text:
Primary progressive aphasia

In neuropathy, primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a type of neurological syndrome in which language capabilities slowly and progressively become impaired. As with other types of aphasia, the symptoms that accompany PPA depend on what parts of the brain's left hemisphere are significantly damaged. However, unlike most other aphasias, PPA results from continuous deterioration in brain tissue, which leads to early symptoms being far less detrimental than later symptoms.

Those with PPA slowly lose the ability to speak, write, read, and generally comprehend language. Eventually, almost every patient becomes mute and completely loses the ability to understand both written and spoken language. Although it was first described as solely impairment of language capabilities while other mental functions remain intact, it is now recognized that many, if not most of those with PPA experience impairment of memory, short-term memory formation and loss of executive functions.

It was first described as a distinct syndrome by M. Marsel Mesulam in 1982. PPAs have a clinical and pathological overlap with the frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum of disorders and Alzheimer's disease. Unlike those affected by Alzheimer's, people with PPA are generally able to maintain self-sufficiency.

Causes
Currently, the specific causes for PPA and other degenerative brain disease similar to PPA are viewed as idiopathic (unknown). Autopsies have revealed a variety of brain abnormalities in people who had PPA. These autopsies, as well as imaging techniques such as CT scans, MRI, EEG, single photon emission computed tomography, and positron emission tomography, have generally revealed abnormalities to be almost exclusively in the left hemisphere.

Risk factors
There have been no large epidemiological studies on the incidence and prevalence of the PPA variants. Though it most likely has been underestimated, onset of PPA has been found to occur in the sixth or seventh decade.

There are no known environmental risk factors for the progressive aphasias. However, one observational, retrospective study suggested that vasectomy could be a risk factor for PPA in men. These results have yet to be replicated or demonstrated by prospective studies.

PPA is not considered a hereditary disease. However, relatives of a person with any form of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), including PPA, are at slightly greater risk of developing PPA or another form of the condition. In a quarter of patients diagnosed with PPA, there is a family history of PPA or one of the other disorders in the FTLD spectrum of disorders. It has been found that genetic predisposition varies among the different PPA variants, with progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA) being more commonly familial in nature than logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) or semantic dementia (SD).

The most convincing genetic basis of PPA has been found to be a mutation in the GRN gene. Most patients with observed GRN mutations present clinical features of PNFA, but the phenotype can be atypical.

Diagnostic criteria
The following diagnosis criteria were defined by Mesulam: Whether or not PPA and other aphasias are the only source of cognitive impairment in a patient is often difficult to assess because: 1) as with other neurologically degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, there are currently no reliable non-invasive diagnostic tests for aphasias, and thus neuropsychological assessments are the only tool physicians have for diagnosing patients; and 2) aphasias often affect other, non-language portions of these neuropsychological tests, such as those specific for memory.
 * As opposed to having followed trauma to the brain, a patient must show an insidious onset and a gradual progression of aphasia, defined as a disorder of sentence and/or word usage, affecting the production and comprehension of speech.
 * The disorder in question must be the only determinant on functional impairment in the activities of the patient's daily living.
 * On the basis of diagnostic procedures, the disorder in question must be unequivocally attributed to a neurodegenerative process.

Classification
In 2011, the classification of primary progressive aphasia was updated to include three clinical variants. Patients must first be diagnosed with PPA, and then divided into variants based on speech production features, repetition, single- word and syntax comprehension, confrontation naming, semantic knowledge, and reading/spelling. In the classical Mesulam criteria for primary progressive aphasia, there are two variants: a non-fluent type PNFA and a fluent type SD.

A third variant of primary progressive aphasia, LPA was then added, and is an atypical form of Alzheimer's disease. For PNFA, the core criteria for diagnosis include agrammatism and slow and labored speech. Inconsistent speech sound errors are also very common, including distortions, deletions, and insertions. In terms of comprehension, there are deficits in syntax and sentence comprehension due to grammatical complexity, but single- word and object comprehension is relatively maintained.

The second variant, SD, presents with deficits in single-word and object comprehension. Naming impairments can be severe, specially for low-frequency objects, and can eventually lead to a more widespread semantic memory deficiency over time. The ability to read and write can also be impaired if there are irregularities between pronunciation and spelling. However, repetition and motor speech is relatively preserved.

The logopenic variant involves impairments in word retrieval, sentence repetition, and phonological paraphasias, comparable to conduction aphasia. Compared to the semantic variant, single word comprehension and naming is spared, however, sentence comprehension presents difficulty because of length and grammatical complexity. Speech will include incomplete words, hesitations preceding content words, and repetition. However, these PPA subtypes differ from similar aphasias, as these subtypes do not occur acutely following trauma to the brain, such as following a stroke, due to differing functional and structural neuroanatomical patterns of involvement and the progressive nature of the disease.

Unlike those affected by Alzheimer's, people with PPA are generally able to maintain the ability to care for themselves, remain employed, and pursue interests and hobbies. Moreover, in diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Pick's disease, and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, progressive deterioration of comprehension and production of language is just one of the many possible types of mental deterioration, such as the progressive decline of memory, motor skills, reasoning, awareness, and visuospatial skills.

Treatment
Due to the progressive, continuous nature of the disease, improvement over time seldom occurs in patients with PPA as it often does in patients with aphasias caused by trauma to the brain.

In terms of medical approaches to treating PPA, there are currently no drugs specifically used for patients with PPA, nor are there any specifically designed interventions for PPA. A large reason for this is the limited research that has been done on this disease. However, in some cases, patients with PPA are prescribed the same drugs Alzheimer's patients are normally prescribed.

The primary approach to treating PPA has been with behavioral treatment, with the hope that these methods can provide new ways for patients to communicate in order to compensate for their deteriorated abilities. Speech therapy can assist an individual with strategies to overcome difficulties. There are three very broad categories of therapy interventions for aphasia: restorative therapy approaches, compensatory therapy approaches, and social therapy approaches.

Rapid and sustained improvement in speech and dementia in a patient with primary progressive aphasia utilizing off-label perispinal etanercept, an anti-TNF treatment strategy also used for Alzheimer's, has been reported. A video depicting the patient's improvement was published in conjunction with the print article. These findings have not been independently replicated and remain controversial.

History
M. Marsel Mesulam coined the term primary progressive aphasia.

title: Primary progressive aphasia


text:
Valleyfield

Valleyfield may refer to:

 * Valleyfield, Fife, Scotland
 * Valleyfield, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
 * Valleyfield, Prince Edward Island, a community in Prince Edward Island
 * Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec, historically referred to in English as Valleyfield.
 * Valleyfield, chartered by the Hudson's Bay Company from 1831–1843, see Hudson's Bay Company vessels

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

title: Valleyfield


text:
Talk:Valleyfield

Untitled
Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles Paul 02:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Valleyfield


text:
Camp William James

Camp William James was opened in 1940 by Dartmouth College professor, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, as a center for training youth for leadership in the Civilian Conservation Corps, which had been inaugurated in 1933 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was located near Tunbridge, Vermont. Funding for the camp was withdrawn only a year after its founding, along with the rest of the CCC, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought the United States into World War II.

