text:
Claudia Pechstein

Claudia Pechstein (born 22 February 1972) is a German speed skater. She has won five Olympic gold medals. With a total of nine Olympic medals, five gold, two silver, and two bronze, she was previously the most successful Olympic speed skater, male or female, of all time, (later superseded by Ireen Wüst during the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang). Pechstein is the most successful German Winter Olympian of all time. After the World Championships in Norway in February 2009, Pechstein was accused of blood doping and banned from all competitions for two years.

Biography
Pechstein was born in East Berlin. She held a world record on the 5000 m track with the time 6:46.91 achieved on the Utah Olympic Oval in Salt Lake City on 23 February 2002, which was beaten by Martina Sáblíková on the same oval five years later. Pechstein is a sergeant in the German Federal Police and trains at the force's sports training centre at Bad Endorf.

Pechstein is the first female Winter Olympian to win medals in five consecutive Olympics (1992–2006); she won the gold medal in the women's 5000 metres race in three consecutive Olympics (1994, 1998, 2002), with bronze in the first (1992) and the silver medal in the fifth (2006). In the 3000 metres, she won three medals, gold (2002), silver (1998), and bronze (1994). She won her fifth Olympic gold medal in the team pursuit at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. After missing the 2010 Vancouver Games, she made her sixth Olympic appearance at the 2014 Sochi Games, finishing fourth in the 3000 metres and fifth in the 5000 metres. In 2018 she appeared in the Pyeongchang Games.

As reported by Olympic news outlet Around the Rings, Pechstein is aiming for an Olympic return, this time as a cyclist. "I will start in the individual pursuit at the German Track Championships from 6 to 10 July in Berlin", she said. "I am also planning to race the individual sprint or the 500-meter time trial. I trust I can do this because as a skater I've trained a lot on the bike. I have nothing to lose. I don't know how this kind of competition works, so this alone is really exciting".

In 2022, she returned to the Olympic Games and was the German flag-bearer for the opening ceremony in Beijing. It was her eighth participation in the Olympic Winter Games and a new record for most Winter Olympics for a female athlete.

Two-year ban for blood doping

After the World Championships in Norway in February 2009, the International Skating Union accused Pechstein of blood doping and banned her from all competitions for two years. This ban was based on irregular levels of reticulocytes in her blood. These levels were highest during the Calgary World Cup 2007 and the Hamar World Championships in 2009; elevated levels were also found during a number of other competitions and training spot checks.

In "Autonomy and Biopower in the Anti-Doping Establishment: A Rogue Agent of Governmentality," sport historian Daniel Rosenke reviews Pechstein's case, citing it as an example of the contentious nature of the biological passport. After collecting sample data on the skater for a period of nearly nine years, the ISU banned Pechstein from competition for an above threshold fluctuation in reticulocyte percentage, a blood parameter used in passport profiling. Notably, Pechstein argued her ‘%Retics’ of 3.49 fell into the normal range for women her age and asserted that the International Skating Union’s (ISU) threshold limit of 2.4 was far too low, basing this claim on a confluence of data in medical science. Two weeks following the 3.49 reading, Pechstein was tested again at 1.37, a difference considered by the ISU to be an unequivocal sign of doping. To defend herself, Pechstein cast doubt upon the accuracy of the ‘%Retics’ measurement, citing both her hemoglobin and hematocrit levels as exculpatory evidence. In short, she questioned the reliability and accuracy of the entire procedure's longitudinal sample collection, which ultimately led to her violation of the ISU's anti-doping code. Finally, Pechstein interrogated the burden of proof to be met by the ISU in proving a doping violation. She suggested as the CAS pointed out, that "the ISU must convince the panel (of arbitrators) to a level very close to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that all alternative causes for the increase of %Retics can be excluded, and that additionally, the [a]thlete had an intention to use blood doping." An important consideration here is that the burden of proof should be proportional the severity of the accusation (according to the World Anti-Doping Code), and in legal terms, should fall closer to beyond a reasonable doubt than the ‘comfortable satisfaction’ of the panel. With the information presented, it seems Pechstein's assertion was valid and cast serious doubt on the so-called ‘clear-cut’ positive described by the ISU.

Pechstein denied that she had doped and appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, claiming, among other things, that she has an inherited condition explaining the abnormal measurements. The court affirmed the ban in November 2009, finding no evidence for an inherited condition in the expert testimony provided by Pechstein. This was the first case of doping based on circumstantial evidence alone; no forbidden substances were ever found during her repeated tests.

In December 2009, she asked the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland for an injunction. She was allowed to participate at a single 3000 m race in Salt Lake City so that she could qualify for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver should her appeal of the ban be successful. She finished 13th in the race on 11 December but would have needed a place among the top 8 to qualify for the Olympics.

In January 2010, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court refused to temporarily suspend Pechstein's ban for the Olympics. On 19 February 2010 the CAS ad hoc panel at the Vancouver Olympics rejected Pechstein's last-minute appeal to be admitted to the ice skating team events.

In February 2010, Pechstein filed a criminal complaint in Switzerland against the International Skating Union, alleging trial fraud.

On 15 March 2010, Gerhard Ehninger, head of the German Society for Hematology and Oncology, said that an evaluation of the case points to a light form of blood anemia called spherocytosis – apparently inherited from her father. Pechstein attempted to use this new evidence in her appeal before the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland. The International Skating Union issued a press release explaining their opposition to this appeal.

Pechstein stood to lose her position with the German Federal Police should blood doping have been proved "beyond reasonable doubt". Disciplinary proceedings against her were halted in August 2010 because no such proof was available. Pechstein applied for unpaid leave in order to be able to continue her training, which was denied. As a result, she suffered a nervous breakdown in September 2010.

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court issued its final ruling on 28 September 2010, rejecting Pechstein's appeal and confirming the ban. Pechstein returned to competition in February 2011. She next won the bronze medal in the 2011 World Championships in the 5000 m race, finishing behind world champion Martina Sáblíková from the Czech Republic and her teammate Stephanie Beckert.

After this, Pechstein charged the International Skating Union for damages before German courts. While on 7 June 2016, the lower Federal Court of Justice of Germany rejected her initial appeal, on 3 June 2022, the higher Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that Pechstein's fundamental rights had been violated. Based on that decision, the case for damages was sent back to the lower courts for re-trial and is currently still pending.

Personal records
She is currently in 6th position in the adelskalender.

Results
Source: SpeedSkatingStats.com

title: Claudia Pechstein


text:
Anthology (The Jackson 5 album)

Anthology was originally released as a triple-album greatest hits set by legendary Motown family unit, The Jackson 5, in 1976. It was the group's second greatest hits compilation, after Greatest Hits (1971). It was at this point that most of the Jackson brothers (with the glaring exception of Jermaine Jackson) had left the Motown label to join CBS Records. Motown president Berry Gordy once said that the Jackson 5 were "the last superstars to come off the Motown assembly line"; after the group left the label, Motown would not have another act to equal its success until Boyz II Men in the 1990s.

Later repackagings of Anthology have compiled it as a double compact disc set. The most recent re-release, issued by Motown in 2000 (the first time the release doesn't contain any hits from Michael or Jermaine), was repackaged in 2005 in North America as part of its Gold series, and in 2006 internationally as The Jackson 5 Story.

Critical reception
Reviewing Anthology in Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies (1981), American music journalist Robert Christgau wrote:

""The only one of Motown's triple-LP retrospectives to concentrate on (or even include much) '70s music documents an institution in decline. Initially, the company marshalls everything it's got for one final push—not for nothing was the group's songwriting-production combine called The Corporation, and it's a measure of their seriousness that they asked the Crusaders to help with the tracks. But within two years they'd run out of gas—all the mini-comebacks after that, even the dancing-machine coup, were flukes. The proof is that the old-formula filler often surpasses the desperate imitations that became minor hits—better 'E-Ne-Me-Ne-Mi-Ne-Moe' than 'Skywriter' or 'A Little Bit of You.' The selection includes Michael's hits, Jermaine's hit, the works, and as the other albums disappear it will become essential in its way. But not to listen to, much.""

Key

 * (MJ) - Michael Jackson
 * (JJ) - Jermaine Jackson
 * (JaJ) - Jackie Jackson
 * (L) - Live version
 * (*) - Single version

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

title: Anthology (The Jackson 5 album)


text:
The George Washington International Law Review

The George Washington International Law Review is a triannual student-run and -edited publication of the George Washington University Law School. It presents articles and essays on public and private international financial development, comparative law, and public international law and also publishes the Guide to International Legal Research annually.

Established in 1966 as the Journal of Law and Economic Development, later titles included Journal of International Law and Economics and George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics.


text:
Christian Israelite Church

The Christian Israelite Church was founded in 1822 by John Wroe.

