent cosmonaut to space is more essential criterion than present-day address which can change scores of time. Eugene SPB (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Spaceflight participants??

 * Is spaceflight participant a new type of political correctness?? All the International Space Station visitors are spaceflight participants. A tourist has paid for his/her trip, no matter what scientific research they have conducted. Necessary Evil 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing this to 'tourist' which seems to be the term commonly used to describe this class of spacefarer. Sometimes, though, 'tourist' might be used with some slight amount of derision. I wonder if 'passenger' might help avoid that pitfall? Sdsds 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Anyone not controlling a space craft is a passenger. Christer Fuglesang was conducting several space walks, and is in my opinion an astronaut, but in "your" opinion a passenger. Isn't the derision, regarding space tourist, just understandable envy from all of us ;-) Happy 2007 Necessary Evil 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bold Names
I think there is NO NEED to bold any person WHO IS NOT in the space right now, everbody is important in your own way. Onsly 11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The idea is (if this page was updated) that readers quickly can find out who is currently onboard etc.
 * Regarding the, 🇷🇺... , they are often useful, but not here; the names of the countries are clotting the facts, the images of the flags aren't. Necessary Evil 20:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right about my idea, I just can't understaind why do you back all the BOLD names. I still think we're giving TOO MUCH emphasys to usefull information, the people just need to show who is onbord of the station right now. Onsly 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The bold names are to distinguish between short-time visitors and long-time visitors (ISS-crew members).
 * The (presently on board) shows who's onboard the station right now. (If it was updated).
 * Your double flag is a good idea, some editors were wondering; wasn't there an Iranian tourist etc. --Necessary Evil 10:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ESA LOGO.svg
The image Image:ESA LOGO.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

 * File:AEB Logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NASA or wikipedia?
interesting. From STS-126 "During the Mission Status briefing, ISS Deputy Program Manager Kirk Shireman noted the upcoming ten-year anniversary of the International Space Station. Shireman reviewed the progress and advancements that have come from the project, and reviewed some of the major milestones. Thirty Progress vehicles have visited the station, seventeen Soyuz vehicles, twenty-seven shuttles, and one Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV). One hundred sixty-four people have visited the station from fourteen nations, and on Thursday, the tenth anniversary, Shireman said the station will have orbited the Earth 57,509 times, for a total distance of over 1.3 billion miles.[41]" But funnily, we have 167 people listed from 15 countries. Personally, I trust this page more than the numbers NASA PAO rounds up. Still, this is one more reason that we need references for this article, so that we can be sure. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 164 people must be prior to STS-126's docking but the 14 nations is strange. If it was more than 15 I could have understod it (Kazakhstan, Iran, UK, Australia, Peru...). --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, my refs should confirm all 167 unique visitors and all double and triple visits. Unless some of the early astronauts did not ENTER the station (for which i could find no evidence), NASA simply was mistaken. I referenced by launchevent, and the amount of refs (44) matches the number of flights on List of human spaceflights to the ISS. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given NASA's discomfort with space tourists, perhaps Shireman did not have them in his counts. Rillian (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * South Africa only participated with a space tourist so it's perhaps the missing country? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Garriott
I thought he was joint British-American, does this not change the list of nationalities? thanks --Tukogbani (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sortable table
I believe that a sortable table is fine. 193.174.105.66's table has got some imperfections. The references shouldn't have its own column and "Currently on the ISS" should be replaced by a "details" column with "space tourist" and "currently on the ISS". A column with number of ISS crew memberships and a column with total ISS visits would come in handy. Furthermore the "m" and "f" in the "Sex" column is crude. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not I, and saying some imperfections is definitely downplaying the issues. Firstly, being able to select by alphabetical order (re all the As together) is valuable in my opinion. The suggested table removes such ability, as well as the running count of the visitors. I also agree with the issues with how the columns are presented regarding the details. Also, purely using flags is not acceptable with a table and should be augmented by the nation as well if that route is taken. I am also in agreement with the crude remarks, any column should not be filled by a single letter. On the sex issue I am of the mind that we should retain the current female symbol (Symbol venus.svg) even if a table were implemented. Perhaps if a table were implemented for each letter, not a single table that encompasses every visitor, then perhaps I would be more enthusiastic. I would also argue for the keeping of the bolded names for ISS crew. -MBK004 23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For a comparison the German Wikipedia uses a sortable table de:Liste der Raumfahrer auf der Internationalen Raumstation. Bolded names for ISS crewmembers is a must. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Concerning MBK004's criticisms:
 * being able to select by alphabetical order (re all the As together) is valuable in my opinion. -- I may be missing something, but it is perfectly possible to select and copy text from the table. What do you mean?
 * The suggested table removes the running count of the visitors. -- Could you elaborate on that? What do you mean by running count?
 * if a table were implemented for each letter, not a single table that encompasses every visitor, then perhaps I would be more enthusiastic. -- I think this would kill a big benefit of the proposed table: In the table, you can click a column and instantly see a list of all the females, all tourists, all crew, and so on. Breaking up the table would make that impossible. --84.130.111.83 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the table proposal was a good idea, but not well executed. Summarizing the above comments of Necessary Evil and MBK004, I suggest the following improvements to the table: What do you think of the table proposal with these changes? Once discussion reaches a consensus, I would be willing to do the work. --84.130.111.83 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove "references" column, put them next to the astronaut's name
 * Merge the columns "Currently on ISS" and "Crew/visitor/tourist". The new column would contain: "tourist", "visitor", "crew (current)", "crew (former)"
 * Use bold for the names of current and former crew
 * Replace "m" and "f" with [[Image:Mars symbol (heavy dark blue).svg|10px]] and [[Image:Symbol venus.svg|10px]]
 * For astronaut names, use the format so that they get sorted by last name (a great idea from the German wikipedia)
 * For nations, use the format (see German wikipedia)