The camp's namesake and inspiration was the pragmatic philosopher, William James, who delivered an influential address at Stanford University in 1906 with the title, "The Moral Equivalent of War". "A permanently successful peace-economy cannot be a simple pleasure-economy", James argued, "Martial virtues must be the enduring cement; intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command, must still remain the rock upon which states are built." To devote oneself to these martial virtues in the service of others, taking up the menial tasks of society like an army at war for the sake of peace, is a force equal to war, James argued. Rosenstock-Huessy took up this theme, calling the young men who enlisted in the Camp program, "soldiers".

In 1945, Rosenstock-Huessy wrote in his book, The Christian Future: "Our peacemakers and planners must be supported by camps all over the globe, where youth, recruited from every town and village all over the globe, serves. This service must implement the global organization as the young must experience what the old are planning before the old can have any authority."

Among those who had joined the short-lived work at Camp William James was a Dartmouth student, Page Smith, who later became an important American historian at the University of California, Santa Cruz. While on the faculty at UCLA, in 1962, Smith wrote a letter to Hubert Humphrey proposing an international version of the Camp William James experiment in the "moral equivalent of war". Humphrey passed along the idea to the US President, John F. Kennedy, and by 1963, the Peace Corps was created.

title: Camp William James


text:
Mater Dei High School

Mater Dei High School may refer to:

 * Mater Dei High School (Santa Ana, California), Catholic high school in Orange County, California
 * Mater Dei High School (Breese, Illinois), Catholic high school in Clinton County, Illinois
 * Mater Dei High School (Evansville, Indiana), Catholic high school in Vanderburgh County, Indiana
 * Mater Dei High School (New Jersey), Catholic high school in Middletown Township, New Jersey
 * Mater Dei Catholic High School (Chula Vista, California)
 * Mater Dei Catholic College, Catholic high school in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia

title: Mater Dei High School


text:
File:Dexys Midnight Runners Searching for the Young Soul Rebels.jpg

Summary
Cover to Searching for the Young Soul Rebels by Dexys Midnight Runners.

Licensing
This picture depicts a young Catholic family being forcibly moved from their home during the troubles,by the UDA, North Belfast, Northern Ireland.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gross, Minsky & Mogul

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gross, Minsky & Mogul
vanity, advertisement nominated by Quuxplusone 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This firm was added to the "Law Firms" article. It is a well known law firm in Maine and New England. I will delete it if that's what people want, but it's not an advertisement, no more than the article for any of the other law firms. There's not solid reason to delete this page. I will continue to expand it and improve its quality, if allowed. I've started other articlessuch as the University of Maine School of Law and greatly expanded Searsport, Maine. If given the chance, I'll make this just as good as those. Please let me know when this is resolved so I can remove the tag and continue my work. Thank you. AFethke 02:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see any indication that this firm is in any way notable. We don't have, and IMO shouldn't have, an article on every small law firm in the world. Delete unless edited to indicte the encyclopedic significance of this firm. DES (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like,I can cite the hundreds of times the firm and its members have been mentioned in various media outlets, the countless appellate cases they have argued and the case citations, (meaning the firm has been instrumental in shaping the course of Miane and federal law) the fact that their members are (were) the Presidents of the State Bar Association, County Bar Association, Maine Trial Lawyers Associaiton....balh blah blah. It may be small, but all firms in Maine are considered small. In fact, Gross Minsky is condered a medium sized firm in Maine. If firms have to be over 50 peoples to be notable that knocks out every firm in Miane, NH and almost allof Vermont. That's not right. How else could I prove it its notability?AFethke 02:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I will probably be the only person voting for the article, given the small legal communbity here in Maine, so delete it if you will and I won't argue anymore. I just think it would be a mistake. Just mentioning in the list of law firms on the law firms page would be fine I guess. Just think about it and don't be so quick to judge.AFethke 02:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment -- Ideally, find some notable case the firm dealt with that appeared in nationwide or better yet, global media. Being medium-sized or large compared to other firms in a state doesn't necessarily make it notable (due to the limited geographical scope of one state) --Mysidia (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Woah, I would have waited more than 10 minutes to put a VfD tag on. If the author can come up with something more compelling that "involved in malpractice suits", then maybe we should keep. Sdedeo 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Most Vfd nominations come from people doing new pages or recent changes patrol, so they are usually made soon after the article is created. An advantage is that it keeps the contributor from investing more time on it if it's going to get deleted. Niteowlneils 03:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. As much as I don't like biting (relative) newcomers, I went thru the first 5 pages of google hits and they were all atty directories except a few thanking the firm for being one of many firms sponsoring events (such as "A Benefit Event for Maine Coast Memorial Hospital’s Breast Clinic Endowment Fund")--nothing from findlaw or such (and no news/journal articles about cases) that one would expect if they were involved in any notable case(s). Wikipedia is not a business directory. Niteowlneils 03:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, let's just delete it. I'm tired fo fighting. I do believe it should stay listed on the "Lw Firms" article, as it is one of the best known firms in Maine and is well known throughout New England,but that's it. Thanks.AFethke 10:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Dottore So 19:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. *drew 22:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete pending more information. My thoughts on the inclusion of law firms have to do with stature in the legal community or involvment in notable cases. Representing plaintiff's before the Supreme Court is also intrinsicly notable. Klonimus 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are we still going through this? I am in favor of deleting this, I was the one who created in the first place and no one else has said to keep it.....what's the hold up? There is a clear consensus (unanimous actually) would an administrator please do what was done 2 or 3 times already, just delete this. ThanksAFethke 23:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Wyandotte Cave

Untitled
Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles/Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics Paul 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge
The merge sign has been on this article for 2 months, and no discussion, therefore I assume that no one has a problem with it and will perform the merge. The pi pirate 16:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely crushed.
I found Wyandotte Caves on the copywrite violations list and, thinking Wikipedia should certianly have an article on the subject, proceeded to write Wyandotte Caves/Temp. Then, whilst doing Google research for that article, I discovered this one! I've spent the better part of two days writing an article Wikipedia already had!!! I'm crushed.

At any rate, this article seems to be mostly copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and it only mentions the larger of the two caves, Wyandotte. Already the article I'm writing is somewhat more detailed than this one and I'm not nearly done with it. However, if I do finish it, it will be very redundant with this one.

I have three ideas on what to do with this;
 * 1. Merge the two articles here, making Wyandotte Caves a redirect.
 * 2. Merge the two articles there, seeing as the whole thing as it is used for tours and so forth is called Wyandotte Caves, and Wyandotte Cave is only one of the Wyandotte Caves, make Wyandotte Cave and Siberts Cave redirects.
 * 3. Focus that article more on Wyandotte Caves as the modern tourist attraction, and leave this one as about Wyandotte Cave, creating an article for Siberts Cave.

I'm going to avoid doing additional heavy editing work on the other article for a while. I don't want to waste effort. Once a decision is made on what to do with these two articles I will probably return to it.