History
From 1822 to 1831, the church had its headquarters in the town of Ashton-under-Lyne in Lancashire, England, which the church wanted to turn into a "new Jerusalem". Wroe's followers intended to build a wall around the town with four gateways. The wall was never constructed, but the four gatehouses were, as was a printing press. Popular opinion in Ashton-under-Lyne turned against Wroe when he was accused of indecent behaviour in 1831, but the charges were dismissed. The church spread to Australia and the United States, where it is still active.

Today there are groups of members meeting in Australia at locations including in New South Wales in the Sydney suburbs of Darlinghurst and, the Central Coast region and in the Hunter Valley; and in Victoria, in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy.

Beliefs
"We Believe...
 * In God Almighty, Creator of all things (Genesis 1:1).
 * In the existence of Satan, the Devil, in whom God allowed iniquity to be placed (James 2:19; Ezekiel 28:14,15).
 * That God created a spirit-existence in which the devil manifested evil and caused some of the spirits to rebel against God (Isaiah 14:12-14; Jude 6).
 * That God created our physical world, to which each person comes with a body and a soul made alive by a spirit from the spiritual creation (Luke 9:55; Genesis 2:7).
 * That God gave His people instructions on the way they should live, which instructions were "for their good always" (Deuteronomy 6:24).
 * That all have sinned and come "short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:19).
 * That God has reconciled the whole world to Himself through the sacrifice of Jesus (John 3:16,17).
 * That through belief in the sacrifice of Jesus, believers are counted as righteous before God, and can be assured of the resurrection of their souls (a Spiritual body) at Jesus' return (1 Timothy 4:10; 1 Corinthians 15:44).
 * That there will be a small number who will fully prove their faith by a work of true obedience to God's instructions and will thereby receive the prize of the highest calling of God, the redemption of spirit and soul and body - this living mortal body made immortal without seeing death (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Revelation 14:1-5; Hebrews 11:39,40).
 * That Jesus Christ will return to this earth again, subdue the power of Satan and reign forever and ever (Revelation 19 and 20).
 * That the return of Jesus Christ is near and we are living in the period described in Scripture as the latter days (Matthew 24; Mark 13 and Luke 21).
 * That there are promises in the Scriptures especially to Israel - God's chosen people (1 Peter 2:9).
 * That although Israel of old did not accept the challenge of spiritually being God's peculiar people, a remnant of their descendants will come forward in the latter days to fulfil the obligations and receive the promises (Revelation 7:1-8).
 * That the Mission of the Christian Israelite Church is to awaken the lost ten tribes of Israel to this special inheritance to be the physical Immortal "Bride of the Lamb" and to be the vehicle for the task of bringing them all together at God's appointed time (Matthew 10:5,6; Revelation 19)."

The church also believes there will be two resurrections. During the first one, everyone will resurrect, but only those who observed the Law of Moses - apart from the sacrificial laws - in conjunction with the Gospel commands and precepts, would attain salvation. On the other hand, the wicked and unrepentant would die a second death, get punished during a Millennial period of a thousand years before they would resurrect for a second time to also receive salvation, but enjoy a lesser degree of spiritual life and happiness.

title: Christian Israelite Church


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Klasinkova

 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. --Tony Sidaway Talk 14:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Josef Klasinkova
Josef Klasinkova is probably one of the most notorious crackers known to the European world today...

Maybe missplelled or a hoax. Google gives zero hits. Move if misspelled, delete if a hoax. --Irpen 05:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Klasinkova" is a feminine ending. A male would be Klasinkov, but I can't find anything on Josef or Joseph Klasinkov.  Unless somebody can find a different spelling, Delete.  Zoe 06:12, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. I am a nominator of this VfD. --Irpen 06:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete, unless sources and probably different spelling is produced abakharev 06:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete, a couple of perturbations of spelling did not work on google–Gnomz007(?) 07:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, note also Phillip Masse and Bruce Morgenholt by the same author, which are fictional character from the Splinter Cell video game, but with article written as if they were real. -- Curps 00:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was guessing that it was a fictional character. Which raises an interesting issue, do we want a character guide, like the one from Xenosaga? like see Dmitri Yuriev, Cherenkov (Xenosaga).–Gnomz007(?) 00:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of articles on characters from well-known fictional works, as long as they're notable enough and aren't written as if they were real. -- Curps 00:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The surname Klasinkova isn't even plausible. As already pointed out, it's female, but it's also a typo at the very least (should be Klasnikova). -- Curps 00:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Agamemnon2 11:15, 21 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.


text:
Talk:Artaxerxes I

Untitled
Anonymous user created a small article - now a redirect here Longimanus. But the aricle does not mention the name, please inclusde it here as you see appropriate–Gnomz007(?) 05:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

done, the bible backgound could be lengthened and there is a great deal of external information available... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.140.134 (talk • contribs).

Date of death 423 rather than 424
Badian From Plataea to Potidaea (1993) pp.79-80 argues that 424 is based on a misreading of Thucydides 4.50-2. 423 is supported by texts in the Murasu archive. hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.111.91 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Name inconsistencies
"Artakhshastra" is used at the top, and in the text, "Artakhshasta" (without the 'r') is used as the transliteration of the hebrew. Are they referring to different things, or is one incorrect? Could someone please correct? --Storkk 22:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I see it's the persian that is being transliterated. My bad. --Storkk 12:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dehellenization
Being a rampant Hellenist, it pained me to change Themistokles to Themistocles. Yet, it is incongruous to have this being the one and only Hellenized entry on this page. Mfryc 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fratricide
His murder of his brother Hystaspes is not mentioned at all (mentioned at their father's article). —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Non Biblical information
A majority of this article describes the king through the lens of only the Bible - there's too much Bible and not enough information about his actual reign. This doesn't mean that the Bible section needs to be axed, instead, there needs to be another section based on his reign from a non religious standpoint. He was a Persian king - there's gotta be more information about his reign (such as the death of his father and the rebellions he faced throughout his reign). And any other information relating to his own religion - Zoroastrianism. -Jonathan

Fifth/sixth.
I noticed that the opening sentence of the article on Xerxes I reads:

"Xerxes I of Persia also known as Xerxes the Great (519–465 BC), was the fifth of the king of the kings of the Achaemenid Empire".

The opening sentence of this article reads:

"Artaxerxes I was the fifth King of Kings of Persia from 465 BC to 424 BC. He was the son of Xerxes I of Persia and Amestris, daughter of Otanes".

Which is somewhat contradictory.

In the interests of consistency and clarity, I've edited this article so that it reads:

Artaxerxes I /ˌɑrtəˈzɜrksiːz/ (Persian: اردشیر یکم; Old Persian: 𐎠𐎼𐎫𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎠 Artaxšaça,[1] "whose rule (xšaça < *xšaϑram) is through arta (truth)";[2] Greek: Ἀρταξέρξης[3]) was the fifth (or sixth, if one counts Bardiya, who may have reigned for a few months in 522 BC, in between the reigns of Cambyses II and Darius I) King of Kings of Persia from 465 BC to 424 BC."

Hope that's OK. Gnu Ordure (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A troubling observation
I've noticed several articles on Classical Persia with little to no reference to Zoroastrianism when there was in the past. Is this part of a campaign? It needs to be stopped: from the Encyplopedia Iranica article "It has been suggested that under Artaxerxes, about 441 B.C., a new and distinctly Zoroastrian calendar, copying the Egyptian one, was promulgated in the empire" Nothing overblown, but relevant nonetheless. It is more relevant to mention his religion for Wikipedia which is a general encyclopedia as one imagines that the editors and readers of specialized encyclopedias take certain basic, essential, facts for granted: Artaxerxes was bipedal, for instance, is probably on par with his Zoroastrian religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1800:6D:E175:9D4C:4363:D2D2 (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Role of NF1 as stated in the Medical analysis section is pure conjecture; I respectfully suggest that it be removed.
I am a cancer biologist and familiar with the gene. What is suggested in the "Medical analysis" section is pure conjecture. The cited article is published in a very specific context in a journal with a specific impact profile. The suggestion undermines the accuracy of other sections. I respectfully suggest that it be either fully detailed or preferably removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs) 05:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information
The article says "Although this decree is assumed to have occurred on 13 March 444 B.C, the Biblical passage does not state an exact date nor has any historical record been found to confirm it." Yet the Bible clearly states it was given in the 21st year of Artaxerxes I. Do we not know when Artaxerxes began his reign? Since we do, the date is not an assumption, and the Bible does state "an exact date". How can we reword this or should we simply remove it?  AChildOfGod ( Talk 15:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed it. A reference to the nearest year in the bible does not give sufficient accuracy for a date to a specific date. There is no reference for the assumption.5.198.10.236 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artaxerxes I of Persia. 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/20151001032753/http://plutarch.classicauthors.net/PlutarchsLives/PlutarchsLives3.html to http://plutarch.classicauthors.net/PlutarchsLives/PlutarchsLives3.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) 18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

445 BC
Click on the Google Books links, they all say the same: 445 BC. 446 BC is thus erroneous information. We abide by WP:VER and WP:RS. POV warriors don't, we don't like them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

POV-pusher
We have a POV-pusher who replaces Cyrus with Kores or Koresh, in order to beg the WP:OR question that the Koresh in Hebrew would not mean Cyrus in English, which is simply put, ludicrous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the outlet for pushing such POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Agreed with . Thanks for having reverted this POV pushing IP. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  05:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Ok, here is our reason:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

 * 1) Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.