 * While the design is open I'll suggest a column with "ISS-Expedition memberships" with hyperlinks. The "visitor" label is odd, all of them are visitors! I'll prefer "Currently on ISS" and "tourist" in the "remarks" or something column - and a lot of void cells. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I've done some work on the first table, I think Arrivals is the least ambiguous term, it's clear. Also, some of them are still up there, yes ? I think the Germans have the best table for names, but it would be easiest to do by dumping cites in this article and relying on the links to each individuals article, which is not a problem for me. If it is a problem for anyone else, just D.I.Y. otherwise I might do it on my next visit if people are cool with that. It may not be exactly as you wish at first, so just attack it after it's arrival with extra columns or whatever. Penyulap   talk 16:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Male/Female Distinction
Is there any particular reason for the inclusion of a female designation for female astronauts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.69.7 (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I guess this is meant to show the under-represantion scarcity of female Cosmonauts/Astronauts. Tony Mach (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 * It really does make the list look clunky, both because there is no matching male indicator for the male astronauts, and because a coloured image is used rather than the ♀ symbol. At a glance it makes Pink Venus symbol.svg look like the flag of some strange additional nationality. Frankly, I think using F/M would probably be less obtrusive and more readable than using the roman symbols ♀/♂, though some on this talk page say using simple letters rather than the Roman symbols is "crude" for some unexplained reason.
 * The alternative would be to just leave it out entirely; specifying the sex of all visitors to anything seems rather bizarre when you stop to think about it; we do not do this for the list of Challenger Deep visitors for example. 72.49.7.18 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What is "one double flight"?
The text of the article offers (at least for me) no answer to the question: What is "one double flight"? What exactly is a "double flight"? Ditto for "eight double, four triple and one quadruple flight" and so on.

There seems to be something in the text about this ("twice, thrice") that may or may not explain that phrase, but I either I am too thick to understand it, or the text is written only for people who are already "in the know".

Could anybody be so nice and elaborate on this, so that more people like me understand the meaning of that phrase? Tony Mach (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Better late than never! Belgium has one double flight, which means that a Belgian (Frank De Winne) has visited the ISS twice. Russia has nine double, four triple and two quadruple flights, which means that nine Russians have visited the ISS twice, four Russians have visited the ISS thrice and two Russians have been there four times. 27 Russians have visited the International Space Station once, so the Russian Flights are calculated like this: 27+9×2+4×3+2×4=65.
 * If "one double flight" is confusing, then feel free to change it to "one double flyer" or something. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

CNES
I have the impression that Philippe Perrin flew as CNES and not as ESA. So he should not be in the ESA total. 83.163.5.82 (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. According to esa.int then "In December 2002, Perrin joined the ESA European Astronaut Corps". Since he flew June 5-19 2002 his agency was CNES, and not ESA. Keep up the good work 83.163.5.82 --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Commented-out JAXA logo
Why was the JAXA logo commented out from the agencies table ? I've checked the main article on the Japanese agency and there doesn't seem to be a problem with using its logo there. Is the copyright license for the logo too restrictive for it to be included in the table ? --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of International Space Station visitors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080803015945/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/resupply/index.html to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/resupply/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AEB-Brazil.svg