What do other people think should be done? ONUnicorn 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Option #2 makes the most sense. Thanks/wangi 15:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Wyandotte Caves/Temp

 * I think we can safely redirect to the existing Wyandotte Cave article. The source text that the copyright violation was taken from can't seem to make its mind up about the plural nature of the caveS or singular cave. I think it's simply a cave, much in the same way we refer to Mammoth Cave in the singular, even though it's the world's longest cave system. --Durin 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I checked out the source that the copy vio was taken from, and while I have used it in writing this temp article, it seems to be slightly confused about a great number of things. From other sources I've been using, it seems to me that Wyandotte Cave and Siberts Cave are not in the same "Cave System" like Mammoth Cave is (where the whole system is connected), but are two seperate and unconnected caves (I could be misunderstanding here, if you have a source that says they are a single system, let me know).  Anyway, like I pointed out on the other talk page, that article is mostly taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica, and this one (in my opinion, but I am biased) is more up-to-date, more detailed, and (again, my personal, biased, opinion) better.  Plus, the official website of the cave is http://www.wyandottecaves.com/ (notice the s).  So I was thinking more along the lines of a merge to Wyandotte Caves once the copyright issues are sorted out, with, of course, all appropriate redirects including Wyandotte Cave and Siberts Cave.  A simple redirect from Wyandotte Caves to Wyandotte Cave would eliminate all the work I've done over the last few days, and a lot of that information is not present in the existing Wyandotte Cave article.  Why do you think a simple redirect is better than a merge? ONUnicorn 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply dumping your work here. Merge/redirect. --Durin 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Village Pump

 * Why dont you merge the info in both the articles and let one redirect towards the other? -- Lost 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my thought, but which location should the final merged article wind up at? Wyandotte Cave or Wyandotte Caves? I really don't think there's enough material or noteworthieness to have 3 articles (one on each of the two caves and one on the two caves together).  Right now I'm leaning towards Wyandotte Caves, but I wanted to see what other people thought first. ONUnicorn 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Wyandotte Caves appears to be a proper noun, as opposed to just a description of some caves, then the proper final article title should be Wyandotte Caves. I would merge everything into that one article. Feel free to be bold here, no need to be 'fair' persay per se (which seems to be misused here since "per se" is Latin and means "through itself (by its own nature)" --Richard 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC))". Just make sure that the final version includes all the information from the others, even if it doesn't include the exact text or images. Then, on the other two articles, after merging, replace their text with  #REDIRECT Wyandotte Caves . Make sure you leave descriptive edit summaries so people can figure out what you did, and why, later on. The only wrinkle to this is if we determine "Wyandotte Caves" not to be a full proper noun, in which case the proper final article title would be "Wyandotte caves". I'll leave that to you, since you know more about them. Phidauex 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for lookin' out for me, Richard. I'm not much of a grammaticitician.
 * Thanks for the advice. Now an additional question, how long does the temp article stay on the temp page before the copyvio is sorted out and the article can be moved to the main namespace?  And shouldn't I wait to redirect the existing article until the finished article is in the main namespace instead of a temporary location? ONUnicorn 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the copyvio can be sorted out as soon as you have a suitable replacement article. Once you've got something vaguely presentable in the /Temp page, let the user who created the copyvio notice know (in this case, User:W.marsh), so it can be moved into place. When that is done, then change the other two articles to redirects. Phidauex 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wyandotte Cave


text:
Talk:William Howard Taft National Historic Site

Untitled
Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles/Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics Paul 02:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

development
Looks good. Nice job Bedford. The references are really hard to decipher though, need to be put into proper citation form with title, publisher, etc.

I am trying out the work-in-progress NRHP2 infobox with this. doncram (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I like the looks of the new infobox (I used the "elkman" tool to replace the old infobox). I have one more photo I can use of the NHS, which is a large bust of Robert Taft by the north parking lot.-- Bedford  20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:John Gilbert Winant

Untitled
Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles/Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics Paul 02:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I would propose deleting a passage under John Winant's "suicide" section that mentions Dick Clark and bloopers because it is not cited and the passage acknowledges that the material may not be true. Granitesprite (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

hi..I suggest a pronunciation guide to Gov. Winant's name. Can someone help with that?. thank you. Sd

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Gilbert Winant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100727072349/http://carseyinstitute.unh.edu/fellowships/winant.html to http://carseyinstitute.unh.edu/fellowships/winant.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Burial
...his wish to be buried in the St Paul's School's consecrated cemetery refused by the Episcopalian rector.
 * Can you confirm whether this means St Paul's School in London? Valetude (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Gilbert Winant


text:
User talk:Keolah

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Nufy8 02:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Antihero for Hire
Hey, I didn't undertsnad your comment, "This is not uncontested." Are you disputing the Alexa data or are you implying notability from some other source? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know what wp:prod says. What I wanted to hear was your rationale for deprodding. I am taking this to AfD then. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi, Keolah! It's doubtful that you remember me, but I used to frequent a MUD that you coded/ran. It was actually one of my favorites, but it's been so long that I can't even remember the name of it. Anyway, I don't know if you still frequent Wikipedia much, but being that you were responsible for one of my favorite MUDs, I supposed I'd stop by to say hello and thank you. Cheers! --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, Rogue Winds- that was it! Not a really huge community, but it was definitely a standout for one of my favorite games due to the interesting setting, people, and codebase itself. As far as your offer to come chat some time, I'd be happy to. I'll see if I can't swing by the IRC channel some time this week- I appreciate it. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chronomancy

The article Chronomancy has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * NN dicdef.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   Ravenswing   19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Psyker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Psyker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Psyker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Keolah


text:
Talk:Hinduism in the Philippines

Started this project in courtesy of User:Jondel, who is currently busy researching on this. --Noypi380 02:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledgements and thanks to User:Noypi380 for starting and significantly contributing to this article. --Jondel 05:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sri Vijaya
Kalinga kings of JAVA had ruled the island. There was no Tamil king in the land. 2601:147:4200:6240:DC6C:F117:87A:7DA9 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Dillip Patnaik Be careful with Sri Vijaya. Everyone seems to think they had a big influence in the Philippines and thus giving birth to the "Visayans." Far from the truth. According to a very reputable Philippine historian I know, there is really little evidence of their presence in the pre-Hispanic Philippines. I think he referred me to William Henry Scott's Barangay which is an excellent read on pre-Hispanic Philippines. --Chris S. 05:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How about the Manila bay inscription (Laguna inscription) then? Meursault2004 10:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Same question too, :) --Noypi380 14:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's legit, AFAIK. There was something similar with Baybayin on it that was proved to be a fake. Was that Code of Kalantiaw? Not sure, but the code of Kalantiaw thing is a fake too. --Chris S. 05:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Code of Kalantiaw I think. TheCebu page mentions that Visaya came from Sri Vijaya. It should probably be corrected. But that's where I got my info. But it seems logical because there are regions in Malaysia near Palawan that are similarly called Bisaya.--Jondel 07:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a concidence. The Bisaya in Indonesia or Malaysia is not closely related to the Visayan languages of the Philippines. --Chris S. 12:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Just a question for the Visayan language speakers or perhaps other: does the phoneme /j/ occur in this language? Meursault2004 10:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Will answer at the Visayan languageDiscussion page.--

 * There are more than 30 Visayan languages. In the Boholano dialect of Cebuano, the locals pronounce the letter "y" as .  Tausug and Surigaonon also have . As an allophone, /diy/ is pronounce . --Chris S. 12:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Jondel 07:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The source of info about Sri Vijaya came from Gregorio F. Zaide in one of his History books.--Jondel 07:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's what a Philippine history professor had to say about Zaide: Zaide (1907-1986) was an extraordinarily prolific writer of history text books who flourished in the 1950s & 1960s particularly. Although he had good credentials as a scholar originally, many other historians came to feel that by the later stages of his career he was too busy churning out more textbooks to be either as up-to-date or as careful as he might have been.  I never take a Zaide "fact" at face-value without cross-checking. --Chris S. 10:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

nice work
good job with the article, jondel. --Dangerous-Boy

Thank you.Uhh, lets not forget Noypi too who also initiated and contributed significantly to the article.--Jondel 23:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Noypi380 23:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Current population figure
Where did you get the figure of 1.8 million from? That seems higher than most sources seem to indicate.