 * 1) Personal essays  that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. (Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki.)

 * Therefore we're not interested in the original research or personal findings of the IP. His own conclusions simply do not belong inside Wikipedia. He should have gotten this point long ago. The IP seems to have two main hobbies: entering factually incorrect information (see ) and spreading FUD about Koresh means Cyrus in English, possibly in order to advance a POV about when the Temple got built. I think the IP is a WP:SOCK of, he locates to an IP in the Netherlands and the indeffed username is Dutch. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, thank you very much for your insight, i did not realize that he was a sock of a registered user. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

457 B.C. (Fall), 7th Year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus/Machrocheir - Exact Chronological Dating established by numerous sources, why was this undone?
457 B.C. (Fall), 7th Year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus/Machrocheir - Exact Chronological Dating established by numerous astronomical, historical and scientific sources (Why was this undone, as citing "comments in article"? No comments were given, only the date (457 B.C.) and sources/references):

Ptolemy's Canon (Claudius Ptolemaeus), section Artaxerxes I - https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/

VAT 5047 (No. -453 in ADT I), dated to year 11 of Artaxerxes I (454/453 BCE). - http://kristenfrihet.se/kf3/Chronology%20Persia.%20Furuli%27s%20Response%20to%20COJ%20Examined.htm

LBAT 1419 (No. 4 in ADT V), with one entry dated to year 21 of Xerxes (465/464 BCE). - http://kristenfrihet.se/kf3/Chronology%20Persia.%20Furuli%27s%20Response%20to%20COJ%20Examined.htm

LBAT 1387+1388+1486 (No. 56 in ADT V), mainly dated to the reign of Artaxerxes I. - http://kristenfrihet.se/kf3/Chronology%20Persia.%20Furuli%27s%20Response%20to%20COJ%20Examined.htm

Saros Tablets - LBART *1419; Accession of Artaxerxes I, pages 80-81, citing, J. N. Strassmaier in reports in ZA, VII [1892], 200, 201; VIII [1893], 106) - https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1968-1/1968-1-05.pdf

The Chronology of Ezra 7 (1953), Siegfried H. Horn, Ph.D; Lynn H. Wood, Ph.D, page 28-30 (Conclusion) - http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/e-books/THE%20CHRONOLOGY%20OF%20EZRA%207%20(Siegried%20H%20Horn).pdf

Elephantine Papyri - Siegfried H. Horn and Lynn H. Wood, "The Fifth-Century Jewish Calendar at Elephantine," JNES 13 (1954):14-16 - http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/Treasures/Siegfried_Horn_and_Lynn_Wood-The_Fifth_Century_Jewish_Calendar_at_Elephantine.pdf

208.147.18.9 (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

– No other notable rulers with these names. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Artaxerxes I of Persia → Artaxerxes I
 * Xerxes II of Persia → Xerxes II
 * Sogdianus of Persia → Sogdianus
 * Artaxerxes II of Persia → Artaxerxes II
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Inarus, killed by Artaxerxes I.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Inarus, killed by Artaxerxes I.jpg

WP:ERA
At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artaxerxes_I&type=revision&diff=541687973&oldid=539417852&diffmode=source it was a BCE article. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a BC article originally. StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a RfC about it, which is going nowhere, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about that - I hadn't seen it. StAnselm (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Artaxerxes I


text:
File:BackintheWorldCover.jpg

Summary

Fair use rationale for Back in the World

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

title: File:BackintheWorldCover.jpg


text:
Talk:Double Life (album)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Double Life (album). 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/20050524000654/http://www.treesmusic.com:80/eu-varttina.html to http://www.treesmusic.com/eu-varttina.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Double Life (album)


text: Talk:Ilmatar (album)

title: Talk:Ilmatar (album)


text:
User talk:Reject

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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Willmcw 05:58, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

PS: I just ran across some of your contributions. They aren't minor! minor edits are those that don't change the meaning at all, like a format alteration or the correction of a misspelling. You may have the "mark all edits as minor" setting turned on in your preferences. May I suggest that you either turn it off or manually uncheck the box when making non-minor edits. Cheers, Alphax τεχ 07:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax τεχ 07:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello, Reject! I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be a new account created specifically to stalk people who have said that they oppose the implementation of a policy on stalking, including me. While I am not particularly bothered by this, and don't think it's much of a disruption myself, you should nonetheless take a look at WP:POINT; some people would probably object to what you are doing. Rangerdude, for instance, seems strongly opposed to it.

In any case, I look forward to a fruitful collaboration with you on the articles Wonder Woman, Eliot Spitzer, Space Tree, Jack Bros., Huntley & Palmers, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Wheel war, Christian right, Ku Klux Klan, Operation Phantom Fury, Business ethics, and Chandragupta Maurya. Most of these articles need all the attention they can get. Aquillion 03:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, and thanks for your input on Crip Walk, New Orleans Protocol, Matt Slick, Chuck Munson, etc. Your edits, though small, seem to be correct. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'll just chime in here as I've noticed you are also editing off my contribution list. Thanks for wikifying secondary school. You don't seem to have gone beyond the first 50- I could certianly use some help with the recatagorization I'm doing in the Category:Wikipedia hierarchy- want to "stalk" some more? ;-) JesseW 00:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hah - I reviewed your contributions, and was particularly interested in your edit to List_of_Native_American_tribes. I first thought you had done some vandalism, as you removed one entry and added another, with no edit summary(please do add edit summaries, it really does help), but, after looking at the newly added entry, you *fixed* a problem, and one that would have taken someone else at least 5 minutes or so to fix.  That's good work(for doing minor edits) - thanks! JesseW 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Reject


text: Talk:Vihma

title: Talk:Vihma


text: User:POds/Template:Rugby League Playing Nations links


text:
Talk:Gregory G. Pincus

Untitled
It is entirely misleading that this article says "Pincus, however, dismissed these accounts of side effects and occasional pregnancy, dismissing the concern of his female colleagues Dr. Edris Rice-Wray and Adeleine Satterthwaite". It is clear from Gregory Pincus' letters and papers (available for public viewing at the Library of Congress) that he not only had concern for users of the pill, but consideration for his colleagues. While it is important to be aware of issues of sexism, classism and racism in history, I fear that this excerpt's author has allowed her distaste for 50's era morals to color her portrayal of Dr. Pincus' character. This is both unfortunate and inappropriate.

Not "Envoid", but "Enovid"
"Envoid" is incorrect, see http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/makinghistory/enovid.html -- 137.189.4.1 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Update needed
This page really needs a rewrite... there's a lot of missing info. I'll try to update it when I can - just thought it should be noted.

24.90.0.203 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)DB

Missing information
The Wikipedia article itself had different information than the credible site, American National Biography. The article lacks certain details. For example, we do not learn from Wikipedia that Pincus was a National Research Council Fellow. We learn from ANB that Pincus receives recognition for his rabbit experiment, but also that the recognition was received due to a miscommunication. ANB gives us the procedure for making the pill, and also for conduction the in vitro experiment. This Wikipedia article lacked details about his family life, the awards he's been given throughout his career, and his creation of the Laurentian Hormone Conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kthomas823 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gregory G. Pincus


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster

 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 keep, not including sockpuppets and unsigned votes. Bratsche talk 5 pillars 14:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster
Note to admins: This nomination was made on 06:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC).

