text:
Talk:Jeff Kent

Untitled
I didn't put in the feud with Bradley, and I do agree that it's questionable whether it goes into the article, but the feud is not unsubstantiated -- it's reported widely in the press, and it was not denied by any of the parties (Bradley, Kent, or Dodgers manager Jim Tracy). It's whether Kent is in fact a racist that is being disputed and unsubstantiated. --Nlu 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think without some cite that this event has had some notable impact on Kent's career, reporting unsubstantiated accusations isn't the job of an encyclopedia article. —Cleared as filed. 15:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Photo
Kent is no longer a Giant and is hated by Giants fans...can we change the photo? I found a pic of him in a dodger uniform http://www.japantimes.co.jp/images/photos2004/sb20041211a1a.jpg ChopAtwa 04:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Kent → Jeff Kent (baseball player) – The reason for the requested move is that there is no primary Jeff Kent and the qualification by occupation of the article on this Jeff Kent will help readers to find the specific person they are looking for more easily. The main evidence in support of this is: In conclusion, I'm requesting that the Jeff Kent (author) page remains as it is and that this page becomes Jeff Kent (baseball player). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoobysoo (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) This Jeff Kent is undoubtedly very well known in the USA for his baseball exploits, but baseball is relatively meaningless to people in most countries in the rest of the world, so it is very doubtful that he is world renowned. The other Jeff Kent on Wikipedia is Jeff Kent (author). This Jeff Kent is much better known in the British Isles (and maybe in other non-North American parts of the English-speaking world) than the baseball player.
 * 2) Jeff Kent (author) has renown for his achievements in a number of different fields. The baseball Jeff Kent has renown for success in only one field.
 * 3) Jeff Kent (author) is still active in the fields in which he is listed and therefore is adding to his achievements. The baseball Jeff Kent is no longer active in his field and is therefore not adding to his successes.
 * 4) Jeff Kent (author) is listed in a number of different international biographies, for example Dictionary of International Biography, International Biographical Centre, ISBN 978-1-903986-26-4; International Who's Who of Authors and Writers, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-85743-470-5, and International Who's Who in Popular Music, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-85743-514-6.

 * Oppose. Page view statistics (baseball player, author) indicate that the baseball player's page averages about 220 hits per day (with numerous spikes and a peak as high as 2400), whereas the author's page averages 10 hits per day (with few spikes and a peak of 420). The baseball player's page appears to be the intended target of most readers who search for Jeff Kent, even when subtracting the author's page hits from the baseball player's page hits (if we assume all those hits for the baseball player resulted in a click of the hatnote to get to the author's page). Average ratio is about 22:1 (excluding peaks), overall ratio is about 13:1. Mind  matrix  13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment. I don't dispute your statistics, but in what way do they help the readership to distinguish which Jeff Kent on Wikipedia is which? Surely, two different article headings, showing the different Jeff Kents by their main occupation will help the readers to find the one they are looking for more easily. (Snoobysoo) (Snoobysoo (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC))
 * The page titles and the hatnote on the page with the title that is not disambiguated should be sufficient. The first phrase any reader landing on the baseball player's page sees is "For the author, see Jeff Kent (author)." Page view statistics are useful in determining if the plain title should be assigned a particular item, or it should be a disambiguation page; when the page views are heavily skewed, as they are in this case, the concept with the dominant amount of traffic is deemed to be the primary topic (as indicated by other comments below) and is assigned to the plain title. It's the same reason why London is about the place in the UK, and not the various other locations and other concepts with the name London worldwide (see London (disambiguation)). Mind  matrix  18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose. As the page views cited above indicate, far more people are searching for the baseball player than the author. WP:PRIMARY TOPIC seems to indicate that the page should remain as is. Spanneraol (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per page views demonstrating the ball player as the primary topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, naming a new page Jeff Kent (baseball player) will not hinder readers looking for this Jeff Kent from finding him. In fact, it will help because there can be no confusion as to whom the title is refering, as he is primarily known for a single type of activity. However, Jeff Kent (author) is notable in a number of different and unconnected fields. Therefore, a reader looking for Jeff Kent the campaigner may not know that he is also a writer and consequently may click on Jeff Kent. S/he will end up on the baseball player's article and probably then become confused, possibly giving up the search, believing that the campaigner is not listed on Wikipedia. The same case may apply to someone looking for Jeff Kent the historian, the musician and the academic. There is therefore a case, for the ease of the readership to find their right man, that Jeff Kent (author) becomes the primary Jeff Kent, even though his page visit traffic is considerably lower than that of the baseball player. In conclusion, for the readers, moving Jeff Kent to Jeff Kent (baseball player) would make sense and help clarification. (Snoobysoo (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)) Both users are being very impolite as they're talking about me as though I'm an inanimate object and not to me as a human being. Both (especially Spanneraol) are implying that there is bad faith on my part, without any evidence presented to support such an implication. The comments (epspecially those of Spanneraol), in their tone and implications, are personal in nature and not connected to the merits of the discussion. And I don't see any attempt at resolution in the comments; on the contrary, they are mildly inflammatory or potentially inflammatory in nature. The idea of this page is for a discussion to take place on the merits of the proposed case. The aforementioned comments are not debating in nature, but are implicitly accusatory and therefore unhelpful to a meaningful discussion. The Wikipedia policies for articles are: no original research; neutral point of view and verifiability. The information I have put onto site articles has numerous footnotes (many more than is typical on the site) and therefore my contributions are both verifiable and not based on original research. As all of my statements are factual in nature, they are therefore neutral by definition, as facts cannot be biased. I do know Jeff Kent (author), which has helped me to ascertain facts and add accurate information on the subject, which, I believe, has firmed up the article considerably. The world is full of people (and there are sadly examples on Wikipedia articles) who know everything about everything without actually knowing much about anything and like to add uninformed and/or misinformed information, thereby causing havoc in the world of knowledge. In terms of the level of accuracy that Wikipedia is looking for as an online reference work, knowledge of a subject is the key to success. A contributor never having met the subject of a biography is very likely to have a limited understanding of the subject. In terms of the discussion on this page, there is no advantage to me, nor to Jeff Kent (author) as far as I can see, in my proposal to move the Jeff Kent article to Jeff Kent (baseball player) because the Jeff Kent (author) article would be unaffected. Neither would there be any disadvantage to the baseball player. The advantage would be to the readers, who would more easily be able to find the subject they are looking for. I have presented my arguments rationally above and in good faith and in no way am I mischief making. I am therefore asking that the Wikipedia policies be respected and adhered to and that the discussion takes place on the merits of the cases presented. (Snoobysoo (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Comment. There seems to be general agreement regarding the numbers of hits on the respective pages, but they constitute only one criterion for page naming. Other criteria giving a different conclusion were stated in the original request for the page move.
 * Potential conflict of interest. I think there is a high probability that Snoobysoo IS Jeff Kent (author) or someone very closely related to him. Looking at the page history of that article, Snoobysoo did not appear until after someone using the user name "Kent, Jeff" was busted for conflict of interest. Very shortly after that Snoobysoo showed up and has been the primary author of that page and of several other pages related to Jeff Kent (author). Spanneraol (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least, that user knows the author, as he uploaded this photograph (and another) as an "own work". Mind  matrix  13:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Contravention of Wikipedia Policy. The previous two comments (by Spanneraol and Mindmatrix) are in contravention of all Wikipedia's four Talk Page policies: Be polite and welcoming to new users; assume good faith; avoid personal attacks and for disputes, seek resolution.
 * There was nothing "impolite" or personal about our comments. We were simply pointing out that you had a conflict of interest due to your association with the subject. Since you seem to be quoting regulations you should know that editing articles about someone you have a personal relationship with without disclosing that relationship is against policy. And I disagree with your comment that it is not relevant to this discussion as you might have a distorted view of the relative importance of the author Jeff Kent. As to the merits of the case itself, as discussed before a substantial difference exists between those seeking the baseball article and those seeking the author and adding in a disambiguation page when none is needed is a disservice to those people. Spanneraol (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Let me be clear about my earlier comment:
 * I briefly reviewed the article Jeff Kent (author)
 * On that article I found this photograph
 * On that photo page, it states Snoobysoo (you) is the uploader
 * On that photo page, it states the uploader, Snoobysoo, produced the work (an "own work")
 * I concluded that Snoobysoo, who took a photograph of the subject and uploaded it, must be acquainted with the subject. (At the very least, the author and Snoobysoo must have met for a photo session.) I said nothing further.
 * You then inferred that my comment is "in contravention of all Wikipedia's four Talk Page policies". I stated a fact and nothing more. You should review your own comment and evaluate it with respect to the policies you've cited. Mind  matrix  00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Regarding your page move proposal, the "advantage would be to the readers" is your opinion. Wikipedia has a policy about using the basic title for the article that is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It has been shown to you that this is the case for the baseball player. Everyone who has commented here supports that position except you. The article about the baseball player already contains a note at the top to direct the few readers searching for the author to the correct page. Nothing more needs to be done. But don't take my opinion for this - if you'd like input from a wider audience of Wikipedia contributors, you can request further comments to this page using rfc. Mind  matrix  00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Spanneraol and Mindmatrix, you are now addressing me personally in a pleasant manner and putting your responses in a debating way and I accept and respect that.