Arun 09:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * CIA factbook from the looks of it. --Dangerous-Boy 08:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The CIA world factbook doesn't have any information except possibly, an inferred maximum percentage. Arun 08:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * well, then go fix it.--Dangerous-Boy 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hinduism in the Philippines. 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/20141121194304/http://bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hinduism in the Philippines. 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/20150621051322/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205031106/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm

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) 05:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hinduism in the Philippines


text: User talk:211.30.180.218

title: User talk:211.30.180.218


text:
Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy

The Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy was a large, wide-bodied cargo aircraft built in the United States and used for ferrying outsized cargo items, most notably components of NASA's Apollo program. The Pregnant Guppy was the first of the Guppy line of aircraft produced by Aero Spacelines. The design inspired later designs, such as the jet-powered Airbus Beluga and Boeing Dreamlifter.

Development
In 1960, NASA was using barges to transport increasingly large rocket components from manufacturers on the West Coast to test and launch sites on the East Coast, a method that was slow and expensive. Meanwhile, U.S. airlines were disposing of their obsolete piston-engined Boeing 377 Stratocruisers in favor of the newer jet-engined airliners. Aircraft broker Leo Mansdorf was stockpiling surplus Stratocruisers at Van Nuys for resale.

Ex-USAF pilot John M. Conroy realized that these aircraft could be modified to transport the large but relatively light rocket components. Conroy presented his plans for an extensively modified Stratocruiser to NASA, where an official commented that the bloated aircraft resembled a pregnant guppy. Although NASA was lukewarm on the concept, Conroy mortgaged his house and founded Aero Spacelines International to build and operate the concept aircraft.

Conversion work was undertaken by On Mark Engineering. The Pregnant Guppy (registered N1024V) used an ex-Pan Am airframe. A 5-meter section from an ex-British Overseas Airways Corporation aircraft (G-AKGJ) was added immediately behind the wing. A new upper fuselage of 6-meter diameter was added, giving the aircraft a "triple-bubble" appearance when viewed from the front. The entire rear section, including tail surfaces, was detachable to allow cargo to be loaded directly into the fuselage. The wing, engines, tail, nose, and cockpit were unchanged.

The aircraft first flew on September 19, 1962, piloted by Conroy and co-pilot Clay Lacy. When Van Nuys traffic control realized that Conroy intended to take off, they notified police and fire departments to be on alert. However, the huge aircraft performed flawlessly. It differed in handling from a Stratocruiser only in a slight decrease in speed caused by the drag of the larger fuselage.

The Guppy delivered the S-IV Saturn I rocket stage three weeks faster than a barge, for a cost of $16.00 (equivalent to $ today) per mile (1 mi).

Operational history
In the summer of 1963, the Pregnant Guppy began flying NASA cargo. Among its early duties was transporting the first and second stages of the Gemini program's Titan II from the Martin Co. in Baltimore, Maryland, to Cape Canaveral. As the space program grew through the late 1960s, it became apparent that the one original aircraft clearly could not handle the whole transport load, so 25 more Stratocruisers and ex-USAF C-97s were purchased to construct four Super Guppy aircraft, which were even longer and larger than the original.

The various Guppy aircraft served throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and beyond. After the Apollo program ended, the aircraft transported airliner sections. The original Pregnant Guppy, though, was in poor condition by this point and retired soon after the end of the Apollo program.

The Pregnant Guppy was sold to American Jet Industries in 1974 and registered N126AJ. Although plans were floated to renovate the transport and return it to service, in the end it was scrapped at Van Nuys Airport in 1979. The rear fuselage and tail assembly, along with various other parts, were used to build the final Super Guppy Turbine. Registered N941NA, this aircraft is currently in service with NASA and is the last Guppy aircraft still in operation.

title: Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy


text:
File:Saint Ange poster.jpg

Saint Ange film poster

Fair use in Saint Ange
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It's a low resolution copy of a Film Poster / VHS or DVD Cover.
 * 2) It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the film in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
 * 3) Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the artwork/image.
 * 4) The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
 * 5) The image  is significant because it was used to promoted a notable film.

Source

 * 1) Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the Film Poster/ VHS or DVD Cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the film company or the artist.  Claimed as fair use regardless.

title: File:Saint Ange poster.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Peter Lee and Mario Roering

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: 02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Peter Lee | talk | contributions), and numerous presumed anonymous IPs which appear to be dynamically assigned.
 * (Mario Roering | talk | contributions)

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

'''This RfC is brought jointly by the signees below: neither has an interest in the articles involved. This RfC is brought as 3rd parties to the dispute as the disputants have not availed themselves of the opportunity.'''

Both Peter Lee and Mario Roering have been engaged in a lengthy edit-war, now degenerated to a sterile revert war, over the pair of articles World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation and Genseiryu. The two competing organisations that they are respectively involved in both make separate claims about the validity of the other's point-of-view. Neither's point-of-view is palatable to the other. These two articles appear to try to represent these divergent views but neither side can agree what the correct way to represent their opponent's views is.

As a result both sides have repeatedly reverted, 'edited' and 'cleaned-up' the other's edits. This is usually simple reversion to their prior version. Initially at least, there was a fairly hot-headed discussion on the two users' talk pages, apparently also participated in by other editors who no longer appear to be involved. Latterly, there has been almost complete refusal by both sides to discuss anything on talk pages. Mario Roering has at least engaged in some discussion with both the cosignees but it appeared that, on learning there was no offer of advocacy, he lost interest. Peter Lee did engage in some fairy accusatory discussion with JeremyA, although this amounted largely to demaning the removal of Roering's content.

Eventually, as the edit summaries become more heated, and the reverts more frequent, and Peter Lee moved to dynamic, anonymous IPs, User:JeremyA protected both articles: in the case of Genseiryu for almost a month. Within an hour of being unprotected, WGKF was in a revert war and Genseiryu followed shortly after.

There was no further discussion by either Mario or Peter, both preferred to simply revert and give inappropriate edit-summaries. Both have been offered, repeatedly, the chance to file RfC or RfM or RfAr themselves, but have routinely ignored messages in that regard — or have refused on the grounds that the Arbitrators might be even handed, or because they have no jurisidiction over Genseiryu etc !

With the failure of informal mediation, no willingness to seek formal mediation and a perpetual revert war, JeremyA decided to simply revert, with an explanation, any revert that was not discussed on the relevant talk pages. This did at least encourage some talk-page input from Mario Roering although it was not exactly consensus-building in nature. Peter Lee, editing under anonymous IPs continued to revert on sight with increasingly abusive edit-summaries towards both Mario Roering and JeremeyA.

Eventually, owing to a huge string of minor-edits by one of (presumably) User:Peter Lee's IP addresses which were extremely minor edits specifically for the purpose of an abusive edit summary e.g., , the article was re-protected and this RfC filed.