 * KEEP I actually came to wikipedia to look up what the hell the background story of this thing was. As such, I definitely think the article should be kept--it is not at all inconceivable that someone else might turn to WP with this question. Just because it's silly doesn't mean it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, imho. 84.165.255.63 14:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to log in. That was me: Bringa 14:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * KEEP Whether FSM is a minor blip on the culture screen or becomes a larger touchstone of the ID debate, it IS a legitimate phenomenom whose record should be preserved. This sort of historial incident is gold for researchers; if I were to study 14th-century Venice, I'd have to spend many years combing through mouldering papers in state archives. If I wanted to study the rhetorical tactics of anti-creationists, I'm going to have a much easier job thanks to Wikipedia. The arguments that FSM is mocking religion are misplaced; Wikipedia should certainly work to ensure objectivity, but when that call goes so far as to demand that topics of offense not be included, it has gone far beyond that standard.--

 * KEEP Should be treated as all other religious pieces --

That said, it is part of the intrnet history now, and as that it deserves a place in the wikipedia, it is something people want to know about (just look it up in your favourite search machine) KEEP
 * KEEP Thats an important and famous piece in an ongoing discussion abou relgion and freedom of speech --213.144.15.2 13:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP What about the freedom of speech?! This is not about mocking the religious beliefs of people, but about the fact that science and religion doesn't go that good together and should be seperated in school. And that the people who take everything in religious books as facts, are sometimes the same ones that crash planes into buildings, because they don't try to question the things they hear.
 * KEEP Theres nothing wrong with it.
 * DELETE  This whole 'phenomenon' started at as a typical atheist jab at religion, and while I am not religious myself, I find it insulting that this sort of behavior is acceptable. Seeing as no-one can prove 100% where we come from (or how), creation and evolution theories are both worth learning about. If this topic is worth keeping, I'm sure some wiki's based on the evolution of dinosaurs to humans can be added.. it worked for Mario Brothers the Movie.
 * KEEP Because its a matter of keeping scientific standads in schools as well as a appreciating an coutermovement to the nonsense of the Kansas school board.
 * KEEP If I remember right, there was a concept called "freedom of speech" ?!?.
 * KEEP its informative and helpfull and its a matter people are interested in.
 * KEEP until you can proof anything it claims is wrong (from Sebastian Zieglmeier)
 * KEEP Better intelligent nonsense than ultraordox nonsense!
 * KEEP Please keep the article and simply add, who was the first to scribe about it, so that an educated reader can classify the information for himself correctly
 * KEEP Many many many guys are seriously interested (including me)
 * Keep Every opinion on how this world came about is an advantage for humanity
 * Keep This is political (and religious) satire at its very best! 80.142.97.152 10:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - as you can see by the german news coverage people are obviously interested. if there's interest, than have it in wikipedia
 * Keep - This article is informative and concerns censorship and free speech. It is in no way offending, misinforming or wrong.
 * Keep - It is a kind of political protest, which just made it's way to Germany (www.spiegel.de)
 * "Keep" - Huge step for mankind.
 * "Keep" _ this is a very good artikle
 * Keep - Maybe it needs some minor cleanup, but it documents an important viewpoint in this debate. Regardless of how "silly" it is perceived as wrt being a religion, it is still equally valid. This article documents an important and popular topic that has sufficiently broad scope.
 * Keep - Deleting that would be a gross act of censorship. People must be smart enough to separate the obviously wrong from the right.
 * Delete* As an article it's terrible.
 * Keep - This page explains what the phrase "Flying Spaghetti Monster" refers to. Deleting would be similar to censorship. 20:30, 22 August 2005 (CST)ellimist
 * Keep - The FSM raises an important point against Creationism, as it shows those who do subscribe to the "theory" of Creationism the same view that rational individuals have been hearing from Creationist "theory" for years. 00:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)ndsutter
 * KEEEEEEP - This is notable as an important cultural backlash against Creationism. More notable is the internet origins of this concept and its rapid ascent to the forefront of the internet debate on Creationism.  SPOILER WARNING:  We evolved from lower primates. 23:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Alan J. Romero
 * Keep FSM is an important internet meme, but unlike many of the others cited, it's not just a joke. FSM is a direct response to the movement to teach Intelligent Design in schools. As noted in the article, "U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Senator Bill Frist have publicly supported the teaching of non-evolutionary theories". The ID debate is a serious issue in America today, and the FSM is a humorous but sincere response to that debate. This article clearly explains the issue & deserves a place in the Wikipedia. 67.171.35.234 22:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -It is an internet meme that requires explanation, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place to provide that explanation--my submission to World Book Encyclopedia was rejected. While it may be offensive to some, its parody of religious faith is impossible to argue against--just like religious faith! Fancy that. And it is timely; a deft, modern arguement in a debate which, for some reason, didn't end at the Scopes Monkey Trial. You want to delete it? Well, my Jesus bobble head just told me that you shouldn't. –'s only edit 16:58:46, 2005-08-22
 * Keep--128.218.15.83 17:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep FSM may be junk to some people but IMHO it is something that will be around for quite a while and needs a "no rubbish definition". The article is well written, explains the subject matter and thus should be kept. If it is to be removed then there should be an article which covers this subject in a broader context. –Astrolox. 14:10:46, 2005-08-22 (UTC) 's only edit
 * Keep The great thing about the Wikipedia is that you can find quality information about topics that might not be otherwise found in a regular Encyclopedia. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is now its own entity that will have a life on the internet, just like I_kiss_you. It is important that this piece of history be recorded, and the Wikipedia is the best place to do it. -- unsigned vote by ; user's first and second edits
 * Keep To remove this yet keep other similar nonsense by "organized" religions would be hypocritical. 's only edit
 * Keep At one point, this would have been just a joke; now, it is a joke with a rebellious undertone. I believe it is worth keeping. –Cory M. 11:54:34, 2005-08-21 (UTC) 's fifth edit
 * Keep It is important, funny and great. --64.54.250.128 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC) 's only edit
 * Keep Comes under freedom of speech and opinion. Edward301 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC) 's eighth edit
 * Ummm, while I'm in agreement with the keep vote, Edward, you're aware that neither freedom of speech nor opinion are criteria for keeping an article on Wikipedia, right? Jason 03:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep One of the things that makes wikipedia great is its inclusion of various "internet phenomena" such as Numa Numa and The Star Wars Kid. As this seems no different, I certainly think it should be kept.  -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep It serves a valid role in the debate over intelligent design in the science classroom. Grant-o 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that satire is a powerful and legitimate way to seriously critique the Kansas decision to include ID in the curriculum and that "Pastafarianism" should be allowed to stand in the Wikipedia. -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep Even if its not a real religion or anything thereof, it is now apart of internet culture. -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep It's a quality piece. -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep This is now a part of net lore and has as much of a right to be here as the Invisible Pink Unicorn -- unsigned vote by ; user's 32nd edit
 * Keep It is an accurate and factual article that is referenced in mainstream journalism (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/online/archives/2005/08/20/intelligent_design_and_pastafarianism.html) --CYBAEA 's second edit
 * Keep The article reports accurately that FSM and Pastafarianism are parodies. It does not present them, unlike Uncyclopedia would, as real. --Drauh 's 29th/30th edit
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. --MicroFeet 06:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like it's on its way to becoming a decent Wikipedia article. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of other Internet phenomena covered on Wikipedia. The article will not turn into an Uncyclopedia article as long as editors do their best to keep the article encyclopedic (See relevant discussion on Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster).-Loren 06:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Creation and evolution in public education if it's a good fit there; otherwise, Keep. Notable parody, and it's not just a parody for the sake of parody, although it may seem so at first glance. android  79  06:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Lullabye Muse 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable phenomenon with political/religious background (although I'd vote Keep even if it were just fluff, based on wide notability). MCB 06:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's 30th edit
 * keep --Irpen 06:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The originator of the FSM is apparently serious about taking the Kansas School Board to court if FSMism is not given equal time. This lends further credence to the points brought up by 69.110.2.83. moof 's 20th edit
 * Keep. This is a fun little article. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh please. Cleduc 07:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a very good parody, worthy of a page. --Nate3000 07:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's 29th edit
 * Keep Notable. Important. Hilarious. --jenlight 07:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Jack (Cuervo) 07:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep agree fully with capitalroadster Aleichem 07:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC). BTW, the article is in dutch also.
 * Keep agree with Android79 and several others --Jrssystemsnet 07:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's fifth edit
 * Keep. There are lots of articles discussing bits of geek folklore and humor; this fits in just fine. Evan 07:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, part of a well known religious and political controversy and a funny parody.BrendanRyan 08:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Although a "light-hearted" topic, it is based on genuine concern surrounding the "for and against" in an argument that has ostensibly been going on since the Scopes Monkey Trial. As such, I think there is meritage in keepage. If other internet phenomena such as All Your Base Are Belong To Us have found a home on Wikipedia, then there is room for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well Sirimiri 08:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for what it's worth (the vote is leaning pretty heavy one way as of right now). It's a good article about a valid parody religion, like Discordianism. Gaurav 08:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Years from now, when all the ID/Evolution drama subsides, cultural anthropologists will find this article informative. It truly reflects the ethos of our time. --Cioxx 09:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's 22nd edit
 * Keep on the condition that the article be made more objective and less stupid. In particular, the irrelevant minutiae of this "religion" decribed in excruciating detail at Flying Spaghetti Monster need to be removed.  If this article is just going to be a clone of the uncyclopedia version, then it is redundant and ought to be deleted.  --Ardonik.talk* 09:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote from keep to abstain since I have just made a major edit to the article in an attempt to improve it. --Ardonik.talk* 18:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Contains information about a serious political and cultural protest. --JonasGalvez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonasgalvez (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2005 's third edit