The position that we've reached, as I see it, is that the majority of the few users who've contributed to the discussion favour keeping the Jeff Kent page as it is because of the greater number of hits on that page, which is a single criterion. I alone favour moving it to Jeff Kent (baseball player) and have put forward several other reasons in support of this suggestion. No arguments against those reasons have been put. As it stands, therefore, I believe that in totality my points have the greater merit (the more so as no-one is disadvantaged by my suggestion), but that the conservative case (clearly) has the greater numerical support. I don't wish to persist in discussion on the subject indefinitely (not least because the moving or otherwise of the article isn't so important as to require continuous debate) and am asking you how you suggest we might reach agreement for resolution, in line with Wikipedia policy in disputes. (Snoobysoo (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move
Jeff Kent (baseball player) The reason for the requested move is that the previous discussion, above, was not completed and therefore should be continued. I asked for suggestions on how agreement for resolution might be reached, but there were no responses. As it is Wikipedia policy for agreements to try to be reached in disputes, this should be attempted. The key points that the opponents of the requested move need to consider are: 1. As the Jeff Kent and Jeff Kent (author) pages stand, how is a reader supposed to identify which of them refers to Jeff Kent, the campaigner; Jeff Kent, the musician; Jeff Kent, the publisher; Jeff Kent, the academic, etc, which the author is also listed as being? The current situation is not clear to the readers. Changing Jeff Kent to Jeff Kent (baseball player) will help the readers to select the right option. 2. What disadvantage to anyone would the requested move be? It clarifies the baseball player in his primary occupation, but does not elevate the status of the author. 3. Wikipedia policy does not require nor specifically request that there should be a primary topic and therefore the proposed change is in line with Wikipedia policy. But, in conclusion, I'm asking for suggestions on how agreement for resolution of the requested move might be reached. (Snoobysoo (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
 * The previous discussion was completed because no one supported your position. And frankly, I doubt very many people would really care about all the different occupations of Jeff Kent (author)... and if they do they could figure it out fairly quickly. Your opinion is against consensus as everyone else who participated in the discussion felt that the resolution should be to keep things as they are.Spanneraol (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion was clearly not completed. You are saying that might is right, that arguments are won by numerical advantage. Wikipedia laments that most disputes are often won by weight of numbers and not on merit. Why is it that you aren't prepared to try to reach some agreed solution? I'm open minded to that, but are you? (Snoobysoo (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Discussions usually last a week, and that one was closed after a week which is proper. Your solution is that you win the argument... I think things should stay as they are and I feel that your personal connection to the subject makes your opinion of his notability somewhat biased. Spanneraol (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Connection to a subject does not automatically make an outlook/opinion biased, although I agree that it might do. I have done my best to be objective in the discussions on the proposed move, but whether I have succeeded in that is, of course, a matter of opinion.

