text:
Talk:Death Race 2000

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Cult film
I find it incredible that the cult film category has been removed from this twice by ThomasK. A google search of "death race 2000" +"cult film" gets 1400 hits, which seem to almost all be on topic, and it is certainly considered one of the archetypal cult films. For the sake of open debate, please explain how this isn't a cult film before simply removing the category again. --Misterwindupbird 03:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Category talk:Cult films --ThomasK 03:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Speculation tag
Specifically I was referring to the suggestions that it inspired Carmageddon and the like, as well as the plot/character analysis. This is all OR without a source.--Drat (Talk) 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * If I remember correctly, doesn't one of the Death Race 2000 cars actually appear in Carmageddon? Long time since I've played it. Mark Grant 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Carrmageddon went through several phases of development, starting as a simple banger reacing game, then it was to have a mad max theme, after the licencing fell through, it was to have a Death Race 2000 theme, which also fell through, Carrmaggeon is basicly the final Death Race 2000 theme with all branding removed.{{unsigned|81.86.51.104}]

 * You still need a reliable source to back that up.--Drat (Talk) 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You could source Wikipedia itself. The article on carmageddon gives said information.--Hazel77 07:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot cite another Wikipedia article.--Drat (Talk) 07:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but that page itself must be sourced from somewhere meaning that we can, hence, source this article from there.--Hazel77 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * There was a third Carmageddon game titled Carmageddon: TDR2000 (which is to say The Death Race 2000) Although it doesnt specifically say that it means The Death Race, i read a review of it once in PCZone when it first came out, and it stated that this is true.

 * Mobygames states that "Carmageddon: The Death Race 2000" is the full title for the game. I do not know where they have sourced that from.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.49.118 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Death Race 2000.jpg
Image:Death Race 2000.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Plot summary
Since its earliest days this article has had a long, unsuitable, blow-by-blow account of the plot, including a score list of points scored for killing pedestrians. I've decided to take the step of removing the whole thing and invite someone who has seen the film recently (I last watched it in the year of its release) to produce a brief summary of the essential plot details. --TS 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One question: Why? I see no reason to remove the entire plot section of an article, nor to be excessively brief. I watched the film a few months ago and read the wikipedia article shortly after that, I really don't feel the urge or see the need to rewrite the whole thing. There are some problems with it, but I think they can be sorted out without the need for a rewrite.--Hazel77 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The passage I removed is nearly 3,000 words in length--about twice the current length of our plot summary for the Tolstoy novel, War and Peace. I've called an RfC to see what other people think; perhaps we can find somebody willing to provide a summary in a few hundred words.  --TS 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the current plot summary is some 80% of the article. This is definitely far too long. --TS 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Too long? Yes. Worthy of deletion? No, not in my opinion. I am willing to help rewrite the article myself, am just see no need to start from the beginning. I'll have a stab at removing some of the outrageously long-winded bits now.--Hazel77 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 * First RfC response: Well, we all seem to agree that the plot summary is too long - waaaay too long (which is great since this is usually the biggest bone of contention). I've never seen the movie, so can't help there.  If I were y'all, I might sniff around to see if a userbox exists for this movie and then invite some seasoned editors who are using it to help out.  I might also ask some recent editors to the article to help.  In the meantime, my general opinion is to keep bad sections (unless they are copyright violations, libelous, NPOV, or otherwise unsalvageable) until they are good, since most stuff on Wikipedia starts out pretty bad.  For example, I don't delete trivia sections on sight; I integrate what I can into the article and chuck the funcruft.  If I can do neither at that moment, I tag it, hoping someone else does.  There is often good information in the thick of bad information that can be salvaged. Also, since your casual Wikipedia reader doesn't have a clue what a good plot size is, the article is probably better off having a bad one than none at all.  In this case, if you all can't find anyone who's seen the movie recently, you can read this virtual re-creation of the movie that already exists, and probably cut away enough to still have a decent plot review until someone else comes along to tighten it up some.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, better an excessive plot section than no plot section at all. I currently have a copy of the film on my external hard-drive, so I can easily watch that to refresh my memory.--Hazel77 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I watched the film again just two nights ago - while the summary seems accurate, who knew that there was so much plot in the film? I agree it needs to be tightened. I'll see if I can expand some of the other sections to help balance things out a bit, when I get some free time. Bilby (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll place a very brief skeleton synopsis here:
 * /Plot rewrite
 * Hopefully it can be fleshed out to give a reasonable summary of the film in somewhat less than 3,000 words. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've written a first draft, about 400 words Please edit mercilessly. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, things went awfully quiet there. I propose to copy my draft, currently about 420 words, into the article in place of the current plot summary. My grounds for doing so are as follows:
 * it is much better written than the existing summary
 * it is much briefer than the existing summary
 * it gives a much better understanding of what the work is about