 * Keep -- Longhair | Talk 13:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is bullshit but if it's notable as an internet joke then rewrite the article. --Sleepyhead 14:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 43,800 google hits for it. It will take careful editing to keep it from becoming Uncyclopedic, but a lot of people are interested in it now, hopefully it can stay/turn into a good wikipedia entry. -Interiot 14:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For all the reasons above.  Moncrief 15:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Omegatron 16:01, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it notable in my opinion. It's like a modern update to A Modest Proposal.  --TheKoG 16:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . It looks like the consensus is keep, of course. But while FGM is totally hilarious and awesome, these are not criteria for inclusion. As far as I can tell, FGM has not made any major newspapers and is mostly a fad among liberal/lefty blogs. I doubt FGM will be notable in six months. Please note that "flying spagetti monster" gets 473 hits on google . Sdedeo 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You misspelled spaghetti. "flying spaghetti monster" gets 47,600 hits. android  79  16:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * And [Google News shows two major newspapers have picked up on this story recently. [[User:Android79| android ]] 79 17:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my faith based spelling. Weak Keep Sdedeo 17:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - we have Invisible Pink Unicorn, why not this too? — ceejayoz ★ 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nothing unencyclopedic about this article - for an encyclopedia posted on the bloody internet, it only seems natural to have entries on internet phenomena :\. hiffy 12:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC -5) 's 38th edit
 * Keep. If its notability fades later, as some have suggested it will, it can be merged to Invisible Pink Unicorn. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. cprompt 17:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Sean Bonner 's 28th edit
 * Keep. I agree with the above statements. --68.50.237.89 17:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's related to significant current events.  --Brouhaha 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. See above. -Hoekenheef 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for at least the next year. The issue may be worth reconsidering after that; Pastafarianism may not prove to be as durable a joke religion as The Church of the Subgenius, Discordianism, or the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If it sparks and dies, re-examine the issue. However, the FSM has been recieving mainstream (back page) news coverage in items touching on the Intelligent Design debate. It furthermore has distinct elements which make it difficult to merge back in with either Invisible Pink Unicorn or Intelligent Design. Mind you, the article should be WATCHED closely by the more cynical, as there is too great a likelihood of NPOV assertions creeping in to pose as fact, especially from Pastafarians who think Wikipedia is the proper place for expounding their recently received divine revelations: Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. But reporting the facts of this tongue-in-cheek movement seems appropriate: keep it. Abb3w 21:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Schultkl 21:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC) This is 's third and fourth edit.
 * Dunc|☺ 21:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Yes, I managed to sign my name without voting (oops!). Anyway, keep (though I myself prefer the Invisible Pink Unicorn pbuh, the idea that She is the only deity capable of crushing believers beneath her holy hooves is blasphemy!  The spaghetti monster can help by spaghterreizing them, or something. Dunc|☺ 17:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' Agree that it fits neatly in the category Internet Phenomenon.  One that goes way beyond the scope of this single article.  It's deletion would only be a disservice to those may have heard of it in passing and seek a communal description.  No different than All Your Base Are Belong To Us Vote actually placed by
 * Keep While you may or may not agree with the point of view that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is intended to parody, this article does not actually advocate that point of view. It merely explains a currently widely known cultural phenomenon. A reader wishing to find out what the noise is about, can read this page and gain understanding. The article also contains useful links regarding the creation/evolution debate as it affects public education in the U.S. I urge that it stay. -  69.110.2.83 06:10, 20 August 2005
 * Keep69.139.157.41 06:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's only edit.
 * merge into Intelligent design. failing that keep.  editing out non-pc entries smacks too much of revisionism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.243.179 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 20 August 2005
 * keep this entry supports an internet meme and dose not attempt to convert readers but rater inform on the topic at hand much like entries of lime cat or clock spider 11:46, 20 August 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.162.107 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 August 2005
 * Keep It may in time be recognised as an Open Source Deity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.58.117 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 20 August 2005
 * Keep I see no reason why having an article on this topic is any different than having an article about Landover Baptist Church or A Modest Proposal --jarquet (64.238.164.115) 07:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --68.145.7.237 07:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)parody is not sufficient reason for exclusion of a cultural/social phenonmena. If the purpose of this site is to maintain a repository of knowledge, and one that goes beyond the regular boundaries of academia, then this is certainly a worthwile entry to keep.--68.145.7.237 07:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's only edit
 * Keep While the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is in demand, the article should stay. Many people have never heard about this and want to find out about this cultural phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.97.126.191 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 20 August 2005
 * Keep It's a serious and informative article. Damn funny too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.27.208 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 August 2005
 * Keep Informative article about a parody, worth keeping. 219.89.137.185 12:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's only edit
 * Keep Worth keeping, provides insight into a widely referred-to cultural phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.161.63 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 August 2005
 * Keep. Entertaining, and obiviously self aware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.245.49 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 August 2005
 * Keep Although it is humorous, and the concept behind it is clearly designed to garner a chuckle, it does show a legitimate point of view in the creationism-evolution debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.48.127 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 August 2005
 * Keep How dare you insult my religion? There are pages on other religions, why not this one? --Crgn 11:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first contribution to Wikipedia
 * Keep This looks like a serious political movement that has already begun. The quality of the artwork depicted not only shows the integrity of the followers, it venerates the movement's purpose. Let's not delete it, lets make it more objective. The Flying Spaghetti Monster should have a page like Jesus and we should site both sides of the argument for and against the Flying Spaghetti Monster Movement.Larrykom 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first contribution to Wikipedia
 * Keep We need this if we have that. Skunkape 14:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first contribution to Wikipedia
 * Keep The article's tone seems to condone the message of FSM, and should be distanced. However, this is a widespread social occurance that should be noted here.  --RyanBrush 15:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first contribution to Wikipedia
 * Keep Please keep this interesting article. I really enjoyed reading it. Additionally, it describes a real faith system (even if contrived and unpopular). People seeking information about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism will likely have their questions answered by this informative and professionally-written article. (Plus it's fun to read!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.199.145 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 August 2005
 * Keep I agree with the above statements. Some people, may we pass no judgements, take very seriously an attack upon Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.--68.50.237.89 17:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's first and second edits
 * Keep Makes perfect sense to me. You just have to have faith in the noodle. -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep. [X] all of the above. What's a better reflection of the zeitgeist than Pastafarianism? -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep. It's as valid of a parody as any other (see Discordia or SubGenius); placing it within the same article as Intelligent Design would be inflamatory, but linking to it within the article's "See Also" section would be a useful way of typifying reactions to the legal decision. TerrorsMartyr 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 's third and fourth edits
 * Keep. Would like to see more relevant information about results of FSM: legal actions, public responses, etc. -wnallen at gmail dot com 14:10, 20 August 2005 (CST) -- by ; user's only two edits
 * Keep The article is accurate, and FSM-ism is now well known enough to deserve coverage on Wikipedia. --foobar There is no ; this is actually the only edit of
 * Keep: the article is accurate, the subject is notable, and there's been enough press coverage as of late to make it something worth covering here. Jason 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: AndreTorrez 22:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC) This is 's thirteenth edit.
 * Keep: Simply no valid basis for deletion. The article records and details a relevant social phenomenon, which is what an encyclopedia does. The argument that the phenomenon will no longer be popular in a few months is ridiculous, since the whole point of keeping a record is for reference when a things popularity and its easily accessable resources have vanished. Further, deletion requests are clearly coming largely from biased entities who take issue with the idea more than the entry.Michael 20 August 2005 (UTC) There is no ; this is actually the only edit of
 * "Keep": Its funny, and its a valid internet in Joke. -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * "Keep": God says it's the truth, so leave it in. God is always right, right? -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep to quote User:Radman1, "the sockpuppets are right." Notable parody deity like Invisible Pink Unicorn. CanadianCaesar 23:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: A lot less ridiculous than the thought of young-earth creationism becoming part of science class. Should demonic possession be studied during psychology courses, next? -- unsigned vote by ; user's 13th edit
 * Keep: People would want to look it up. So keep it. brandnewbrain 23:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Flying Spaghetti Monster designed me to vote keep on this entry. Nandesuka 23:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why are people still voting? It is an obvious keep. There is no need to continue to create so many wasted sockpuppet accounts that are going to vote once, and then never make another single solitary edit to Wikipedia ever again. Func( t, c, @,) 23:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seriously!  We're going to keep the damned article already.  Stop registering useless accounts and wasting our time with fake votes; no one will fall for it.  Go back to the uncyclopedia if you have nothing to contribute here.  --Ardonik.talk* 23:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * A few comments: 1) I never bothered to create an account, but I've edited at least a handful of pages. Wikis don't generally require one create any sort of account to contribute his own input. These are valid votes (perhaps). 2) Pastafarians are only defending their religion (hey, lighten up). 3) If you're going to keep it, please remove the "This article may be deleted" notice, hmm?
 * Keep: Internet phenomenon. Plus, it'd be hard to justify deleting this while the Invisible Pink Unicorn is still around. Ubernostrum 23:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: the fact that I agree with this mock religion's creators is not important in any way; this article documents an existing (Internet) phenomenon, and as such is useful and more than worthy to stay. --positron 00:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not only is it a parody of an actual public debate (creationism v. evolution)and real event (the writing of the protest letter to the Kansas School Board) but to take it down, you'd also have to take down IPU among others. Besides, if you don't, you'll be branded as having a conservative bias by all the liberal bloggers out there, not to mention the bad publicity from BoingBoing and Fark which would just cause a rather large mess as popular outcry to keep Pastafarianism (as it's also known) alive. --joellevand 00:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC) This vote actually added by, whose only edit this is.  has twenty-four votes, all made on one of four different dates.
 * Keep: Pastafarians may just be the answer to the Fristinization of America. -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep: The article clearly identifies that it's a parody religion, and explains how, why and for what purpose. That it explains its made-up tenets is only in keeping with all the other religion-based entries, such as Zoroastrianism. -- unsigned vote by ; user's seventh edit
 * Keep: Every voice must be heard {chetchow proclaims) -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit

 * KEEP: If not for this article I would not have had the pleasure of knowing the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit

 * KEEP: The flying spaghetti monster is real.  What's all the fuss about?  I vote to keep him -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit

 * KEEP: This is a true internet phenomenon and deserves it's space in the wikipedia.65.184.102.35 02:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC) -- 's second and third edit
 * Keep. Notable. -maclean25 02:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

--64.54.250.128 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Removal would be discriminatory against Pastafarians. Seriously though, I really think this thing has legs (the religion, not the FSM). -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit
 * Keep The truth must not be hidden! -User:shift82 -- 's third edit
 * Delete or Merge as suggested above. This could be used by Wikipedia's detractors against us. It is factual though. Merge it somewhere. --Philosophistry 03:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Part of internet culture, mainstream-ish media and a valid piece in the creationsism versus evolution debate. Especially the million dollars on offer for proof that this is not the godshead, as a counter to the $2500000 on offer for proof of evolution. -- unsigned vote by ; user's fourth edit

 * Keep as genuine parody. --Agamemnon2 11:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Not so much Keep as don't censor -- unsigned vote by

 * Keep - important not only for comedy but for a viable argument about religion as a whole. Encyclopedic and verifiable. Just make sure it stays encyclopedic and doesn't go making silly statements as we've seen in some of the recent vandalism. -- unsigned vote by

 * Keep : deletion kind of makes the original author's point. This page is just as viable and worthy as any other page on religion. -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit

 * Keep And bring back clock spider. -- unsigned vote by ; user's third edit
 * Keep This is an informative article about an actual phenomenon that is clearly under attack by religious idealogues, who keep trying to delete it. Should be locked for a period until these vandalism attacks cease. -- unsigned vote by ; user's only edit

 * Keep, sufficiently notable (50,400 googles). But troutslap all above anons. N (t/c) 16:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Is a legitimate political satire movement. - grubber 19:08, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

 * Keep. Noteable enough to keep. The Zaniak 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. I agree with Grubber. Malo 19:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a real religion if people believe it. Does Christianity Have a page?  I think so!
 * Did Christianity Have an existence before January 2005? I think so! -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep or, failing that, merge with intelligent design. This seems to have attracted some mainstream attention and therefore is probably notable. If it's forgotten in six-months then we can simply have this discussion again and merge it with something or delete it as appropriate. That said, I'm far from sure the current edit conforms with POV guidelines. That's easy enough to change, though. Disillusioned kid 21:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep: There are other parody religions with articles on wikipedia, this is no different. Akersmc 21:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Kansas and the nation are at risk of brain death if we don't encourage skeptical thinking. Wikipedia plays a great role in this endeavor.
 * Please read WP:NOT before voting. You seem to be completely unacquainted with the actual purpose of Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep This article documents the creation of an "illegitimate" religion. The subject may be satirical (which I don't believe is grounds for deletion to begin with), however the events surrounding and leading to its inception are actual. One researching this period of time who manages to stumble upon this page (or any given article in tangeable press) will discover the circumstances that brought this joke to life and furthermore won't be mislead into thinking FSM is an actual deity. The article is clearly prefaced in this way. The FSM phenomenon actually took place and it deserves a home in Wikipedia. Jack Driscoll 21 August 2005

 * Keep --69.19.14.17 22:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing this article would be blasphemy. --69.19.14.17 22:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC) DoomPenguin 21 August 2005

 * Keep: You can't hide the truth forever! (18:35 pacific, 21-08-05)

 * Keep The FSM has been mentioned a lot on the internet lately, and Wikipedi is (and IMO 'should' be) an obvious place to come for more information. This kind of cultural information is one of the main strengths of Wikipedia. — B.Bryant 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep I don't see any reason for this to be deleted. --fiberglassdolphin 22:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)  has exactly one edit. This is it.

 * Keep: Without a doubt! Definitely notable.  Meets all criteria for a Wikipedia article.  Funny too. Sunray 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep: The "Flying Spagheti Monster" by itself is pointless. The fact that it is significant in that it is a part of the debate between religion and evolution being taught in schools.  The religion is a persuasive arguement, but notable. Because of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we will probably see the monster appear again in later debates.  --Zoop 01:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep: The FSM article should be kept, but in a manner that is encyclopedic. Wikipedia has various articles on other Internet meme's, why should this be treated any differently. Let the external links point to the sites that have more humor, let the wiki article reflect it's history and coverage as an internet meme.Cfpresley 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article makes clear that it's satirical. Keep for the same reason that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has an entry. Both satirical religions deserve to be noted. --taliswolf 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Article looks good, and has become a pretty popular meme. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 04:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep StrongUser:Indolering
 * Strong Keep. Wikipedia has become an astonishingly entensive and accurate reference to internet culture, as the articles for Invisible Pink Unicorn, Gay Nigger Association of America, and Animutation articles can testify sstrongly to.  I've seen things that have gotten less media attention and more controversy kept, so why delete this? --TexasDex 05:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is of good quality and is noted appropriately as an internet phenomenon of fictional nature.
 * Keep. Notable, sources available. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * At the moment, even with a lot of discounted votes, it looks like this is going to be kept. Might I suggest it to be listed in Unusual articles alongside Invisible pink unicorn? - Mgm|(talk) 07:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has become an important figure in the ID debate. As such, it is useful to have an article which describes Him. August 22, 2005
 * Keep It's a popular meme (As of this writing "flying spaghetti monster" yields 56,900 hits in Google) and it's certainly less silly than List of songs about body parts. -Hessef 08:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many articles on Wikipedia about seemingly trivial things, like All Your Base or many video game related articles. If we keep those then we should keep this. ____Ebelular 09:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now For the time being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster seems pretty notable as a parody of Intelligent Design, and has notable similarities with Invisible pink unicorn.  Perhaps we should return to this issue in a year's time, and ensure that it is still notable.  I should stress that the wikipedia article should be an 'encyclopedic' articles about the concept, and not a piece of fictioncruft Bluap 10:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - itz a matter of fredum ov speech! (sorry, just wanted to say that once...). Uh, seems notable enough by the previously accepted standards of "weird but widespread Internet phenomenon", though I guess it is rather quick. Shimgray 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep FSM is a net phenomenon and part of ID history. CatMoran 11:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Basically, ditto for the above. Like the (shudder) dancing baby, it is a legitimate 'Net phenom. Just make sure that it is accurate.
 * Keep The article seems well written, especially after the rewrites, and I feel it is encyclopedic. ++Lar 14:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Removal of information decreases the relevancy and therefore the value, of Wikipedia. One of the promises of an open source archival system is its ability to encompass information not traditionally found in an encyclopedia, to be a knowledge repository, and by doing so becoming more useful and relevant than the limited scope of a traditional encyclopedia. The function of the moderators should simply be to ensure that such information is described and categorized properly, as is done here, with the description of the FSM as a parody religion. As such it can only serve to increase knowledge, not obfuscate or confuse. This entry, as current August 22, 2005, should be retained. JLF, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Google gets 124,000 hits for Flying Spaghetti Monster. Invisible Pink Unicorn gets 65,100. Both are relevant, and for the same reason. The article qualifies on "noteworthy" --KillerChihuahua 14:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep because notable, as voiced in other votes. Sietse 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable parody, especially in regards to ID debate. Eclipsed 15:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep because otherwise I'll declare a jihad on the unbelievers who delete the FSM. :: DarkLordSeth 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unconvinced of the FSM's encyclopedic nature. The 59K google hits seem to be from blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. (Obviously I was skimming, not checking on all of them. Change my vote to Keep in the event a newspaper article or significant web magazine pickts it up and runs with it.--Tznkai 16:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep: Looks like FSM has attracted the attention of some journalist in a notable paper or two.--Tznkai 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep We need this and other similar satires documented so that others can read about them in years to come. This article is a part of history. Just today I saw a bit on the news about the evolution vs. creationism debate and thought "I should email them and tell them about FSM." Someone needs to archive this. Wikipedia is a perfect place to do this!
 * Keep Wikipedia is far more than a standard book encyclopedia, and articles such as this are uniquely found here. Besides, if we're going to include Densa, FSM is of the same nature.  I've recommended this article to my Mensa friends. Simesa 17:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.Stbalbach 17:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a useful page written with no POV. It was useful to me after reading about the FSM phenomenon in the UK's Guardian newspaper. Equant