If several people are having a discussion about different points of view and one person asks the others for suggestions on how they think an agreement might be reached between them, the only way that the discussion has ended there and then is through the other people involved refusing, or being sufficiently disinterested, to attempt to reach an agreement. That's why I attempted this continuing discussion, to ask others to put forward ideas to which we could all agree. In my opinion, you are not being objective in the discussion. At the end of the last discussion, I asked for suggestions on how an agreement might be reached. I repeated that at the start of this discussion and at the end of my last post, I said, 'I'm open minded [to]. . . some agreed solution'. Your response to that was, 'Your solution is that you win the argument.' That is patently untrue and you are highly subjectively claiming I've said entirely different things than I actually have. Nevertheless, because there are only the two of us still communicating on my move request and you are unwilling to entertain any kind of an agreement, you have made it clear to me that my appeal for an agreement is dead in the water. Therefore, in conclusion, I'm acceding to the Jeff Kent article remaining under its current heading and not moving elsewhere under a new title. The reasons for this are: 1. No agreement has been reached for a change and therefore it seems right that the status quo should prevail. 2. Because of the very limited number of responses to the request for the page to move, it seems that there is very little interest either way, with this continuing discussion down to two parties only. Therefore the move or otherwise does not seem to be of much importance. However, I'm very disappointed that there has been little or no discussion of the merits of the specific points I have put forward in support of my requested page move and that there has been no attempt to find an agreed solution. Wikipedia's lament that weight of numbers, and not the merit of cases, tends to decide the outcomes of discussions has proved to be justified in this case, in my opinion. (Snoobysoo (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Kent. 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/20080918144456/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_9_64/ai_n15657357 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_9_64/ai_n15657357
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121121051203/http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/players/Jeff_Kent to http://www2.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/players/Jeff_Kent/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150320045612/http://keyetv.com/sports/features/sports/stories/southwestern-baseball-kent-get-enough-868.shtml to http://www.keyetv.com/sports/features/sports/stories/southwestern-baseball-kent-get-enough-868.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Change Jeff Kent Photo
Jeff Kent is in the San Francisco Giants wall of fame. CHANGE HIS PHOTO TO ONE WITH A GIANTS JERSEYYYYYY Shmaney (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jeff Kent


text:
List of Swedish film directors

This is a list of Swedish film directors. It includes some foreign-born film directors who have worked in Sweden.

A

 * Lasse Åberg
 * Mac Ahlberg
 * Per Åhlin
 * Marianne Ahrne
 * Jonas Åkerlund
 * Milad Alami
 * Daniel Alfredson
 * Hans Alfredson
 * Tomas Alfredson
 * Roy Andersson

B

 * Anders Banke
 * Daniel Bergman
 * Eva Bergman
 * Ingmar Bergman

C

 * Nils Olaf Chrisander
 * Peter Cohen

D

 * Tage Danielsson

E

 * Viking Eggeling
 * Lena Einhorn
 * Hasse Ekman
 * Marie-Louise Ekman
 * Daniel Espinosa

F

 * Josef Fares
 * Daniel Fridell

G

 * Kjell Grede

H

 * Mikael Håfström
 * Lasse Hallström
 * Geir Hansteen Jörgensen
 * Klaus Härö
 * Olle Hellbom
 * Richard Hobert
 * Anna Hofman-Uddgren

J

 * Stefan Jarl

L

 * Daniel Lind Lagerlöf
 * Ella Lemhagen
 * Gunnel Lindblom
 * Lars-Magnus Lindgren
 * Ebba Lindkvist (1882–1942), Sweden's first female film director
 * Oscar A.C. Lund

M

 * Ulf Malmros
 * Arne Mattsson
 * Gustaf Molander
 * Lukas Moodysson

N

 * Colin Nutley
 * Sven Nykvist

O

 * Stig Olin
 * Vladimir Oravsky
 * Ruben Östlund

P

 * Reza Parsa
 * Kay Pollak

R

 * Björn Runge

S

 * Alf Sjöberg
 * Vilgot Sjöman
 * Victor Sjöström
 * Johan Söderberg
 * Kristofer Steen
 * Mauritz Stiller
 * Arne Sucksdorff
 * Kjell Sundvall

T

 * Filip Tegstedt
 * Jan Troell

V

 * Bo Arne Vibenius

W

 * Maj Wechselmann
 * Bo Widerberg

Z

 * Mai Zetterling

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

title: List of Swedish film directors


text:
User talk:GWillikers

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. android 79  15:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:GWillikers


text:
Moutier District

Moutier District is one of the three French-speaking districts of the Bernese Jura in the canton of Bern with the seat being Moutier, the other two being Courtelary and La Neuveville. It had a population of about 23,098 in 2004.

From 1 January 2010, the district lost its administrative power while being replaced by the Bernese Jura, whose administrative centre is Courtelary. Since 2010, it remains therefore a fully recognised district under the law and the Constitution (Art.3 al.2) of the Canton of Berne.

title: Moutier District


text:
Endoeus

Endoeus or Endoios (Ἔνδοιος) was an ancient Greek sculptor who worked at Athens in the middle of the 6th century BC. Endoeus made an image of Athena dedicated by Callias (the contemporary of Pisistratus) at Athens about 564 BC. An inscription bearing his name has been found at Athens, written in Ionic dialect. The tradition which made him a pupil of Daedalus is apparently misleading, since Daedalus had no connection with Ionic art.

He was also known to have crafted an ivory Athena Alea, which was in the temple of that goddess in Tegea until it was taken by Augustus to Rome to adorn the Forum of Augustus.

title: Endoeus


text:
Horsemeat March

The Horsemeat March of 1876, also known as the Mud March and the Starvation March, was a military expedition led by General George Crook in pursuit of a band of Sioux fleeing from anticipated retaliation for their overwhelming victory over George Armstrong Custer's 7th Cavalry Regiment at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Poorly rationed and hampered by muddy conditions, the soldiers eventually had to butcher and eat their horses and mules as they became lame or injured. The Horsemeat March ended with the Battle of Slim Buttes and the capture and looting of American Horse the Elder's richly stocked village.

Background
Disputes over the Black Hills of the Dakota Territory came to a high during the Great Sioux War of 1876 between the U.S. Army and the many Native American groups in the area (Lakota, Sioux, Arapaho and Northern Cheyenne). After the Battle of Powder River in March, organized by General Crook and led by Colonel Joseph J. Reynolds, a larger effort was made for a battle later in the spring in order to move the Natives to reservations. Multiple columns of soldiers were made to trap the enemy and prevent escaping. Crook's command, the 2nd and 3rd Cavalries and 4th and 9th Infantries, moved north from Fort Fetterman for the battle. However, they encountered the Sioux and Cheyenne, resulting in the Battle of the Rosebud, which delayed them to the columns in Dakota. The subsequent Battle of the Little Bighorn went on without them.