Both sides need to stop reverting one another, calmly discuss things on the talk page, study carefully what WP:ISNOT and consider whether their editing style conforms rigorously to WP:NPOV (and, to an extent, to WP:NOR). Both sides should stop writing highly abusive edit summaries and writing one another abusive messages. Both sides should read and digest WP:NPA and act on it — this is especially true of User:Peter Lee, although Mario Roering is far from innocent. It is, for the time being, recommended that they do not remove personal attacks. If the articles should be unprotected, they should also consider voluntarily not editing either article until things have been straightened out.

It may or may not interest editors to know that both editors apparently received conditional blocks on the Dutch Wikipedia, over the same issue. Apparently, Peter Lee has since been banned for a year from the Dutch Wikipedia.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * 1) Talk page related incivility and personal attacks, of varying degrees:
 * 2) Mario Roering:, , , , , , , (to a 3rd party, apparently from the Dutch Wikipedia), , , ,  (invites another editor to join the war on his 'side'), , , , , ,  (on Karate).
 * 3) Peter Lee,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, (blanks an article talk page), (again),  (again), , , , , , ,  (inapprop. use of talk page).
 * 4) Although as an attempt to avoid conflict, Mario Roering creates World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation with a hidden HTML notice requesting certain groups of people do not edit the article. Similarly on Genseiryu  and a related article Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation . All are eventually removed, however: by Splash twice, by Roering  after advice by Splash , and much later by JeremyA.
 * 5) A 3RR violation by User:Peter Lee:, , , , . Again, a few hours outside 24, so simple revert-warring:.
 * 6) Responded to with simple reverts by Mario Roering (who does not technically violate 3RR) and evident colleagues. Note ArbCom admonishes agains revert-teams:, , , . Colleague (not party to this RfC) reverting to same version: ,.
 * 7) Again, the above include various inappropriate and attacking edit summaries as well as POV-pushing.
 * 8) Both users violate the 3-revert-rule, over the addition of a link:
 * 9) Mario Roering:, , ,.
 * 10) Peter Lee:, , , (in fact slightly outside 24 hours).
 * 11) The above also includes accusations of lies and defamation in the edit summaries.
 * 12) Anon IPs, presumed to be Peter Lee, repeatedly tags Genseiryu with vfd, and is reverted by two seperate editors. Presumed bad-faith nomination, and violation of 3RR again:,, , , . Identical behaviour on a related article (Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation) and violation of 3RR, , ,.
 * 13) Another 3RR by both parties, with Lee presumed editing under a couple of anon IPs:
 * 14) Mario Roering:, , ,.
 * 15) Peter Lee (anons):,, ,.
 * 16) Note again the edit-summaries and that no discussion took place in the meantime.
 * 17) Another 3RR by both sides (in the midst of the revert/edit-wars below):
 * 18) Peter Lee (as anon):,, ,.
 * 19) Mario Roering:, , ,.
 * 20) Various revert-warring, inappropriate and uncivil use of edit-summaries. Note these are not usually 3RR violations — they are examples of reverts, substantial removals of text, or substantial rewrites carried out repeatedly by both sides.
 * 21) (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee),  (Roering).
 * 22) (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee),  (Roering or collaborating IP),  (Lee),  (Roering).
 * 23) (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee),  (Roering or collaborating IP),  (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee),  (Roering).
 * 24) A 3RR violation by Peter Lee operating under anon IPs:, , , , , . Note particularly the highly abusive edit summaries in the final two diffs.
 * However, Roering plays his part (hence listing here as continuation of revert-war):,.
 * 1) Same on WGKF, by Peter Lee, but Roering need not intervene since JeremyA's policy of reverting undiscussed changes with abusive edit summaries is in effect:, , , , ,.
 * 2) (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee).
 * 3) A colleague (no evidence of being a sockpuppet) of Roering's arrives, and reverts although is warned about 3RR and edit-summaries. Lee, operating under anon IPs, reverts, as does TenChiJin (not a party to this RfC). Included here mainly as evidence of team-work in POV pushing and reverting, and Lee's reverting (includes a violation of 3RR by Lee):
 * 4) * (TenChiJin), (Lee),, (TenChiJin),  (Lee),  (TenChiJin),  (Lee),  (Roering),  (Lee),  (TenChiJin),  (Lee).
 * 5) With the revert-undiscussed-edits policy temporarily in place, Peter Lee continues blindly reverting. Note the edit summaries become increasinly abusing toward JeremyA in particular:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * 6) Final spate of minor edits by anonymous IPs presumed to be Peter Lee. Made with the sole purpose of being making personal attacks in the edit summary:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . These span a period of 11 minutes.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * 1) WP:ISNOT advocacy or a battleground;
 * 2) WP:NPOV;
 * 3) WP:NPA generally and;
 * 4) *WP:NPA specifically per #7 below, since one or more of Peter Lee's IPs were blocked at the time.
 * 5) WP:CIVILITY;
 * 6) WP:FAITH;
 * 7) WP:3RR;
 * 8) Ownership of articles
 * 9) Edit summaries;
 * 10) Edit wars;
 * 11) Vandalism (particularly for the final spate of edits by Peter Lee.)
 * 12) Dispute resolution not availed of.

Possibly WP:NOR.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 1), JeremyA advises Peter Lee on appropriate methods of dispute resolution.
 * 2), JeremyA offers informal evidenciary mediation to both editors. Mario Roering does not respond, Peter Lee responds with a refusal to participate and more attacks agains Mario.
 * 3), JeremyA s the pages and admonishes both parties to desist and discuss. They desist as the article is protected, but do not discuss. A request to enter formal mediation was also made at this point, to which neither Mario Roering nor Peter Lee responded.
 * 4), (to dynamic anons), (to Mario Roering),  (to talk page of mainly-active article) Splash admonishes against the style of edit summaries. Peter Lee delivers an unpleasant response to Splash's talk page , and Mario Roering suggests he will try harder, and does for a while — but rather than discuss, he simply puts 'rv' or similar in the edit summaries. This does not really last.
 * 5), Splash gives an account of the dispute resolution process, recommends an RfC or similar. Nothing happens.
 * 6) JeremyA warns of his attention to revert (and block) for pointless reversion. This has no effect on User:Peter Lee, who editing under anon IPs simply continues reverting, with increasingly abusive edit summaries (see the article histories), including a revert with this edit summary, taken as his response to JeremyA's message.
 * 7) JeremyA warns Mario Roering again about edit summaries. Mario admits he shouldn't have done that.
 * 8) Despite the various warnings, Mario leaves a widly inappropriate message on Peter Lee's talk page:, for which he is blocked for 24 hours by JeremyA, although he apologises to JeremyA.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) -Splash 02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) -JeremyA (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) -Waerth 08:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC), see on my talkpage for more statements by Peter Lee including his aim to bannish the article from wikipedia. I also tried to solve the same dispute at nl.wikipedia, the result there is a year long ban for Peter Lee because he refused to abide by request from editors to talk. Mario Roering has bettered his behaviour on nl: tremendously though.

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Robert McClenon 17:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Responses
''This is a summary written by the users 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.}

Please keep discussion of these responses to the talk page.