If there are missing elements, of course it should be expanded (all of Wikipedia is a work in progress) but I believe it's better than what we've got there now. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like a good job to me - I made very minor edits, but probably moved things around rather than improving anything. I'd be happy with it as a plot summary.
 * btw, I've grabbed some material to use to build up the other sections - there's a nice comparison of Death Race 2000 with Rollerball in a recent edition of Deathray which should be worth adding, and I've got a few other more formal sources. It should help balance out the article. Bilby (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I inserted it into the article. We'll see how it goes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Second RfC response: At the moment the plot summary is being used as a coatrack for an in universe description of the film; the fictional elements are being treated as if they are real which contravenes WP:WAF. Unless the in universe content is edited out, the plot summary completely fails WP:NOT; I would expect a very brief skeleton synopsis of less than 150 words will be sufficient.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The guidelines for film related articles state: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot) I'm not sure where you got the 150 words guideline from, but it might be something you would like to discuss at the talk page for the film plot guidelines. Rray (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was just thinking about this article the other day and wondering whether someone had pruned down my incredibly long synopsis. Thanks to everyone who contributed to doing so -- this version looks much better! Azure Haights (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar!
No offence, but some of the grammar on this page is awful! I have edited most of it, but I've probably missed quite a bit, as well. Just to let you know! --Timdpr (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cars
I've removed quite a bit of unsourced material, apparently original research, about the cars in the film. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Scoring
I thought the scoring was given as women being 10 more than men, not as women being 10. The actual amount is never discussed as it's supposedly the same as the previous year. If anyone agrees I'll change it Ianbeany1989 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I watched a scene from the film where it says that each lucky woman brings 10 points to the driver. Toddlers... 70 points. Ninahexan (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Adults were 20, teens 30, toddlers 70, elderly 100, and everyone female was +10 over that score. Just watched the whole thing. 90.247.229.178 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

1971 film?
Apparently this was first made in 1971 and the 1975 film is a remake??? Why isn't this in the article? --24.21.220.126 (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And in the credits on the DVD, it claims to be 1977. Mebden (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stallone Breakout role?
Is this not considered his big break? It's the first time he gets a staring role in a major picture. Given this films cult status and the fact that almost no one has heard of his other role two years prior to this, with henry winkley, it could be argued that this was his first break, prior the Rocky series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12C0:5340:E88D:D53B:7831:28BF (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Death Race 2000


text: Category:Mexican novelists

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

title: Category:Mexican novelists


text:
User talk:Praveenkv

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

copyright
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Puttaraja Gavai, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --fvw *  14:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

 * This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Rory 0 96 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bhimsen1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bhimsen1.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 14:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:VeerNarayanaTemple.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:VeerNarayanaTemple.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Gadag.jpg as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Praveenkv


text:
Sancho IV of Pamplona

Sancho Garcés IV (Antso IV.a Gartzez; c. 1039 – 4 June 1076), nicknamed Sancho of Peñalén (Antso Peñalengoa, Sancho el de Peñalén) was King of Pamplona from 1054 until his death. He was the eldest son of García Sánchez III and his wife, Stephanie, and was crowned king of Pamplona after his father was killed during the Battle of Atapuerca.

Reign
Sancho was the eldest son and heir of García Sánchez III and his wife Stephanie. García was killed at the Battle of Atapuerca on 1 September 1054 during a war with the Kingdom of León. Sancho, who was then fourteen years of age, was proclaimed king by the army in the camp by the field of battle with the consent of the king of León, Ferdinand I, also his uncle. Sancho's mother served as his regent until her death on 25 May 1058. Remaining faithful to her husband's policies, she continued to support the monastery of Santa María la Real of Nájera.