The intention of the Army's senior commanders was to reunite their soldiers with Custer's in order to finally win the battle by overwhelming the native camps. On June 22, 1876, Custer declined the offer of reinforcements in either soldiers or equipment. On June 24, Custer's troops found shelter on an overlook called Crow's Nest, about fourteen miles east of the Little Bighorn River; from here they spotted a herd of ponies. This overlook afforded them a view of one of the largest gatherings of Native Americans on the Great Plains ever recorded at the time. The gathering had been called together by Hunkpapa Lakota religious leader Sitting Bull and consisted of approximately 1800 men, including such notable warriors as Crazy Horse and Gall. Custer moved forward under false information given by agents that suggested the region had just over 800 warriors, roughly the same size as the 7th Cavalry.

Custer and the men under his command took up positions on a hill near the native encampment known as Battle Ridge. Under the leadership of Crazy Horse, the native warriors decimated Custer's soldiers, forcing a small remnant of his command to defend themselves at a spot now known as Last Stand Hill. Custer and his men were massacred by the combined Sioux and Cheyenne force in what has become known as one of the worst defeats in American military history. Following the battle, the United States increased the size of its army and began a campaign to chase the large force of native warriors that had succeeded against Custer.

The Horsemeat March
Following the Battle of the Little Bighorn, most of the native warriors fled the area and were not pursued for nearly two months. The U.S. Army spent much of those two months trying to recruit and train a force capable of fighting the tribes. General George Crook, who commanded over one thousand cavalry and infantry soldiers together with numerous Native American scouts, eventually took the helm of a punitive military campaign against the Sioux. Despite an extreme shortage of rations for his troops, Crook pushed forward to the Black Hills. The resulting march, variably known as the "Mud March" because of the conditions created by heavy rainfall at the time, and also the "Starvation March" because of the lack of food and supplies, is most commonly labeled the "Horsemeat March" because of the particular food on which the troops subsisted: their own horses.

Dr. Clements' Diary
Bennett A. Clements was a surgeon in the United States Army who, by the late 1860s, had achieved the rank of lieutenant colonel. In December 1876, Dr. Clements filed a report on General Crook's campaign against the Sioux, detailing the Horsemeat March and the Battle of Slim Buttes. His report, which takes the form of a daily diary of the campaign, describes a difficult time of near-starvation. One entry, on August 31, 1876, illustrates the intense difficulties encountered by Crook's troops:

"Long marches in the most frequent of rain-storms, with cold nights and heavy dews, and the prospect of achieving satisfactory results, always so encouraging to the soldier, was not apparent. There were about five-and-a-half days' rations of coffee, and less than two days of bread and salt left; the distance to the Black Hills was definitely not known, and the Ree Indian scouts, who alone knew anything of the intervening country, left us at this point to carry dispatches to Fort Lincoln. Under these unfavorable conditions the command moved from its camp directly south on the morning of September 6, and marched 30 miles over a broken, rolling country, and camped on alkaline water holes, without enough wood to even boil coffee with. On the 7th we again made 30 miles over the same kind of country, and had an equally bad camp. All the litters, nine in number, were in use this day; many horses were abandoned, and men continued to struggle into camp until 10 P.M. On this day the men began to kill abandoned horses for food. The sick and exhausted men of the infantry were carried on pack mules, whose loads were now used up, but only a small part of those applying could be so carried."

Dr. Clements' report describes an exhausting trek through the badlands of the Dakota Territory, which became lakes of mud in the stormy weather that accompanied the journey. Before the march ended, many of the soldiers were sick and wounded, while others were forced to dismount from their horses and to walk through the mud in order for the horses to be eaten. It was a dismal follow-up to the disastrous Battle of the Little Bighorn, with General Crook, who had been considered the most talented general in the U.S. Army, losing a large proportion of his force to starvation and disease.

Battle of Slim Buttes
By September 8, the troops were living off the meat from the cavalry's horses. Crook sent ahead a request for a train to bring supplies into Deadwood, a mining town in the Black Hills, and a small group of troops to pick up the supplies and carry them back to his column. On the way there, the troops discovered the Lakota tribe, in particular, an encampment of Oglala men, women, and children near Slim Buttes, in present-day South Dakota.

At dawn on September 9, roughly 150 men led by Captain Anson Mills attacked the Oglala encampment, though the Natives fought back fiercely. The Battle of Slim Buttes quickly spiraled into one of the largest battles on the Northern Plains since the Battle of the Little Bighorn itself. Crook arrived with the rest of his forces the next day, but the Oglala camp was still much larger. Ultimately, Crook's forces captured an enormous supply of dried meat that the Oglala had stockpiled to last them through the winter, and captured or killed 37 Oglala warriors. On September 13, 1876, the Horsemeat March ended when Crook's troops came in contact with the train carrying their supplies. The U.S. Army did eventually find the Lakota, but the troops were too worn out to go in pursuit of them.

title: Horsemeat March


text: User talk:70.49.221.122

title: User talk:70.49.221.122


text:
User talk:Archola/1

It seems that Jesus has come to bring not peace, but a sword! Please leave messages relating to the Jesus articles on this subpage: User talk:Archola/Jesus Christ! = Welcome to Wikipedia! =

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC).

= IP =

Yes that was me. Must have forgotten to sign in. —Aiden 04:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

=Sophistry= ''content moved to /Sophistry.