Response by Peter Lee
(Peter Lee has been made aware of this RfC and has refused to participate. JeremyA (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC))

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Response by Mario Roering
For this moment I only want to comment that from the beginning I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia. It's a wonderful medium and an excellent idea from Jimbo Wales! Just check my edits in the beginning to see that I also contributed to other articles, besides Genseiryu. Once Peter Lee started to change large parts of Genseiryu and later of WGKF, I could only react in the best way to defend the honesty and factual correctness of these Wikipedia articles: revert the edits. Inside the karate community (esp. the Danish) it is well known that this person is not who he says he is. His dojo has been called by many people a McDojo. I don't want to say too much about this, since there's already enough said about it and there's enough to find about it outside Wikipedia. About the facts in the article, I have tried to talk to Peter Lee outside Wikipedia, long before he started the edit war. Many times I started a discussion about some subjects on his forum. That is to say: I TRIED to start it. But every message was removed, every time I said something or asked someting he didn't like, he simply removed it. Every time I tried to defend myself or somebody else, even when bringing in evidence, he simply removed it, so that nobody would see! This is no way of discussing! Here on Wikipedia he also ignores me (almost) totally. In those few cases where he did not ignore me, he insulted me almost constantly. There is no way to come to a fair discussion with this person. The only reason for that is because in a real and honest discussion, he knows he will loose the discussion. Therefore he keeps shouting that he is the "president of GKIF" and the sole person in Europe allowed to talk about Genseiryu and he has done "15 years of research". He thinks that way people will think what he says is right... Of course, it doesn't work that way. This "research" may have been done, but what he brings out in the open are not the real facts. I have done a counter-research and within one year I came to astonishing discoveries about his life, his qualifications as a karateka and teacher and about his (false) allegations. The more I got into the subject, the more I found out that totally contradicted the findings of this man. Anyway, who ever is right and wrong, is for outsiders too complicated to see, but the fact is: he will NEVER discuss anything with people from WGKF, although they (we) are always open for discussion. As a matter of fact, he never discusses anything with anybody who does not agree with him... That already should make you frown... I would like to end this message saying I regret what I did lately, on Peter Lee's talk page. Although that is the way I feel about him (hiding behind anonymous IP addresses and insulting me from there), I should not have done this. I got totally carried away by all his insults and name slandering and acted in a moment of, err.. let's call it mental derangement, a brain fart! It will never happen again, and my intentions are (as they always were) to contribute to Wikipedia in the best way I can! -- Mario R 22:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. : Just for the record: above here in the part about "Evidence of disputed behavior", where it says "Roering or collaborating IP", it is indeed a collaborating IP (212.127.137.2) and NOT me. Not that I would care, but just to show that I (or TenChiJin and I) am (are) not alone... That's all!

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) -- Mario R  19:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Londenp
On the dutch wikipedia we had edit wars between the same users, which we have stopped by freezing the page. We had two parties of Dutch administrators. 3 administrators were involved in trying to solve the dispute and trying to mediate. The other party (of which I am one) have edited the article nl:Genseiryu in a way it is without point of view. That means: mentioned in the article is the dispute, but every information which was disputed has been taken out (omitting information alas). Mr Peter Lee, who can not really understand dutch, did not understand the changes made to the article for NPOV and thus disputed the changes. The language used by Peter Lee in his E-mails, as well as the threads made to the Dutch administrators and to wikipedia were that bad, that Peter Lee was blocked for 1 year to the Dutch wikipedia, see :. The Foundation board was informed about this behaviour. This blockage was not about who was right, but is self-defence to insure the continuation of the NL:WP.

Every attempt to let these two work out a solution is futile, they are both very stong-headed about their POV.

There is one difference though. Mr Peter Lee has not edited any other article than about Genseiryu, where Mr Mario Roering has done several other positive additions to the Dutch wikipedia.

But in the end both people are guilty of not trying to resolve the dispute. Both were blocked for 2 weeks over the dispute, before the final solution.

Since the one year block on Peter Lee and in fact during the whole process to come to this block, on the Dutch wikipedia it is quiet and the article is still in a neutral state. In the end in my opinion the article and the information in the article is not worth the time taken by all people, also here at EN:WP. Behaviour of both discredit their sport.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Londenp 06:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Effeietsanders
Londenp had spoken very well. I just want to add that by email there have been various contacts with both users. But also with other people in their organizations. The users and persons asked me not to publish these emails, so I won't. If there is allowance of the users, you can take a look at them. I'm very sorry for this. I can however tell you how the contacts went somehow. I, Oscar and Jeroenvrp tried to solve the problem. We saw that both users had, beside a dispute about the facts, a personal conflict. Therefor it was not rational to think that both users could come together, without severe pressure, without other users. We didn't even thought it possible that these to users could talk rational with eachother. That was why we first blocked both users, whitch we shouldn't furfill immediatly, but with a prohibational time. So if they did something wrong in the coming half year, they would be blocked more sever then usual, in return of the no blocking immediatly and that they could start the discussion all over again, so nobody should be in a bad position (sorry no good english word I could find for it). That didn't work out. Within a few days they were blocked for a week because of an edit-war. Because it didn't work out, we tried another variant. I asked both users to come up with a representant. Peter agreed with Thoar, but Mario found one, whitch should be on vacation. I still wait for his final approval. Then we can discuss with bot users, in Dutch, on an IRC-channel what the problem is about, what we can do to solve it, etc. On a certain moment Peter came up with threats to wikipedia about vandalizing, and about asking all his friends to do so. This, together with the vandalizations in the past and the a-constructive way he behaved at nl.wp (on the email he was usually very polite before the edits of londenp, though) I kept an vote with the question if peter lee should be blocked for a year because of these reasons. The link londenp gave you already. I an still would like to get this issue solved, and not out of the way. But not costing what it costs. If Mario finally come up with his representant, I am still allright to get with him and Thoar into discussion. But if it will not work out, well, it's a shame, but, ok, we have now some article anyway. Just a pity that two grown-ups have to behave this way.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Effeietsanders 08:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Jcbos
At NL.wikipedia Peter Lee admitted quite clearly over and over again that he has obvious bad meanings intending mass vandalism. Peter Lee simply doesn't want to talk. Mario Roering seems to be more and more prepared to talk and behaves quite better than Peter Lee. For that reason my opinion is that Mario Roering still has a value as a Wikipedia editor, where Peter Lee obviously doesn't have. After repeated tries to cope with the Peter Lee behaviour, I would advise to follow the Dutch results and to block Peter Lee for at least one year.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Jcbos 11:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by McClenon
I have only briefly reviewed the history of this strange edit war. I can see that there have been breaches of civility on both sides. It appears that Mario Roering is at least trying to be reasonable, and I see no evidence that Peter Lee is even trying. Editing another user's user page with edit summaries that another user is insane is not reasonable. Peter Lee has had notice of this RfC, and has refused to provide a response. That is disrespect for the Wikipedia process. Unless Peter Lee will provide a response, I don't see any alternative to submitting this case to the ArbCom to take the same action that has already been taken in the Dutch version, which is to ban an editor who has shown a disregard for the whole Wikipedia process (and possibly to caution another editor who has lost his temper when provoked). Robert McClenon 11:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Acetic Acid
I would just like to remind you of this: This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. This case is clearly about two parties. I recommend this is moved to WP:M.
 * Given both editors rejection of the Arbitrators' authority, it seems unlikely that either will submit to Mediation. If you are to absolutely insist on the complete invalidity of this RfC, then I shall simply remake it as two seperate ones. -Splash 04:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you are right. Separate RfCs would just be more work with no extra gain. I just wasn't sure of how strongly policy was enforced. Acetic Acid 07:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Acetic Acid 03:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Mrcolj
I've never met Peter or Mario and have no reason to be biased in either direction. I came on here looking up Peter Lee in Google. All I found was a blank article and the Talk war, which I then wasted an hour reading (all the talk, all the articles, all their talk pages). The only thing that really stood out to me as legally relevant was this article, where Mario writes that in 2003 "many Genseiryu Karate instructors from all over the world" voted that any instructor not subscribing wholly to their bible could no longer be called Genseiryu without the appellation of butokakai. As such the burden of proof lies with Mario to prove that said group had binding authority to say so--not that they constituted a large body (even if 99%) of Genseiryu practitioners--but that they own the international trademark of the term. Otherwise Peter Lee has the right to disagree and call himself whatever he wants. In my opinion, the historical reason these kinds of debates get so heated is simply because, for 500 years, anyone has been able to call themselves whatever they want, because these titles aren't regulated by any body. Any art with binding trademarks is an art that's less than 50 years old (and those arts don't get a ton of respect in the industry anyway.)