 * KeepThis is a popular net parody and should be documented. However, I think the article should focus more on the rationale behind the phenomenon, the concept, and cultural impact vs just the "tenets" and "beliefs" held. --Aboverepine 17:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * KeepThis is a great example of wikipedia tracking online phenomena - the article is not a continuation of the hoax but a documentation of it, and i believe it has a place here. Merging it with spirituality and religion seems to add an organizational bias to the content. I think it should stay where it is... - ze
 * Keep - This article describes a movement just like all the other movements of the world. Just because the author has chosen a particular way to display his ideas about the world does not merit imediate deletion - even if that method is satire.
 * Keep Wikipedia is not really the same as a printed encyclopedia. Extra articles (especially of this quality) don't cost anything (apart from size, which is negligible) and people can find articles here that they can't find in any other encyclopedia, or even in webpages. In fact, my opinion is that we keep any article (unless it is of low quality or inaccurate) so that people can find anything they are looking for, regardless if it is a phenomenon or an internet fad. Poromenos 17:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hey, its even been mentioned on slashdot!
 * Keep - Just as long as you all realize you're going to burn in hell for this.
 * Keep
 * Keep - if only to show the reaction to the boards decision.
 * Keep - This is a bona fide article of underground culture, much in the same way that "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" and the "Badgers, Badgers, Badgers" animations are. Whether or not some people might be offended by the heretical or blatant silliness of the FSM should not be a reasonable grounds for deletion from Wikipedia. Heavens know, I dislike Republicanism and Rap music, but I would never support information on them being deleted from Wikipedia. If nothing else, the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands as a modern, if sillier, version of Swift's "A Modest Proposal", highlighting an equally stupid idea currently afflicting the Kansas Boards of Education.
 * Keep - historical importance, cultural meme, and a fine read!
 * Keep - This is an important article documenting a cultural phenonomenon.
 * Keep - Nothing wrong with the article
 * Keep - I used this article while researching the FSM last week. It was very useful, as I expect Wikipedia to be.  Keep.
 * Keep Cabalamat 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia maintains pages on religions, cults, and movements - this would be no different. Sure, it's a parody, but I think the entry is valid, informative, and should stay.
 * Keep per 67.171.35.234.  --Randy 22:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a joke religion like several others, and about notable enough. Rd232 22:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As a previous user said, "It is an internet meme that requires explanation, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place to provide that explanation."  I guess as support for that point, I submit the following.  After hearing about the FSM, I went to the Wikipedia in order to find out more information.  I suppose I'd like to know where I should be expected to learn about the FSM, its history, and the part it has played in the circus of pop-culture, if not from Wikipedia.  I am certainly not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I feel very strongly that the topic of the FSM must be addressed here in some form.  I guess it would help to know why there is consideration for the deletion of the article.  On what grounds does the article fail the charter of the Wikipedia? Yek401 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * FUCKING DELETE. Just for having caused all this stupid crap.  -HX
 * KEEP. Absolutely, just so there will be an ongoing record of the stupidity going on in the Kansas BOE. From a former Kansan, educated there when it was actually OK to teach Evolution.

KEEP. It is worth reading, so for heavens sake, please keep it.
 * KEEP.It may not be a serious religion, it is a part of internet culture so i say keep it.
 * KEEP Samrolken 01:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Only the religious who are offended want to delete the factual information about this fake religion.
 * ""KEEP"". It's a part of the internet culture now. It's not just any old flyaway meme.
 * ""KEEP"". There is nothing wrong with this article. FSM was created to ridicule Intelligent Design which is a hot current event that is not going to go away.
 * ""KEEP"" The subject of the article is satire and a point of interest for the internet community and is exactly the information Wikipedia should cover. The article itself is adequately written and organized; much moreso than many other articles. It is definately worth keeping. Brlancer 02:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Anything that fights against moronism is worth spreading... Oops. I mean creationism.
 * KEEP: It is an excellent piece of satire on the state of affairs in American Lysenkoism. It is artistically done (the original concept) and the article is well written. This is a significant (sub-sub-)subcultural deconstruction of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical/Politically-active Christian subculture. To remove it from Wikipedia at this time would do a disservice to all:
 * 1) It would damage the pastafarians by keeping their beliefs out of public discourse.
 * 2) It would damage the Intelligent Design movement by eliminating a critical venue for discourse, thus harming both the consumers of Intelligent Design and those who would like to examine all the issues.
 * 3) It would damage American internetting society by depriving the members of the opportunity to reach an understanding of the religion/science/farce of Pastafarianism and through it, Intelligent Design, through an authoritative venue such as WP.
 * 4) It's censorship - or deletionism at best - but aren't there enough other things to fix in the WP than this? Gawd!!! I can't believe how much time I've spent typing this in.
 * John Elder 02:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete How can anyone say to keep this? It started in June of this year. It has no real significance. It may be cute as a little joke, but to give it a defining page? Perhaps if it had been around longer than a couple of months, but right now it's just some fad. Delete By all means, please delete this nonsense.
 * KEEP - This shouldn't even be in question at this point. It's become its own phenomenon both on Wikipedia and on the internet. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has earned the right to have a page. Arielle Rose
 * Keep - a) It's been around for some months now, thereby unvalidating the above anonymous post. b) The article says it's not a "real" religion but rather a parody, and it really seems to have encyclopaedic value, considering its recognition in the media and possible (yet to be shown) role in the discussion about "intelligent design", which future generations will look back with a crying and a laughing eye. --Rubik's Cube 10:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article gives an informative description of a parody,,,dave souza 05:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * keep - this article is informative, and as valid as listing Christianity or any other religion.

 * KEEP - It is notable as a humorous response to attacks on science.
 * Keep - Do not delete reference to a religion that I believe strongly in. RAmen. --Readme 06:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Do not delete this because I think that Wikipedia has done well at indexing and providing information about other internet memes, why is this one any different?
 * KEEP - It is a phenomenon which as discussion and on many other fora has shown has proven to be interesting enoughRomanista
 * Keep. Zeitgeist, google hits, notable for the discussion of intelligent design etc. And BTW, it's a very enjoyable article. If the article is informative and NPOV then it is in any case not uncyclopedic Ben T/C 09:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP - It is without doubt a issue in current newspapers. We need to know this in years.
 * KEEP - A very good article.
 * KEEP. - First Amendment rights, and it also explains just what the fuck the goddamn thing is. yadadydyadyadyadydayada. Delete it and the Catholicism jargon can go as well. --<:3  )~ 12:00 (blinking), some time ago (UTC)
 * KEEP, of course - this is neither a joke (but rather satire), nor an internet phenomenon (too many manifestations outside); it's even an international issue - see -, and the wikipedia is the logical place to look it up. Clossius 09:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP - please keep. The times of witch hunts and censorship is over. Long live Immanuel Kant!
 * KEEP - This article documents today's developments, just like AYB, for example. This knowledge, however insignificant it may seem compared to today's big problems, must be conserved.
 * KEEP [no more to say]
 * Keep. I am not surprised that there is a LiveJournal or other blog entry drawing people to here to vote "keep", but I am not one of them. I believe that this article is legitimate. What started off as a humorous open letter became a notable Internet phenomenon and was mentioned on various high-traffic websites; the vast numbers of e-mails and comments on its own site, as well as references to it all over the Internet, show this clearly. This article is as legitimate as, say, Badger Badger Badger or All Your Base Are Belong To Us, which are wholly unnotable things in themselves, but become notable due to the attention they receive on the Internet and the impact they have on Internet culture. – FSM is even more than this because it forms part of a huge controversy in contemporary American society: the Creationism debate. It is a beautiful illustration of how the controversy is seen by one of the two camps. If this article isn't notable, I don't know what else. – Timwi 11:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Verifiable pseudo-religion. It's good to know not everyone in the USA is stuck in the 14th century like President Bush or that Frist(sp?) guy. — J I P | Talk¨
 * KEEP - As important as creationism
 * KEEP - This article was the only place I could find a definition of "Pastafarianism." --AStanhope 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP** Pleeeeeease!
 * Keep - even made it to Der Spiegel, so certainly noteworthy enough. And a note to all those who dropped by: You can't really expect your vote to count now, but if you sign up and do some work here, the next time, it will count. -- AlexR 11:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Moo. Someone should just delete this trainwreck of a VfD right now, as there's no way that it's going to end up with a consensus to delete with all the crap above.  Kelly Martin 11:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a record of our times. A diary of the world. Will be useful a few years for somebody researching it.--Jetru 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP The article is fact-based, well-written and -structured and its topic has received fairly widespread attention, even in the traditional media. --y!qtr9f
 * Keep. a) as pointed out before, it's fact-based, well-written, and addresses the satirical origins, b) "flying spaghetti monster" does get something like 70,000 hits on google by now, and has been picked up by numerous media around the world, so it's definitely relevant enough afromme 13:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep since this could become interesting and, if it succeeds, could change the way fundamentalism is treated ;) --Viciarg 12:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ligitimate topic andy 12:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we ARE living in a free world, then Spaghetti should be included on the intellectual (spiritual) menu too! Ideally with a bit of Parmesan... net_efekt

 * Keep. Fact-based dogma description. Would fit in a similar way to Christian fundamentalism. Uh, oh, so THIS is it about...stupid me. --El Suizo 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP It's as good as any Religion and as one of the more fact based ones sure worth being mentioned here! Prasie the FSM!
 * Keep. I for one welcome our new spaghetti overlords.
 * Keep. cited in most important German weekly newspaper "DER SPIEGEL" http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,370849,00.html . --Chim 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. If you delete this, you are religiously discriminating all FSMists. So if this goes down, then we all must vote to delete anything on christianity, judism, etc..