Soon after Sancho's accession, many lords in the west of the kingdom went over to the Leonese. Only Íñigo López, lord of Biscay, and Sancho Fortúnez, lord of Pancorbo, remained loyal. On 29 December 1062, Sancho and Ferdinand signed a treaty defining their shared border. Ferdinand was recognised as king of all Castile and Sancho's authority was recognised in the Rioja, Álava, Biscay, and implicitly Guipúzcoa.

As king, Sancho received support from his other uncle, King Ramiro I of Aragon. Out of gratitude for "his friendship, his fidelity, his help and his council", Sancho gave Ramiro possession of Lerda, Undués and the castle of Sangüesa. These places were probably to be held as fiefs or in a similar arrangement. Beginning in 1060, Sancho put pressure on al-Muqtadir, king of Zaragoza, and exacted from him annual payments of tribute, parias.

War and assassination
From 1065, he was in conflict with Castile, raised to a kingdom for Ferdinand's son Sancho II of Castile. This culminated in the so-called War of the Three Sanchos (1067–1068). Years before, Sancho's father had managed to retain a series of frontier lands, including Bureba and Alta Rioja, which had been claimed by Ferdinand. Sancho the Strong sought to reconquer these lands for his kingdom. Faced with an invasion by his cousin Sancho of Castile, Sancho of Pamplona asked for aid from his other cousin, Sancho of Aragón. Their forces were defeated by Sancho of Castile and his trusted alférez (supreme commander) El Cid. Sancho of Pamplona lost Bureba, Alta Rioja, and Álava to Sancho of Castile.

Sancho IV was assassinated in Peñalén (Funes), whence his nickname, by a conspiracy headed by his brother Ramón Garcés (el Fratricida, the Fratricide) and his sister Ermesinda. During a scheduled hunt, Sancho was forced from a cliff by his siblings. Upon his assassination, the kingdom was invaded and ultimately partitioned between Sancho of Aragon and Alfonso VI of León and Castile, brother and successor of Sancho II. Alfonso occupied La Rioja and Sancho was proclaimed king in Pamplona.

Marriage and family
Sancho Garcés IV married a French woman, Placencia, in 1068. with whom he had two children:

 * García Sánchez, who was removed from the line of succession by Sancho Ramírez after the death of Sancho Garcés IV in 1076. García Sánchez died in Toledo around the year 1092.
 * García Sánchez, with the same name as the eldest son, dead after 1092. His existence is confirmed on a diploma from the Monastery of Valvanera dated in 1092, which states Garsea et alter Garsea, germani, filii Sanchii regis Nagerensis.

Sancho Garcés had a lover named Jimena with whom he had two illegitimate children:

 * Raimundo Sánchez, lord of Esquiroz.
 * Urraca Sánchez

title: Sancho IV of Pamplona


text:
Talk:John Barrowman

2005 - present?
I'm not sure whether the recent edit changing the section about Doctor Who to 2005-present is the right way of doing it. After all, Captain Jack has not appeared in the show since 2010 (I believe) so this could be confusing or misleading, perhaps implying him to be a more regular character than he has been. Thoughts anyone? Pinkalotk (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd personally list it something similar to how we did at List of David Tennant performances when he returned for the 50th so put 2005, 07–08, 10, 20 instead of 2005–present. Although could the argument could be brought up it's not listed like that everywhere: Billie Piper, Noel Clarke, etc. don't use that format. At an absolute minimum perhaps I'd go with 2005–10, 20 to separate the ten year gap.  The Doctor Who (Happy Christmas!) 02:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, he's not been on the show in all that time, so I think it's wrong to format it as 2005-present. I've changed it in the article. Thanks. Pinkalotk (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations vs Allegations of misconduct
Indecent exposure (exposing one’s genitals) falls under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and as such is a sexual misconduct.. allegation. Based on the number of times it has happened and the reliable sourcing of such, this was not a single event, but a long–standing issue with the subject.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  19:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 * The heading of this section was changed in May to "Sexual Misconduct Allegations" from "Allegations of Misconduct" which is more neutral and allows readers to come to their own conclusion about the events that are being described in the section.
 * John Barrowman has always openly admitted to lewd and bawdy behavior with his co-stars on set and there was never any allegation that these incidents were at all sexualized in nature. Use of the term "Sexual Misconduct" directly invites comparisons with the odious behavior of men in power who have sought to leverage their influence to procure sexual favors etc. This was absolutely not the case here - and use of the expression ( however legally / technically literal ) creates a fully misleading and exaggerated impression of the nature of what transpired.
 * When so many other well known figures in the media have openly described behaving in exactly the same manner on sets without being labelled as sexual predators, the treatment meted out to John Barrowman begins to look like targeted bullying... 47.158.22.247 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree with user:Loriendrew here. It is is sexual because it involves his genitals. No matter the intent behind it, it is simply more precise to describe it as sexual misconduct. To be honest, since he has addressed and confirmed it, I would be keen to take out the word allegations and just leave it as sexual misconduct. Nauseous Man (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that he has "confirmed" sexual misconduct - in fact quite the opposite, and not one single person has come forward to say they ever felt targeted or intimidated. All of the direct witnesses have described the atmosphere on set as one of hilarity.
 * This was all so overblown and sensationalized in the British tabloids that people seem to imagine there must be 'more to the story' and have filled in the gaps with their own imaginations. In fact this behaviour was NOT repeated on other productions and was never described by any of the people who were actually there as at all sexualized in nature.
 * Somebody took it upon themselves to quite unnecessarily and provocatively insert the word "Sexual" into the heading of this section back in May and I don't think that is fair, balanced or objective.
 * I'd like to respectfully request that the title revert to the more neutral former stance "Allegations of Misconduct" 47.158.22.247 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that the section about Barrowman's performances (filmography and Theatre and concerts) be split into a separate page called List of John Barrowman performances. The content of the section takes up a significant amount of space and is large enough to to make its own page. While not everything is sourced, I plan to attach a source to every performance that I can find. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Lotsw73 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @OlifanofmrTennant: I will ping a couple of WP:WikiProject Doctor Who editors to see if they can respond to this proposal:
 * @Redrose64, @Rhain, @U-Mos, @Alex 21, @JacobTheRox, @Pokelego999, @OliveYouBean, @Foxx247
 * (sighs exhaustedly): Right, that should do it. Lotsw73 (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Barrowman


text:
Talk:Rostra

Rostrum
Is the rostrum a decorative beak or a heavy galley ram? --Error 03:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither. This article is about a platform on which one speaks.
 * Also, the picture is terrible; the rostra is hidden in the background. Could someone please find a new picture? Fuzzform 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Error is correct...rostrum is a ships ram...Rostra is the speakers platform that get's it's name from the rostrum displayed on the platform.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article also states that the Rostra was built by Caesar and Octavian....it was much older than that and changed several times.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am making changes. Sue me.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please forgive my editing style on this page. It was very difficult to clear through the mass of incorrect information to figure out what was excepted and knwon facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excepted? LOL! I am such a dweeb! --Amadscientist (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit

 * As recently requested by Amadscientist, I've given the article an extensive copyedit. More is needed. I'm not in a place over this holiday where I have resources for research but will try to do some and make improvements when I return from holiday. Note that the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Rostra Augusti" (a description of certain monuments) is clearly garbled. Someone with the appropriate research resources is needed to sort this out. Simmaren (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will start gathering references.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've marked several places where citations are required, but the entire article cries out for citations. This should be the focus of any plan for improvement. Simmaren (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Working Comments