And no, I don't think Peter Lee was the aggressor here. I think he simply disagreed with Mario, and as far as I've read here and elsewhere Mario was the first one to start posting under multiple fake names, etc. It's pretty obvious when you read Peter's talk page, that the big name-caller isn't Peter, and that there are multiple fake posts. I vote both are locked from editing any related topic, and we let legitimate 3rd parties from unrelated IPs recreate the articles. I'll volunteer, as I have 19 years myself in related martial arts, belts in 6 styles, and years on the wikipedia, but know little about Genseiryu itself. But we've had enough volunteers and it hasn't worked. Again I vote delete the thing and let a new group sort it out. --Mrcolj 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Seraphimblade
I'm honestly close to saying I agree with Mrcolj, and wouldn't be sorry to see both Mario Roering and Peter Lee topic banned from the whole area for a good length of time. While I believe Peter Lee's behavior to have probably been, on the whole, worse in terms of outright attacks, Mario quite often goads and baits such attacks, and has on more than one occasion engaged in them himself. Both parties have engaged in totally unacceptable levels of edit warring, as well. Neither party has anywhere near clean hands here, and both parties have repeatedly stated that the situation is hopeless and they'll never stop the bickering, so my reaction is leaning towards "A topic ban on both your houses". Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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


text:
User:Detecsm

Hi guys

The Detecsm forum in Wikipedia is created to test possiblity of using this medium to share info and update them as and when required. I am still playing around with this so honestly I am not familiar with its features, security, user-friendliness etc yet.

May I suggest you try update, edit and play around with it and comment.

For example:

Hi Law, just trying this out! Manmohan

[SF] MAN, welcome to the DETECSM close forum...please continue to try out the features..need more feedbacks..might a good way to share ideas and information...For the rest of the guys, hope you get on the forum soon...how is the Ecoshelter project coming along?

Hi Law, have just finished carrying out the experiments on the trial GreenShelter at the farm in Slim River. Looks like the PCM works. Only problem is that current hydrated salts PCM too bulky, takes up too much space.....looking for more space-effective solution. Might try the CoolPanel manufactured by Climator of Sweden.

[SF] MAN, looks like no one is interested .. may be just make if a forum for you and I.

title: User:Detecsm


text:
Saint Ange

Saint Ange (also known as House of Voices) is a 2004 supernatural horror film written and directed by Pascal Laugier. It is Laugier's feature film debut. The film stars Virginie Ledoyen, Catriona MacColl, Lou Doillon, and Dorina Lazăr.

Plot
In 1958, Anna Jurin accepts a job as a housekeeper of Saint Ange, a rusty and isolated orphanage located in the French Alps and owned by Madam Francard. The last batch of children have been sent elsewhere shortly after the mysterious death of a boy in the bathroom, which tarnishes the orphanage's reputation and threatens its closure. Other than Anna, the orphanage is now populated by only two people: the long-time cook Helenka and an adult orphan, Judith, who suffers from a mental disability and claims that there are other, unseen, children in the location.

Throughout her stay, Anna experiences apparent supernatural phenomena. However, Helenka dismisses her worries as mere hallucinations, especially after she learns that Anna is pregnant due to a gang rape, a fact that she tries to hide at first. Anna learns that Judith is one of the many sent to Saint Ange in 1946 as a war orphan of World War II; because of shortages of supplies and logistics, Judith is the only survivor.

Despite this explanation, Anna suspects that the orphanage deliberately killed and hid the children. She gains the trust of Judith by befriending and calming her when her kittens are apparently drowned by Helenka, enough for her to disclose that the children inhabit an area somewhere behind a mirror in the bathroom, revealed to be an abandoned dormitory. Helenka tries to prevent them from heading to the area, but Judith knocks her unconscious. The two women proceed to the dormitory and find remains of toys and rotten food. Judith realizes that the children had really died and begs Anna to stop searching, but the latter insists on continuing and boards an elevator heading to the underground. Anna arrives at a sterile, hospital-like structure with clean white walls and brightly lit lamps. She is confronted by the children who rise from a series of murky baths, who surround her. Anna goes into a sudden labor and is helped to deliver the baby by the children but the newborn infant is stillborn when the stillbirth killed Anna.

Sometime later, Francard and her assistant search for Anna in the underground, which is now damp, dark, and rust-walled. They find Anna and her baby on the floor, both dead. Deciding to leave them there, the two head upstairs to leave the premises alongside Helenka and Judith; it is implied that Anna has been hallucinating the phenomena due to the stress, as she is revealed to be the true culprit for the drowning of the kittens. However, before they leave, Judith throws away her medication, as Anna advised her earlier, and peeks into Anna's former bedroom, where she sees her and her baby, now as spirits of Saint Ange, alongside the dead children. Francard comes back for Judith and the film ends as the room is seen empty.

Language
According to Christophe Gans, the film was shot both in French and English. The Canadian DVD has both cuts of the film.

Cast

 * Virginie Ledoyen as Anna Jurin
 * Lou Doillon as Judith
 * Catriona MacColl as Francard
 * Dorina Lazăr as Helenka
 * Virginie Darmon as Mathilde
 * Jérôme Soufflet as Daniel
 * Marie Herry as Marie
 * Éric Prat as an unnamed social services worker

Production
Some thought that Virginie Ledoyen was actually five or six months pregnant during filming. The star in fact wore a prosthetic pregnancy for the shoot and spoke of the hard bodily work and physical discomfort this entailed: "We shot scenes in stifling heat, with my hair sticking to me, false blood on my face, and the latex stomach melting."

title: Saint Ange


text:
Chintila

Chintila (Latin: Chintila, Chintilla, Cintila; c. 606 – 20 December 639) was a Visigothic King of Hispania, Septimania and Galicia from 636. He succeeded Sisenand and reigned until he died of natural causes, ruling over the fifth and sixth provisional Councils of Toledo. He wrote poetry as well. He was succeeded by his son from an unknown wife, Tulga.

Reign
Chintila became king after his predecessor Sisenand died in 636. It is unknown if or how he was related to Sisenand, and it is equally unclear how it came to be that Chintilla succeeded Sisenand. Both kings had tumultuous reigns, facing rebellions orchestrated by others who held some claim to the throne.