=Socks and vandals=

I promise not to use the nick name again but it was a new one to me and it really made me laugh. Don't worry no one will get the wrong idea as thanks to the sock thing they all know I'm a married woman! I've just ignored Raisinman as he's obviously got an agenda that doesn't include improving the article. Incidentally there is some suspicion flying around that User:Robeaston99 and User:Robsteadman may a pair of knitted coverings for feet. SOPHIA 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * User:Robeaston99 certainly has a connection to User:Robsteadman (look at Easton99's edit history), but I think we should assume good faith that Ronsteadman wouldn't stoop to such behavior. KHM03 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I e-mailed Rob before I left the message above. A check user would confirm of course but I would be very surprised if a physical link was shown. I guess he's a student or mate of Rob's - stubborn he maybe daft he is not. SOPHIA 19:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * At this point I agree. Arch O. La 19:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry for barging in, but I'm just curious how you can be so sure they're not linked when the only articles User:Robeaston99 has edited are Robert Steadman, Jesus (a vote) and Historicity of Jesus (a vote), articles very related to User:Robsteadman and even the name Robeaston is similar to Robsteadman, yet in the case of Deskana where he uses a public IP address that has been found vandalising before you were so sure he was the culprit. WP:AGF and all, no doubt, I'm just curious how this is so much more of a clear-cut case than Deskanas which you pursued and rob wants a permanent ban for. --Oscillate 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * There may be a link...they could be friends. But, we should assume good faith on the part of Robsteadman.  Also, I don't think there's any way Deksana will be permanently banned, even if he admitted total guilt.  KHM03 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Exactly, just as all we can say about Deskana and the vandal is that they edited from the same college. Arch O. La 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course, I understand that and have no intentions other than honest curiosity as to how sophia came about the different judgements. --Oscillate 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Did SOPHIA come to a judgement about the vandalism, or is she simply acting as an advocate for Rob? I'll let her answer the question; I just think we should be clear. Arch O. La 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I was going off her comments where she certainly seems very suspect (and continues to be) about Deskana's role in the vandalism; but with Robeaston whose edits have 100% only been Robsteadman-related (including two votes where Robsteadman also voted), you all are sure there is no link, not even a tiny discussion. To be clear, I'm not pursuing anything, nor do I want to start an accusation - I'm just confused. Is this to avoid hassle with rob or what? --Oscillate 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) -- WP:AGF, clearly. --Oscillate 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree there's a link, we're just not sure if the link is direct or indirect. I've tried to be consistent about both issues (and fair to both sides), so my own position is that for both Robeaston99 and Deskana, there was a link, but it was an indirect link. That's a hypothesis (not a conclusion) that is amenable to further evidence. Beyond that, I can only let others speak for themselves. Arch O. La 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I resent the above accusations that I am linked to robeaston99 - particularly from DESKANA after his recent vandalism of my page be honest, you were responsible). I have no idea whjo robeaston99 is and I do not operate a sockpuppet. Now kindly retract your accusations and insinuations. After deskana's vandalism and the quorum/cabal calls and strangers turning up to supprt the unebncyclopedic version on the vote this is outrageous. And all a bit familiar from the way you all tried to get rid of SOPHIA. Robsteadman 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Fine, I retract. The bigger issue is the perceived irregularaties of the current vote, an assertion that both sides have made. BTW I never tried to get rid of SOPHIA, in fact I helped to encourage her to come back. Arch O. La 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I really didn't want to go into this as I think there is nothing to be gained but more bad feeling all round. I have done this job professionally and so maybe I'm being too impersonal about this - sysadmins do not AGF in these situations - they check all available facts and see how they stack up with the account of the user. Let's just say that if I had access to the logs I could confirm some aspects of his account where he has been a bit vague or contradicted himself about being logged on/not having time to log on. I have met initial responses to investigations like this before and experience has taught me that it usually means they are hedging their bets as they are not sure what you can find out. I might have jumped to conclusions but his lack of apology to Rob and his initial "tough it out" stance did not do him any favours in my view. Neither did the fact that he admitted to knowing about the vandalism from that IP but did nothing about it - I don't think he ever thought it could be linked back to an IP he had access to - it was his bad luck that a previous checkuser had revealed the location of the IP address. Even more bad luck for him was that I put two and two together. The guy is young so this all may be mistakes due to inexperience. I have seen Deskana wind Rob up - maybe you have to be on the other side to realise some of his posts are just one line comments that flame the debate without adding content. I have not said anything as Rob is a grown up and as I said before Deskana is still quite young. I also wonder what Deskana said to his friend to make him think it would be funny to put notices about being homosexual and a friend of jesus on Rob's user page. To completely exonerate him is naive and I suspect if this happened to some of the editors who have been supportive of Deskana they would feel differently. Interestingly enough - the only person who has nasty messages on their page about this is me. As they say "shoot the messenger". I'm also not happy that because Rob has different views to most of the editors and they have been frustrated by him no one thought he was due an apology. I have seen a lot of support for Deskana but I was the one who had to point out that he owes Rob an apology. Courtesy shouldn't be restricted along partisan lines.

 * As for the Robeaston99 - I have said I would be surprised if it was a sock purely because I grant Rob more intelligence than to be that obvious - he works in a school so has access to IP's other than his own and he has seen all the Giovanni/SOPHIA sock stuff so is fully aware of what checks can be done and what will ring alarm bells.

 * I've just been edit clashed - Rob - Archola is not one of the ones I think you are angry with. I would be pretty fed up if I'd been vandalised and everyone was saying supportive words to the person either directly or indirectly responsible but Archola does not belong in that group. SOPHIA 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, I did appear as sort of a character witness at Deskana's trial. Deskana is young (17) and I think that even if it was his friend who was guilty, it would be good if Deskana were to apologize for being indirectly responsible. This is the sort of thing that "builds character" (I hated when my father used that phrase, but I've grown old and wise enough to understand the sentiment). Arch O. La 23:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Did I? Did I?
Hiya, Arch. As it seems, I seem to have pinpointed the problem. It's been told to everyone now that Rob had sockpuppets. Can you believe it? I can't say I was so surprised.

Seriously though, I can speak no less than that I saw it coming. I knew something like this was bound to happen. My only query is, why only 24 hours? For someone who sockpuppeted to rig a vote (and to create his own vanity article), he got the same punishment as a 3RR violation. In fact, he's had worse 3RR punishments than this.

Honestly, you and CTS have worked the hardest on this page, is there a process for naming official moderators for a single Talk page? If I hadn't already given you a Barnstar, I would give you another. (And in fact, CTS is due for one as well.) --Avery W. Krouse 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aussi, for him to have been fully and immediately convicted of SP, the IP addresses used for each acct would have to be the exact same, meaning initiated from the same computer on the same internet connection. --Avery W. Krouse 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That might still be a friend or student. Whatever you decide to do, be sure to respect civil rights and due process. That's all I ask. Arch O. La 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Due process is one thing, and getting what is due is another. In fact, they are both what I'm trying to champion right now. If Rob is taken to ArbCom, those of us who believe he should leave will get to present our cases. Those who take a neutral stance, like you, can provide evidence as well. And those who are on his side, including he himself, get to present cases again. Go take a look at one of the cases at WP:ARBCOM. The process is very, very fair, and acts in due process. It gives him a chance to defend himself but also gives Wikipedia a chance to render a verdict and end the issue, whether it means to allow him to stay, or to vote him off the island.