Tourists only links to Space Adventures
I know for certain that Axiom has also done tourist flights to the ISS, yet the table row heading for tourists links only to Space Adventures. Should Axiom and Space Adventures be in separate agency rows, or is the intent to have them share the Tourists heading? 72.49.7.18 (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Liza Dalby

Not a geisha
Hey, guys. There seems to be confusion about Liza Dalby, with this myth that she was once a geisha. Certainly she spent time with geisha, as indeed Lesley Downer did when she wrote her own book on the geisha world. However there is no evidence to suggest she was a geisha in any sense of the word.

To say she was a "novice" is to indicate that she was a trainee. To say that she was a trainee is to imply she was taking the lessons young Japanese women do in becoming maiko and then geisha. But she did not do that, as she admits - so we cannot refer to her as a "novice geisha". Being a geisha is a lot more than wearing white makeup and having a cute name. If someone wishes to re-write this article more fully, then by all means talk about how she was engaged in the geisha world - and that she accompanied some geisha during their engagements for a year.

But a geisha has to go through years of training as a maiko first - and you cannot become a maiko overnight.

Regards, John Smith's 01:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, of course she was too old to become a maiko. However to class her as a geisha, even a novice, is a bit much really. It was more a case of her being done a favour by friends than anything else. John Smith's 01:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A woman can debut as a full-geisha without going through the maiko period, as stated in Dalby's Geisha and Leslie Downer's Women of the Pleasure Quarters (The geiko Kikuryuu had attended college and in her 20's was too old to be a maiko).

True, Dalby was never an official geisha, but it doesn't discredit her research or experience. Claw789 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the point I was making was that it's misleading to further the misconception that she was a geisha. It isn't to try to invalidate her research, merely set the record straight. John Smith's 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah, but Dalby says directly on her own webpage (and likely in her book, which I haven't read) that she was a geisha. Of course, I understand that she did not, could not, go through the formal training process beginning from childhood. But if she, and Ichiume, and Hasui Kiyo, considered her a geisha, then she was one, no? LordAmeth 09:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion
To save duplication, more discussion on the content of this article can be found at Talk:Fiona Graham, since the two topics are closely related and one editor is tendentiously editing both articles. Cheers Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 * It's too difficult to follow what's happening over there. All we have to do on this page is follow the sources, and it's fairly well sourced now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dalby as "first foreign geisha"
As Graham and her IP socks are so obsessed with what this talk page says, I thought I'd point out three quotes from a reliable source which is already cited which show that Dalby was the first foreign geisha (empahsis mine):

1) American anthropologist Liza Dalby is famous for being the first Western woman to have ever trained as a geisha.

2) Because of her age, Dalby couldn’t make the conventional debut as a maiko - “Most geisha in Kyoto start out as maiko at 17. I was 24” - but it was agreed that she could instead debut as a full geisha.

3) Dalby finally made her debut in 1976, taking the geisha name Ichigiku, and soon earned a reputation as "the blue-eyed geisha” in the Japanese media.

I hope that clears things up! Regards Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 * That's what she claims. But there's no evidence that she was a geisha. For example, I have not heard or read anything to suggest that her time at functions or parties was billed for. Or that she was on the formal Gion records. John Smith's (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed some text because it's misleading. She was not a geisha, regardless of the fact she as allowed to dress up and go to parties. For example, if a group of doctors allowed me to dress up in a white coat and stethoscope, introducing me as "Doctor Smith" to patients and allowing me to observe, that alone would not make me a doctor. Perhaps we could discuss how to change the article further to keep it factual rather than give her the title "geisha". John Smith's (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your changes. If you want to cite to something in support of your assertions, fine, but your wording does not conform to the cited sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you actually read my comment? If so, are you saying that you don't believe me? Please don't just reply with a request for a source, actually address the point I'm making. John Smith's (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and maybe you would like to actually read the sources before you direct me to them. For example, read page 3 of the Bardsley article. "Dalby never participated in the formal ritual of sisterhood or charged for her ozashiki appearances". John Smith's (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two sources in this part of the article. One is The Telegraph, and the other is a book review of Dalby's book. The book review is probably not the best source for information on whether she was a geisha or not. Here are the two sentences (before your changes):"During her Ph.D studies on geisha, she was invited to join a geisha community in Kyoto. Since she was past the regular apprentice age of 17, and due to her skill on the shamisen, she was allowed to debut as a full geisha under the name Ichigiku."