Chintilla convened two Councils at Toledo, the Fifth Council of Toledo in 636 and the Sixth Council of Toledo in 638. The Sixth Council discussed topics such as church rules, the treatment of Jewish people in Chintila's kingdom, and even laws of the kingdom regarding citizens' rights and property law. The council also discussed, at length, the qualifications of kings. They decided, for example, that only a person of Visigothic noble descent could be king. 53 bishops, deacons, or other church representatives attended the Sixth Council of Toledo.

Persecution of Jewish Populations
As king, Chintila ensured that the Visigothic citizenry was entirely Christian, going so far as to ban Jewish people from the kingdom. The Sixth Council of Toledo commended him on these efforts, asking God to ensure that the king lives a long life and pledging to remain vigilant so that these policies continued into the future. This practice of persecution had become wide-spread under King Sisebut (r. 611/612-620 ), who mandated conversion. This practice was later condemned by the Fourth Council of Toledo. Chintila adopted similar practices and the later councils approved. Chintila’s reign laid the groundwork for future Visigothic kings to further persecute Jewish populations. In 650, Jewish populations living among the Visigoths swore an oath to King Recceswinth, indicating that they had – on penalty of death – been baptized as Christians under King Chintila but that, regardless of the forced nature of the conversion, they would continue to abide by Christian teachings instead of their Jewish heritage. The Visigothic Code further cemented Chintila's practice of persecuting Jewish populations, with one section specifically forbidding Visigothic citizens from protecting Jewish people in the Visigothic kingdom.

Relations with the Papacy
King Chintila's poetry is indicative of the popular style of the time. An example is a poem that was sent to Pope Honorius I either shortly before or shortly after the Pope's death. Chintila donated a covering (or "velum") of some kind to St. Peter's Basilica, with a poem on it glorifying Pope Honorius and St. Peter, as well as praying for salvation. Chintila’s communication with the Pope was indicative of commitment to Christianity as outlined by the first Council of Nicaea.

Historiography
Among the most frequently cited works regarding the Visigoths is E.A. Thompson's book The Goths in Spain. Published in 1969, Thompson argues that Christianity is a large part of what made the Visigoths, Visigoths. Chintila is mentioned briefly in the work, but Thompson argues that he must have been of relatively little consequence, as he was rarely mentioned in even contemporary literature.

Most modern sources mention Chintila only in passing; more time is spent with the provisional councils at Toledo that the king called. Roger Collins has built extensively on Thompson's work, describing at length the Visigothic kingdom. Collins generally agrees with the point that Thompson makes; in his 1995 book Early Medieval Spain, Collins argues that Christianity was a key aspect of Visigothic life. In a segment in Raymond Carr's book Spain: A History, Collins again wrote of advancements made by nearly every Visigothic king of the seventh century in the pursuit of the advancement of Christianity.

title: Chintila


text:
List of Stargate Atlantis episodes

Stargate Atlantis is a science fiction television series created by Brad Wright and Robert C. Cooper as a spin off from its sister show, Stargate SG-1. The series resumes the story of the "Lost City" and "New Order" episodes of SG-1, where a military team led by Colonel (now Brigadier General) Jack O'Neill, Dr. Daniel Jackson, Major (now Lt. Colonel) Samantha Carter and the Jaffa Teal'c, use an ancient alien artifact called the Stargate to travel to different planets to explore and find new technology. The series pilot "Rising" takes place in the year 2004 after the events of "Lost City" and "New Order", when they finally find the lost city of the Ancients.

Stargate Atlantis premiered on July 16, 2004 on the channel Sci Fi Channel. The Sci Fi Channel would air all the five seasons made for the series. Since the American broadcast splits each season to allow the production to catch up, the British and Canadian channels Sky One and The Movie Network aired the second part of some seasons before their American counterpart. Stargate Atlantis ' finale episode premiered in the United States on the Sci Fi Channel on January 9, 2009. The series finale was also the series' 100th episode. All five seasons of Stargate Atlantis are available on DVD. A direct-to-DVD film tentatively titled Stargate: Extinction was planned, but was later shelved.

The cast of the first season consisted of Joe Flanigan starring as Maj. John Sheppard, David Hewlett as Dr. Rodney McKay, Rachel Luttrell as Teyla Emmagan, Torri Higginson as Elizabeth Weir and Rainbow Sun Francks as First Lt. Aiden Ford. Aiden Ford was reduced to recurring character in season two and was replaced by Jason Momoa as the extraterrestrial human Ronon Dex in episode three of season two. Francks continued to have a recurring role in season 2, until his character's death (although this was not confirmed). After Torri Higginson's departure as a main character from Stargate Atlantis after Season 3, she was replaced by Amanda Tapping's Carter from the sister show. Paul McGillion, Robert Picardo and Jewel Staite were also main characters. McGillion became a main character in season two until season three as Carson Beckett, Picardo replaced Tapping as a main character as the new leader of the Atlantis expedition as Richard Woolsey for season five, and Staite portrayed Jennifer Keller as a main character in season five.

Series overview
Episodes in bold are continuous episodes, where the story spans over 2 or more episodes.

Season 1 (2004–05)
The series picks up the story arc from Stargate SG-1's "Lost City", where people from all around the world come together to form an expedition and discover the wonders of Atlantis. Discovering that they have been cut off from Earth, they must fend for themselves, and discover a powerful new enemy bent on human subjugation.

Season 2 (2005–06)
The story continues when the Daedalus arrives and renews the expedition's connection to Earth. This takes place alongside the Ori story arc in SG-1, and the Wraith become an even larger threat in the Pegasus Galaxy. But what they deal with in their second year might be more than they can handle, and Dr. Carson Beckett's retrovirus is more trouble than it's worth.

Season 3 (2006–07)
This season concentrates on more character-driven stories. Along with new insight on the characters, the expedition discovers a new threat, one that could be the precursor to the Replicators. Some important characters leave the series in this season, and the fate of Atlantis once again is in the hands of the humans from Earth.

Season 4 (2007–08)
Amanda Tapping (Col. Samantha Carter) joined the cast as a regular for 14 episodes, Jewel Staite (Dr. Jennifer Keller) became a recurring character for eight episodes, while regular cast member Torri Higginson (Dr. Weir) became a recurring cast member for four episodes. The season started September 28, 2007, airing on the SCI FI channel in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the season premiered on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 on Sky One.

Season 5 (2008–09)
After being a regular character in season four, Amanda Tapping (Colonel Samantha Carter) became a guest star in several episodes. Robert Picardo (Richard Woolsey) joined the cast as a permanent character as Woolsey assumes command of Atlantis. Actress Jewel Staite (Dr. Jennifer Keller) was promoted from a recurring character to a permanent cast member. Michael Shanks (Dr. Daniel Jackson) and Paul McGillion (Dr. Carson Beckett) appeared as guest stars in this season, with McGillion appearing in five episodes. Actress Torri Higginson had stated that she would not be reprising her role as Dr. Elizabeth Weir in the fifth season. Rainbow Sun Francks as Aiden Ford was given a brief cameo appearance in "Search and Rescue". This was the last season of Stargate Atlantis.

title: List of Stargate Atlantis episodes


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingler's kingdom

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kingler's kingdom
Vanity/advertising of non-notable website. Delete. - choster 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; only result on google is that page (minus wikipedia pages). Jaxl | talk 02:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; Maybe put the link on the Pokemon page | Celcius 05:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yep, link on Pokemon page, tiny explanation, Bob's your Uncle. Pokéalf 14:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Period. -- DS1953 14:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. *drew 22:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.