 * Is it always like this on these pages? In the couple of months I've been around I've been involved in a few "heated" discussions but it's always been up front in the open and short lived - until the last couple of weeks. All these "socks", spurious accounts, edit wars and page protections mean I spend more time trying to work out what is going on than get edits done. Have I hit a bad time after a lull or is this normal? SOPHIA 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Socks?
Feel free to request an WP:RCU re: User:RTS and User:NPOV77. You might want to contact User:Jayjg on his talk page, letting him know who you are and that these disruptive users have appeared, resulting in page protection, and share your concerns. He's an excellent and very fair administrator with "checkuser" privileges. KHM03 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

= Vandalism virgin =

Wow my first user page vandalism. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

= Fair use images =

Fair use images (namely Image:StarWarsOpeningLogo.JPG) are not allowed on user pages per the WP:FAIR policy. I removed the image for you. I hope you understand. -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair (use) enough. Though without the pretty picture it does make that section look a little dull. Arch O. La 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * *Waves hand* You want to not use fair use images! -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * My new NASA picture is public domain, so your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me. Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Waves hand* Move along! -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

=Want to talk about Jesus?= Go ahead but be warned He has his own subpage.

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy
Please take a look at the Talk page (Talk:Timeline_of_unfulfilled_Christian_Prophecy) of this article. —Aiden 04:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed your interest in this article. I would like to encourage you to cast a vote for the alternative names that are currently being proposed. Thanks for your help on this matter --T-rex 04:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF is Steven Levitt?
Your presence is requested at the Steven Levitt deletion discussion. Wikipedia needs to be streamlined, and we can't possibly document every godless crackpot who comes up with some inane "theory". By creating articles on people who are out of touch with American values, we only give them a platform to preach their otherwise non-notable message from. Thanks for your time. :)

Peace in Christ

 * Eh, when I clicked on the page it has already been archived. I don't know anything about Steven Levitt. I am a centrist so I believe that all views should be aired, but I also believe false views should be refuted if neccesary. Arch O. La 17:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I should move Freakonomics down to my Recommended Reading List? Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Genesis
I like Peter Gabriel better, more cerebral.

Very funny re the location of the Gospels. The only book of the Bible I never read was Numbers -- I'd rather read a phone book. Wait, they might be the same thing.

Don't know about the Tree article, never read it. Jim62sch 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Knowledge Base
Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. ((unsigned| Nsandwich}}

 * Which version of Christianity? I'd hate to get in a fight with Catholics and Baptists ;( Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Archola, isn't Aquinas close to the name of a contributor on Wikipedia here? Their moving all the pages to nonsense locations, but its all saved in the history, so as soon as someone can come online who can do something about this we can just revert it all. Homestarmy 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Well what are we gonna do about it, just wait for the admin to come home or what? I've started a debate on my talk page there if you'd care to help at all, he seems quite adament in trying to force me into an argument, but I don't have time to outline all the stuff he's asking for and like I said, it won't do anything. Does wikicities have an abuse report thing? Some super admin guy came by I think once.... Homestarmy 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sacramental Union article
As a fellow Lutheran I invite you to have a look at this new article. Your help and input would be greatly appreciated. drboisclair 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad, Arch, that you added something to this article. drboisclair 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arch, the anonymous change to the Sacramental Union article was strongly in favor of the Real Presence, but his/her addition to the article was not NPOV. Notice that I will no longer say POV because POV is not necessarily bad. NonNeutralPointOfView is bad in my view. I think that this author was saying that the ELCA denied the Real Presence. BTW, I followed the link that you put on that article's talk page and was shown a "not available" page. Cheers. drboisclair 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Arch, I am with you on the relative conservatism/liberalism of the anonymous editor. I used to be ultra-conservative in my early years when we had the 70s split in the LCMS. My edits to this article rejecting the idea that sacramental union=consubstantiation is as conservative a position that anyone can come to: outside of the fact that it is true. I remember that Roman Catholics were told that the Lutheran position was consubstantiation. Then there was impanation too, which is an analogy to incarnation. In impanation the body and blood of Christ becomes bread in the same way as the "Word was made flesh." The Roman Catholics rightly brand that as heresy in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Of course, that is my POV, but POV is not bad as long as it is not NNPOV! drboisclair 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey Archola, I just got back from a several day vacation, and after reading all that stuff from him on CTSW's talk page, is there some big problem or something with this person I should know about? Homestarmy 16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting that your pastor described your position as "consubstantiation," and to tell you the truth that idea is really close to the Lutheran position. From my understanding it is connected with this "local presence": having the body and blood present like regular food. It is "really" present and "physically" present to be eaten and drunk. Our LCMS 1943 expanded catechism states that it is "sacramentally" present. We reject a "spiritual presence" as the Reformed churches understand that present because they reject that we really eat and drink Christ's body and blood. Another way of describing it is that his body and blood are "supernaturally" present. The point is that everyone who eats and drinks the sacramental bread and wine eats and drinks in, with, and under the forms of them, the body and blood of Christ. Your pastor was 100% right when he said as you pointed out: "How this happens, we were told, was not revealed by God, and was thus a divine mystery beyond human understanding." That is why we do not say "consubstantiation" because that doctrine of William of Occam says too much. I think, though, that you were taught your catechism well. drboisclair 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to Grigory's post on my talk page, Arch. drboisclair 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Arch Grigory, please see my modification of the final paragraph re: the relationship of Consubstantiation to Sacramental Union. I think that I have it now.drboisclair 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Arch, more research needs to be done. I am interested, so I will do it. I think you have put your finger on the truth when you said that it was "broad": it is the position of William of Okham I believe. You don't like too much speculation, so it wouldn't be to your liking. It would not be to Luther's liking either. drboisclair 01:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And I Thought I was Conservative
WELS? I would never have thought it. I'm even more impressed with your consensus building skills! --CTSWyneken 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Grace Lutheran is Wisconsin Synod, but it's also the closest congregation. My own views are somewhere between the old ALC and the LCMS, which I guess would draw me to the AALC if there was a congregation nearby. I try to explain this on my user page. At the moment I am merely Lutheran, confused by sectarian differences. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can help you work these issues out off-wiki, feel free to email me. I do have a stole! ;-) --CTSWyneken 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on cat Talk:Martin Luther
I know you love to vote as an editor, so would you like to come vote on the category at the end of the Luther talk page. This will settle things once and for all. Drboisclair 01:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Hardly love. On Talk:Jesus I learned that filivoting (filibustering disguised as voting) is a hypersphere of Hell of transfinite dimensions. Things aren't much better at Talk:Christianity, as a certain Orwellian Website Which Shall Remain Nameless has demonstrated. I choose not to throw myself into another conflict (I just know as a Lutheran they'll say I'm hopelessly biased anyway). I will say that certain editors involved at Talk:Wikipedia have mistaken CTSWyneken's RfA for an RfC. I seek less contentious pages for the time being. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