 * Here is the material after your changes:"During her Ph.D studies on geisha, she was invited to attend geisha parties in Kyoto and play the shamisen."

 * The Telegraph says:"Dalby never planned to become a geisha herself, but during the course of her research was eventually invited to join a small geisha community in Kyoto, where the geisha tradition is sometimes said to have originated."

 * AND "Dalby finally made her debut in 1976, taking the geisha name Ichigiku, and soon earned a reputation as "the blue-eyed geisha” in the Japanese media."

 * So, The Telegraph fully supports the assertions before your changes and doesn't say anything about "geisha parties". As for your quote from page 3 of the review, the full quote says: "Dalby never participated in the formal ritual of sisterhood or charged for her ozashiki appearances, but she writes in the original preface to Geisha of being interviewed herself in Japan almost as much as she interviewed others, becoming something of a curiosity as the Japanese-speaking American geisha (1983, xv)." (emphasis added) So, what is your point?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when were The Telegraph or Leah Hyslop authorities on geisha or Japanese culture? Newspapers say a lot of things out of ignorance or simplification. And Bardsley did not say "Dalby was a geisha", she was referring to what Dalby herself wrote.
 * With all due respect, I think the issue is that you don't understand yourself what being a geisha is. It isn't dressing up and going to parties, it's not much different from being part of a profession. Like every lawyer has to go to law school or get a similar qualification. You can't be a lawyer by rocking up to court and defending people. All geisha bill for their attendances and go through an apprenticeship. It's a set pattern. Like, for example, furisode-san. They're not geisha, even though they do the same sort of things, because they do a compacted course. John Smith's (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really very simple - per WP:V we follow what the sources say, even if we don't agree with the sources or don't think what they say are true. If other sources can be brought forward, that's fine, but these are the sources we have now and the page should reflect the sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that I don't know much about being a geisha, but I edit all sorts of articles without being an expert on the subject matter. In some ways, it's a bigger problem that you know more (apparently) about being a geisha. If a reliable source says something, it can be asserted and included if it's relevant to the article. The Telegraph is a reliable source, and your dispute with what they're saying is WP:OR. If you want to rewrite it, then the burden is on you to find other reliable sources in support of your assertions, not just your own knowledge about geisha. As for the review, you are correct, and I'd be happy not to cite to the Bardsley review at all because it is in fact a review of Dalby's book, and we can't cite to Dalby for controversial assertions. The Telegraph, standing alone, supports the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll address both your comments. The Telegraph is not necessarily a reliable source for all subject matters. One has to consider the author and the subject matter. I see no evidence that Leah Hyslop knows anything about the subject matter and can make a judgment that Dalby was a geisha.
 * Bbb23, yes the Bardsley article cannot be used to support the assertion that Dalby was a geisha because the reference to her being a geisha was just referring to what Dalby said in the book. But now we're agreed on this, it's even more true that the quotes I took from the Bardsley article are valid in explaining why Dalby was not a geisha. John Smith's (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But isn't your comment about the The Telegraph based on your own knowledge about geisha, in which case we get back to WP:OR and the need for another source to make your point. As far as Bardsley, yes, we agree on the first part, but not on the second.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's that you have to prove that The Telegraph and Hyslop constitute a reliable source for the purposes of declaring Dalby a geisha. Wikipedia does not hand out "reliable source status" to various publications on all subjects. I've also noticed the phrase "debut as a full geisha" is packed between quotations from Dalby's book and/or an interview with her. This suggests that Hyslop has just lifted that comment from what Dalby has said.
 * You'll have to explain why you don't agree with me on the second part about Bardsley. John Smith's (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take The Telegraph issue to WP:RSN?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I do that, can you please address my above points? I would prefer that we try to resolve this. And if you feel that the Telegraph article is a reliable source you can take it to the noticeboard as well. John Smith's (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in the New York Times article I added, and there are more New York Times articles - I only picked one because the page was unsourced and tagged. In my view Dalby is primarily notable as a writer; the training as a geisha is a dispute that spilling over from another page and not at all relevant. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that her experiences with the geisha community are not worth getting too hung up on. Does this mean that you would accept alternative wording that does not seek to declare her as a "geisha"? John Smith's (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, could I please get your input on the above questions? It would be helpful to know why you believe Hyslop is a reliable source on this matter (it's her article after all), in conjunction with my earlier point that the phrase "debut as a full geisha" is packed between quotations from Dalby's book and/or an interview with her. And Bbb23, why don't you feel that the Bardsley article explains why Dalby was not a geisha? John Smith's (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your request on my page to comment: I would like to follow the sources. This, from the New York Times Book Review, is the first source on the page, and there is says she became a geisha. I'm not interested in finding every source ever written to prove otherwise, because that's using sources to prove a point. This is a very very short stub and not worth so much discussion imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * John Smith's, I guess you're OK with removing all of the content from the Fiona Graham article since the only sources describing her as a "geisha" are newspapers and magazines which are (1) not knowledgeable about geisha according to your standards and (2) only writing stuff which Graham has obviously fed them from her press kit. Whaddayathink? Same standards for both articles, right? Your Lord and Master (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tkeeper. Ok, how about saying (for example) that she has been referred to as a "geisha" by publications like the NYTBR but she did not do certain things as pointed out by Bardsley? If I have time, I will also see if features such as billing for attendances are referred to in more detailed books on geisha, so I can see if that has any significance. Is that ok? John Smith's (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Lord&M. That depends, are there any articles that suggest she did not bill for her attendance or otherwise not do things that all geisha should do? And Graham also suggests that Dalby was not a real geisha. Is that simply PR or might she have a point? John Smith's (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Oh, we also have a slight problem. This article refers to Graham as the first ever western geisha. This and the other Telegraph article can't both be right. John Smith's (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This article needs numerous sentences to be rewritten and/or removed
A lot of it (the statements about kimono, biographical/oversimplified descriptions of Murasaki Shikibu as "a poet", etc.) is just trivial material that might itself be attributed to this author, but doesn't belong in a biographical article about her in an encyclopedia. If the statement about 11th-century court ladies writing descriptions about kimono is accurate, it should be added to one of those articles, not this one. But fo the love of god, please don't mention Salon.com inline in the Murasaki Shikibu article! :P Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 17:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liza Dalby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014221922/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_985.php/Ken_Watanabe_to_Star_in_Memoirs_of_A_Geisha to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_985.php/Ken_Watanabe_to_Star_in_Memoirs_of_A_Geisha
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927072013/http://www.stonebridge.com/shopexd.asp?id=197 to http://www.stonebridge.com/shopexd.asp?id=197