 * Keep Please keep this page! Every good encyclopedia should have some humorous articles which should not be taken too seriously.--mac_c 13:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Despite the invasion of clueless sockpuppets/meatpuppets, a genuine internet phenomenon, just as notable as All your base are belong to us. --Calton | Talk 13:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * KEEP! Freedom of religion must be respected!

 * KEEP! This is not reported to be a "real" religion, but is reported as it actually is: A spoof religion designed to show the logical inconsistencies that arise when you try to teach religious tenets as scientific theories.

 * KEEP! This is an important article documenting a cultural phenonomenon.
 * Keep Clearly marked as parody. Definitely relevant. If you delete this, you MUST also delete all reference to, for example, fictional characters. One should keep the same standard for everything. Groeck 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * KEEP! This is a Web phenomenon, and so this is a legit Wikipedia article. All your base are belong to us, Numa Numa or Tourist guy are. Even the SPIEGEL magazine, which is read by 1 million Germans every week, cites this . I just got 67200 hits (!!!) on Google for this topic. So why delete this? Onomatopoeia 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * KEEP! see comment by Groeck kodayu 13:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * KEEP! It is not against religion, its about handling religion and science. And therefore, it should be kept!

 * Keep. Although this is one of the most heavily sock- and meatpuppeted VfD's I've seen, the article as it currently stands is a well written encylopaedic article on a notable topic. Thryduulf 14:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * KEEP! The "Flying Spaghetti Monster Phenomene" is part of an important discussion about "educating religion" in school.

 * KEEP If at some point it is decided to delete the page, then each page referring to a religion should be considered for deletion as well. What right do we have which religions are valid religions and which are not. (Mausy5043 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

 * Keep This article clearly displays faith as the underlying concept of religion. --62.159.27.99 14:46, 23 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.

 * Comment for all those LJers out there who are being abnoctious. you should know that the VfD process is not just a vote. The votes and comments are looked at until general concensus is found.  Also the focus of this is wrong on both sides.  whether or not Spagghetti monsterism is a legitamate reigion is not the question.  The question is whether o not wikipedia should have an encyclopedia article on said religion.  at the moment I don't think the article is up to wikipedia standards but that could be fixed by some1 who knows more about it than me.  if we can keep it encyclopedic, its good with me.  O and a reminder votes are rarely thought of as counting for anything on VfD if not signed. Olleicua 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey/Tally

The following are the hard results, followed by an explanation of how I came to my conclusions. I include the hard vote counts, but based my decisions on the discussions as well. The winning options have been enlarged.

Adopt a parametrised template

 * Yes: 12
 * No: 1

Consensus very obviously in favour of yes.

Presentation style

 * Infobox: 8
 * Text: 11 (52%)

Close, but the majority was in favour of retaining the current standard (text). To force a change supported by a minority is obviously wrong, so I text is the winner.

lb vs lbf (thrust units)

 * lb: 3
 * lbf: 9

Obviously strong support for lbf.

kgf (thrust)

 * Never include kgf measurements: 8
 * Include kgf whenever it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to kN: 3

The former is favoured strongly. Obviously consensus would be ideal, but I thought that I could slack a bit in this case, as the original kgf measurement can be cited using {{Ref}} and {{Note}}.

PS (power)

 * Never include PS measurements: 9
 * Include PS whenever it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to kW: 4

The former is favoured by a strong majority. Obviously consensus would be ideal, but I thought that I could slack a bit in this case, as the original kgf measurement can be cited using {{Ref}} and {{Note}}.

Units to be used for range

 * 1) Always miles only: 3
 * 2) Include whichever is in our source data, but always convert to the other: 4
 * 3) Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to the other: 1
 * 4) Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but never include a conversion to the other: 1
 * 5) Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was taken in, and permit a conversion to the other: 3
 * 6) Use statute miles only if it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to nautical miles: 1

No consensus reached.

 * Here is my analysis of this vote, throwing out two illegal votes, leaving 13.
 * kilometers
 * 13 include (but the vote was poorly worded, and especially the 3 votes for number 1, saying "miles only", and perhaps others may not have read carefully this assumption)
 * statute miles
 * 3 require
 * 5 require unless kilometers are original
 * 4 permit + 1 permit only if original
 * nautical miles
 * 6 require unless kilometers are original
 * 3 permit + 1 permit only if original
 * 1 bar
 * But note that even if you pick the most popular for each unit, that doesn't mean that everybody would support always including all three units, if it were presented that way. Another problem is that not requiring one or the other, or both, of the miles when kilometers are the original, cannot be assumed because that issue wasn't specifically raised. Gene Nygaard 13:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Units to be used for speed

 * Always mph only: 2
 * Include whichever is in our source data, but always convert to the other: 4
 * Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to the other: 1
 * Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but never include a conversion to the other: 1
 * Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, and permit a conversion to the other: 2
 * Use mph only if it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement had been originally taken in, but always include a conversion to knots: 1

No consensus.

Rate of climb

 * m/min: 4
 * m/s: 8

I changed my vote retroactively, bringing the total from 5-7 to 4-8. In this case, the very obvious choice is the latter one.

miles

 * mi: 6
 * sm: 3
 * miles: 5

No consensus on which is to be used, though most of the respondents preferred an abbreviated form.

nautical miles

 * nm: 9
 * nmi: 1
 * nautical miles: 1

Also, the nmi fellow said that nm was okay, so nm wins.

knots

 * kt: 7
 * kts: 2
 * knots: 2

Strong majority in favour of kt. The remaining comments are too small to take into account.

Should units in the specs be linked to their respective articles

 * Yes: 7
 * No: 1
 * Link to a key to all of the units: 5
 * Link only to less common ones, if not also linked in the text: 3

Obviously, some form of linking is favoured, as only one respondent voted no. However, no consensus was reached with regards as to how to go about it.

Include derived specifications?

 * Yes: 7
 * No: 4

Majority supports the status quo.

Thrust/weight

 * With units: 5
 * Without units: 8

Majority supports the status quo.

Power/mass

 * Power/mass in kW/kg and hp/lb: 4
 * Power/weight in kW/kg and hp/lb: 4
 * Power/mass in W/kg and hp/lb: 3
 * Power/weight no units: 1

A vote for measurement in W/kg can be reasonably assumed to go under W/kg and hp/lb. The overall result is no consensus.

Should 'cruise speed' be added?

 * Yes: 10

Large number of supporting comments, no opposing comments.

Should 'maximum overload weight' be added?

 * Yes: 3

Difficult to guage because there were no opposing comments. However, most of the questions garnered double-digit responses, so lack of attention to this question should be considered a failure.

Should number and type of landing gear be added?

 * Yes: 1

One supporting comment does not constitute consensus.

Should 'maximum surface land/sea speed' be added?

 * Yes: 1

One supporting comment does not constitute consensus.

Should 'loaded weight' be removed?

 * Yes: 4
 * No: 1

Strong support for removal is displayed.

Should 'empty' be renamed 'empty weight'?

 * Yes: 9

Large number of supporting comments, no opposing comments.

Should 'maximum take-off' be renamed 'maximum gross take-off weight'?

 * Yes: 7
 * No: 2

Strong consensus in favour of change.

Should 'range' be renamed 'maximum range'?

 * Yes: 7
 * No: 4

Consensus not achieved in favour of change.

Should 'rate of climb' be renamed 'maximum rate of climb'?

 * Yes: 5
 * No: 2

Strong support for change.

'wing loading' >> 'maximum wing loading'?

 * Yes: 3 (75%)

No consensus.

Should the use of mach in max speed be dropped?

 * Yes: 4

No consensus.


text:
Talk:Musta Lindu

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Musta Lindu. 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/20041204140040/http://www.varttina.com/recordings/mustalindu/ to http://www.varttina.com/recordings/mustalindu/

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) 11:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Musta Lindu