=Recommended Reading=

Saul vs. Paul
Have you read Daniel Boyarin's A Radical Jew? Boyarin is a professor of TYalmud I think at Berkeley, and the book is on Paul in the Jewish/Hellenic context. If you are interested in the split between Jews and christians, I think you would find this a very thoughtful and interesting book. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I read the first three pages on Google Books. Enough that I'm interested. Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Boyarin is brilliant, and he is a serious scholar, but his book is making an argument and is therefore arguable. If you want something on topic that is more careful (conservative) scholarship, I highly recommend chapter six of Shaye Cohen's The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society) (University of California Press), which is entitled "Judaizing" or something like that. Cohen scrutinizes all of the primary sources available and draws whatever conclusions he thinks are justified, and makes it clear when the sources prevent one from arriving at a definitive conclusion. I think you will find it very interesting and useful. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll have to look into it. Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A pretty good book
Ever read King Jesus by Robert Graves? It's quite fascinating. Jim62sch 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Just to put your mind at ease, Rainbowpainter is not a sock-puppet, nor a meat-puppet. Jim62sch 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I finally know what the heck you were talking about -- one of my alleged friends put that there.  If you get a chance, contact me on e-mail (from my user page).  Jim62sch 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The e-mail what???? Obviously I missed something. Jim62sch 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I fixed it, you can e-mail now. Jim62sch 12:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistent Life Ethic
Glad you found the link. I am anti-war (though I'm supremely annoyed at the American leftist pacifist movement, which shows little intellectual depth, IMHO), and don't believe there is such a thing as "just war" (I'm with the mennonites on this). You may want to check out Hauerwas' Resident Aliens and/or Yoder's Politics of Jesus as food for thought. Peace...KHM03 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll add them to the list...might take me a while to get to them. Arch O. LaTalk TCF 03:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

An Actual List

 * Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew.
 * Cohen, Shaye. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society)
 * Graves, Robert. King Jesus
 * Hauerwas, Stanley and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony
 * Hayes, Judith. The Happy Heretic
 * Levitt, Steven. Freakonomics
 * Yoder, John Howard. Politics of Jesus

= Nurr = Nice internet detective work, ace. You'll well on your way to using basic internet utilities! 68.188.139.55

= Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot =

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you, SuggestBot. Now, let me add one: Viral Eukaryogenesis needs attention from an expert in cellular or molecular evolution. Arch O. LaTalk TCF 11:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Archola/1


text:
Zhang Bao (Shu Han)

Zhang Bao (fl. third century) was the eldest son of Zhang Fei, a general who served the warlord Liu Bei during the late Eastern Han dynasty and the state of Shu Han during the Three Kingdoms period of China. Little is known about Zhang Bao's life because Zhang Fei's biography in the historical text Records of the Three Kingdoms only mentioned that he was Zhang Fei's eldest son and that he died early.

Zhang Bao had a son, Zhang Zun (張遵), who served as a Master of Writing (尚書) in the Shu government and was killed in battle at Mianzhu in 263 during the Conquest of Shu by Wei. Zhang Bao also had a younger brother, Zhang Shao (張紹), who inherited their father's peerage and served as a Supervisor of the Masters of Writing (尚書僕射) in the Shu government. After the fall of Shu in 263, Zhang Shao was enfeoffed as a marquis by the Wei government along with many other former Shu officials who surrendered.

In Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Zhang Bao appears as a character in the 14th-century historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which romanticises the historical events before and during the Three Kingdoms period. He makes his first appearance in the novel when he informs Liu Bei of his father's assassination just before the Battle of Yiling. Zhang Bao meets Guan Xing, Guan Yu's second son, and competes with him for the position of leading the vanguard force into battle. After nearly coming to blows, Zhang Bao and Guan Xing are stopped by Liu Bei, who forces them to become oath brothers in the same manner he did with their fathers many years ago. The two are regularly depicted together from that moment onwards.

In the novel, Zhang Bao is involved in several military campaigns, including the disastrous Battle of Xiaoting and Zhuge Liang's Northern Expeditions against Shu's rival state Wei. In the third Northern Expedition, Zhang Bao falls into a gully while pursuing the Wei generals Guo Huai and Sun Li, and later dies from the resulting injuries. When Zhuge Liang learns of Zhang Bao's death, he becomes so upset that he coughs blood and faints.

Modern references
Zhang Bao is first introduced as a playable character in the eighth instalment of Koei's Dynasty Warriors video game series. In the ninth instalment, his mother is Xiahou Ji (Xiahou Yuan's niece and Zhang Fei's only known wife), making him a brother of Xingcai.

Zhang Bao's rivalry with Guan Xing and his involvement in the Northern Expeditions are depicted in the 2008 film Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon.

title: Zhang Bao (Shu Han)


text:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School (Ottawa)

Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School (formerly Sir Wilfrid Laurier High School) is a public high school located in the Fallingbrook neighbourhood within the suburb of Orléans in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The school is under the jurisdiction of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School was originally located on Carsons Road which was then part of the City of Gloucester. The school primarily served the neighbourhoods of Carson Grove and Pineview. In 1992, the school relocated to their current location on Tenth Line Road in Orleans which was then part of Cumberland Township. The former location is now used by Collège catholique Samuel-Genest.

The school is directly connected to the Ray Friel Recreational Complex which features a swimming pool, skating rink, a branch of the Ottawa Public Library, a branch of the Eastern Ottawa Resource Centre, and the River Heights Children Centre.

Each school day consists of four seventy-five minute periods. Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School offers a number of special academic opportunities for students such as a co-operative education program, Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM) programs, and dual course programs with Algonquin College. The school also offers special education for students who require additional support including in-class IEPs and specially trained educators.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier Secondary School offers a variety of varsity and intramural sports including golf, football, cross-country running, basketball, soccer, volleyball, tennis, ultimate, rugby, badminton, ice hockey, cross-country skiing, curling, downhill skiing/snowboarding, swimming, touch football, track and field, baseball, and softball.

Notable alumni

 * Richard Adu-Bobie – Sprinter
 * Jackson Bennett - Football player
 * Brendan Gillanders – Football player
 * Kurleigh Gittens Jr. - Football player
 * Obby Khan – Football player
 * Momin Khawaja – Terrorist
 * Alex Lacasse – Singer/songwriter
 * Mark Seale – Football player
 * Melinda Shankar – Actress


text:
User talk:Redd~enwiki

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 15:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC).