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liza Dalby


text:
Talk:Omaha Ak-Sar-Ben Knights

Old knights
I hope you're not trying to imply that the current team and the previous teams are connected. I let the references to the older teams slide during the off season before this team actually skated. Now that they are operating, I would hope this article shifts its focus to them. I encourage you to create articles for the previous team with the same name. I'll help you get them started if you would like. ccwaters 21:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Information about the original Omaha Knights has been moved to its own article. –Swid 20:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Franchise history.
Might want to double check the Utica Devils part of the franchise history. Pretty sure this team was called the "Salt Lake Golden Eagles" and where in the IHL before they where in Saint John. And before that they where the Moncton Golden Hawks (or Golden Flames, not 100% on that, but Brett Hull played for them in Moncton when he was in the Flames farm system). Cadderly29 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Cadderly29
 * Just to make sure we are on the same page: That section is the history of the hockey franchise, not the history of the Calgary Flames' affiliations. ccwaters 10:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What sources are there that the Utica Devils became the Saint John Flames? I see this linkage is only mentioned on the Knights page itself, and not on the articles for the Devils or Flames. Flibirigit 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's this . Not the greatest source, but its a start. Off hand, I think the Utica franchise was locally owned, but Calgary bought them out right and still partially own it with the Ak-Sar-Ben organization. The Capital District Islanders moved from RPI's rink in Troy, NY to Albany proper and became the River Rats with a Devils affiliation. ccwaters 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, seems logical enough. Flibirigit 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumored move
I was skeptical about this Quad Cities until I read this in Glen Falls (Adirondack): The important part :"The AHL extended its deadline for teams to determine home ice locations for next season from May 15 to May 25, said Jason Chaimovitch, a league spokesman.". Typically the AHL wants a firm league roster at the spring meeting (which just concluded). I figured we'd have announcements for any changes by now. Good reading on the subject: http://prohockeynews.com/columnists/index.cfm?Author_ID=43 ccwaters 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This rumour came out of nowhere, but it has been mentioned in at least three reliable sources so far.  I can certantly cite the others if need be.  Given that the Flames and Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben are rumoured to have lost over $4 million in two years, it isnt surprising the Flames are looking to get out of the market. Resolute 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Omaha Ak-Sar-Ben Knights


text:
Campos dos Goytacazes

Campos dos Goytacazes is a municipality located in the northern region of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil, with a population of 471,737 inhabitants.

History
Colonization of the area started in the 16th century, and the village of São Salvador de Campos de Goytacazes was founded on May 29, 1677. On March 28, 1835, the village was promoted to city status.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Campos was the see of Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, nicknamed "The Lion of Campos", who was one of the bishops who opposed the Vatican II reforms and who teamed with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of Dakar to consecrate four independent bishops in Écône, Switzerland, in 1988. Nowadays there are in Campos two Roman Catholic jurisdictions: a Diocese, whose Bishop is Monsignor Roberto Gomes Guimarães and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, whose Apostolic Administrator is Monsignor Fernando Areas Rifan.

Location
Campos dos Goytacazes has an area of 4,032 km2, which makes it the largest municipality in the state by area, and its elevation is 14 m. Its name comes from the geographical characteristic of the region, very flat with fields (campos in Portuguese) and from the Goytacazes Indians, which inhabited the region. Campos, as the city is usually known, is a macro region of the Northern Fluminense, and is a micro region of Campos dos Goytacazes. The city has a tropical climate.

The municipality contains part of the 21444 ha Desengano State Park, created in 1970.

The city's distance to Rio de Janeiro city, which is the capital of the state, is 286 km. BR-101 is the access highway of the city of Campos. Regular air services are operated from its airport Bartolomeu Lysandro. It is the easternmost municipality in Rio de Janeiro.

Climate
According to data provided by the National Institute of Meteorology (INMET), the lowest recorded temperature in Campos dos Goytacazes was 9.5 °C on 6 July 1942 and the highest was 41.6 °C on 31 October 2012. The most accumulated precipitation in the same period was 159.3 mm on 23 December 1955. Records equal or superior to 100 mm include:
 * 149.7 mm on 2 November 1977,
 * 146.6 mm on 18 November 2008,
 * 133.8 mm on 14 November 2016,
 * 117.8 mm on 20 November 1972,
 * 111.4 mm on 24 November 1966,
 * 108.6 mm on 6 March 1960,
 * 107.8 mm on 27 November 1992,
 * 107.3 mm on 11 November 1970,
 * 105.4 mm on 12 December 2005,
 * 103.3 mm on 23 February 1933,
 * 102.8 mm on 28 November 2008 and
 * 102 mm on 28 March 1966.

Economy
City's economy is based on oil extraction. The GDP for the city was R$17,283,381. (2016).

The per capita income for the city was R$35,475. (2016).

Crime
Campos dos Goytacazes recorded 233 homicides in 2018 for a murder rate of 46 homicides per 100,000 people for the year. This makes Campos dos Goytacazes the most violent city in the southern half of Brazil.

Educational institutions

 * Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense;
 * Universidade Cândido Mendes;
 * Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro;
 * Faculdade de Medicina de Campos;
 * Faculdade de Direito de Campos;
 * Faculdade de Odontologia Campos;
 * IF Fluminense (former CEFET Campos);
 * Universidade Federal Fluminense;
 * Universidade Salgado de Oliveira;
 * Universidade Estácio de Sá;
 * Faculdade Batista Fluminense;
 * Ise-Censa;
 * Unigranrio;

Demographics
The population of Campos is 471,737, up from the 436,008 in 2000, but down from the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s and 1950s. The city in the 1950s was the second largest of the state of Rio de Janeiro. The reasons behind these reductions are the "crash" that the economy of the town, based on oil, suffered in 1954, something similar that happened in Detroit with the auto industries. According to the 2010 census of IBGE (Brazilian institute of geography and statistics), whites represent 47.6% of population, brown or mulatos 36.8% and black of African 14.6%. Other races represent 1.0% of the population.

Sports
There are at least four football clubs in the city, namely Americano, Campos, Goytacaz and Rio Branco. The derby between Americano and Goytacaz is known as Goyta-cano.

title: Campos dos Goytacazes