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Redd~enwiki


text:
Talk:Marie Lafarge

Untitled
When I was writing this article, I have come across an article in the Web entitled Les rebondissements de l'affaire Lafarge, 160 ans après..., which alleged a conspiracy theory angle on the LaFarge case. I was pondering whether to include this aspect of the case, but ultimately decided not to include it because it seems too far-fetched, as most conspiracy theories are.RashBold 15:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Marie Lafarge


text:
Slavník dynasty

The Slavniks/Slavníks or Slavnikids (Slavníkovci; Slawnikiden; Sławnikowice) was a dynasty in the Duchy of Bohemia during the 10th century. It is considered to be of White Croat origin. The center of the semi-independent principality was the gord of Libice located at the confluence of the rivers Cidlina and Elbe. The Slavníks competed with the Přemyslid dynasty for control over Bohemia and eventually succumbed to them.

Etymology
The name Slavník comes from the Proto-Slavic *slava ("glory") + *-nikъ.

Origin and early history
Generally it is considered by many scholars to be a dynasty of White Croats in Bohemia.

The vast majority of what is known about the Slavnik family, is from the works by John Canaparius, Bruno of Querfurt, and Cosmas of Prague. Prince (dux) Slavník (†981), is generally considered as the founder of the dynasty, as there is no other known older relevant personality. He therefore also gave the name to the whole family. According to Bruno of Querfurt, Slavník was the grandson of the Saxon duke Henry I, by maternal line most probably of an unknown Slavic woman, with whom Otto I had an illegitimate son William. This connection explains the friendly relationship between Slavnik's son Vojtěch, Saint Adalbert of Prague, with Otto III, and the Otto's efforts (Congress of Gniezno) around St. Adalbert's canonization, and the installation of Adalbert's brother Radim Gaudentius as the first archbishop of Gniezno Cathedral.

According to Canaprius and Bruno of Querfurt, Slavnik was a noble ruler, and although he ruled over a vast territory and had plenty of gold and silver and minions, he was a humble man, generous towards to the poor people. His wife Střezislava, a noble woman characterized by modesty and compassion, came from a noble Slavic family, "worthy of his royal blood". As such, they were appreciated by both nobles and common people. Slavník had at least 6 sons, among whom two – Vojtěch (Adalbert) and the illegitimate Radim (Gaudentius) – later became saints.

Slavnik's duchy tried to keep its quasi-independence by maintaining friendly relationships with its neighbours, such as with the blood-related Saxon Ottonian dynasty, or with the Přemyslid dynasty or Zlicans (supposedly related to Střezislava), and with the Polish Piast dynasty.

Slavniks' downfall
Slavnik's heir was his son Soběslav who rushed to consolidate the princedom's independence. For instance, he began to coin money in Libice, known among numismatists as the silver senars, in spite of the primacy of Prague. Prague was the capital of the Duchy of Bohemia, ruled by Boleslaus II, and the Diocese of Prague was founded there in 973. However, after Adalbert was appointed the head of the Diocese in 982, a conflict escalated between Boleslaus II of Bohemia and Poland's Duke Bolesław I Chrobry in 985, and in 989 Adalbert left the Diocese, only to return in 991 or 992 when a truce was signed. Although he managed to found the Břevnov Monastery, as he was from another principality's noble family, he did not have enough authority and support by Boleslaus II in the Diocese, and in late 994 offered his episcopal see to Strachkvas, Boleslaus II's brother, who nevertheless refused it. In 995 Adalbert again temporarily left for Rome.

In these conflicts lies the answer of their downfall. Slavniks did not help Boleslaus II, they were either neutral or allied with Bolesław I of Poland. This was a direct challenge to Boleslaus II; he could not afford any mighty rivals and was determined to add the Slavnik lands to his dukedom. In early September of 995, while Soběslav was at war against Lusatian tribes as Boleslaw's and Otto III's ally, Boleslaus II with confederates (the Vršovci) stormed Libice on September 28, and massacred all of the family, although he originally promised a truce to Soběslav's brothers until his return.

Only three Slavnik family members survived, because they were not present at Libice at that time: Soběslav, Adalbert and Radim (Gaudentius).

Aftermath
Soběslav temporarily lived in Poland and was comforted by Bolesław I. The ruler also stood out as an intermediary for Adalbert toward Boleslaus II, appealing for Adalbert's return, but the nobility and the people did not accept Adalbert, as they were afraid of his possible vengeful intentions.

In 996, when Strachkvas Přemyslid was going to assume the office of a bishop in Prague, he suddenly died during the ceremony. The strength of the conflict of the two dynasties is also demonstrated by the Přemyslid rulers' refusal to ransom Saint Adalbert's body from the Prussians who murdered him, so it was purchased by Bolesław I, and was quickly canonized by the common effort with Otto III.

Soon after, a temporary anarchy escalated in Bohemia, as two weak dukes Boleslaus III and Vladivoj followed, leading to the Bolesław I's temporary control of Prague. Eventually, a year later, Soběslav was killed by Bohemians defending a bridge near Prague, shielding the retreat of Polish forces from Prague in 1004.

Territory
According to the Czech archaeologist E. Šimek (1930), who researched the note by Cosmas of Prague, the center of the Slavnik's principality was Libice, a castrum located at the confluence of the rivers Cidlina and Elbe, and fort Stara Kouřim. It included castrum Litomyšl, and their border in the East went as far as castrum Kłodzko on the Nisa river in now South-Western Poland. In the North their land went as far Charvatce, probably previous or newly founded settlement by the White Croats. In the West their territory stretched along the rivers Jizera, and further in the South-West along Vltava and in the short part Mže. The territory included settlements Netolice, Doudleby and Chýnov.

Certain

 * Slavník (†981)
 * Strezislava (†987)
 * Soběslav or Soběbor (†1004)
 * Spytimír (†995)
 * Pobraslav (†995)
 * Porej (†995)
 * Časlav (†995)
 * Vojtěch Saint Adalbert of Prague (†997)

Related

 * Radim Gaudentius

Possible

 * Witizla
 * Vok
 * Radslav the Zlican
 * Radla – a priest or a monk, the teacher of Adalbert
 * Astrik

title: Slavník dynasty


text: User talk:68.55.123.91

title: User talk:68.55.123.91


text: Category:Dukes of Brunswick-Lüneburg

title: Category:Dukes of Brunswick-Lüneburg


text:
User talk:GSG Flash

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 15:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with Image:Swillancer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Swillancer.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:GSG Flash