 * I removed the reference to the Curia (wikilinked to Curia Julia) in the first sentence of the lede. The Rostra Vetera dates to the early 300s B.C., while the Curia Julia wasn't built until 44 B.C. and therefore shouldn't be a part of a description of the "original" setting. I will be adding additional information from various sources, as well as reorganizing a bit. Some of the detailed description in the lede belongs (IMO) later in the article. Simmaren (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still in medias res. Simmaren (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that the article on "Rostra" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary says that the term "Rostra Vetera" was used in the time of Augustus and later to distinguish what the article now calls the Rostra Augusti from other later Rostra located elsewhere. This requires more investigation. Simmaren (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The images are helpful but there may be too many for an article of this size. Let's worry about that later. Simmaren (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The material under "Rostra Augusti" needs work. Some of it appears to be confused -- the Lapis Niger is next to the Rostra Vetera, not the Rostra Augusti. Further research is needed, especially in specialist works on the Forum. I've gone about as far as possible with the more general works in my own library. Simmaren (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One or two aspects of the diagram of the Comitium may be incorrect. The diagrams I have seen in my sources show the orientation of the main axis to be northwest/southeast and not north/south as shown here. Accordingly, the Rostra should be shown on the east side of the Comitium with the Curia Hostila to the northwest. Also, the Curia Hostilia is shown out-of-scale in this diagram (too large relative to the size of the Comitium). Also, as indicated elsewhere, the label "Rostra Vetera" is anachronistic (that is, the term was not in use until the original Rostra was replaced by Caesar and Augustus and referred to the replacement Rostra. Simmaren (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to find a substitute for the quote from Bunsen. It is old and the description is based on an examination of two old coins, not exactly a high resolution source. Presumably, there is much more recent information based on archeological investigation, inscriptions and other records that have become available since Bunsen wrote. Better to cite these. Simmaren (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of this article (like the Curia Julia reference) were already here on the artcile before I began making changes. I have been researching the Rostra and the Comitium for a while and I am pretty sure I have it's location correct based on several other diagrams that have copyright. However I have taken your suggestion and altered the illustration to reflect other descriptions as well.

 * I think some of the information you deleted does need to come back.....but I prefer to get sources arranged first now that there is another editor working. I will get the sources for the citation tags added.

 * I have two goals for this article. Eventually sections for all the rostra of Ancient Rome. There was another rostra discovered during the original digs that was misinterpreted as a medieval building and demolished but I think it was the Rostra of Vespasian. Also plan one more illustration of the Rostra Vetera.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your plans sound fine to me. I recognize that what is here now may be improved but is definitely incomplete. As I indicated, my immediate research resources are exhausted, but I can visit a university library soon to borrow more. I tried to eliminate information which seemed wrong or for which I had no reliable supporting sources. If deleted information can be reliably sourced it should come back in, of course. I appreciate the problem of unsourced "legacy" information. Simmaren (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Project Illustration
The diagram is based on a number of sources for locations much of which is from Platner's topographical dictionary. I based the scale on later archeology sketches from in front the Curia Julia. The scale of the Curia Hostilia and the locations of the other structures are based on other maps as well as written documetation.

Please give all input you have on the illustrations as they can be changed to match consensus. If you have sources let me read them or you can change the image yourself if you would like.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 * My two sources for layout are Millar and Stambaugh. These are consistent although I'm not sure that together they amount to a "consensus". Millar spends a lot of time describing the layout and topography of the City preliminary to discussing his main topic: the "crowd" in Roman politics during the Republic. He has a diagram of the Republican forum (p. 40). Stambaugh's focus is more directly relevant: ancient Rome as a city. He has a perspective drawing (fig 8, p. 112) which is very helpful. Perhaps I could scan these and send them to you by e.mail? Both show the long axis of the Forum Romanum oriented northwest-southeast, with the Comitium, Curia Hostilis and Rostra at the north/northwest corner. The Curia is behind (furthest north) and fronts on the Comitium amphitheater and faces the center of the Forum. The Rostra appears to be on the opposite (south) side of the Comitium amphitheater from the Curia. Thanks for the invitation to change the image but I'm afraid I lack the technical skill at the moment and woud like to reach agreement on the way it should look in any case. Thanks for your cooperation. Simmaren (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There appears to be so many different layouts because of the length of time the Rostra was used, how many time the Comitium was altered and how many times the Curia was rebuilt. I am attempting to illustrate as many periods as possible.

 * There is a newer version from an auther I just cited that shows the Rostra next to the Lapis Niger an the Graecostasis close to the way I had originaly layed it out. It is based on 1998 photos of the most recent excavations around the Lapis Niger, but yes, you input is very important....as you are the only other editor her. What we decide is consensus once we agree on it. As more editor begin to contribute consensu may change but must be accompanied with references to cite published facts.....that are recent. (as you state there is very credible newer information out there)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rostra location
It makes more sense if the Rostra was on the side your mention....but all sources are showing the other. Is this a confusion with the Graecostasis?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting references
It is not possible to check many of the references that have been used. I will endeavor to find these references and properly format them.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rostrum is a different subject, theatrical or otherwise
The definition of "Rostra" has very definite meaning in the ancient world and in to days world as well.

Rostrum (singular) was defined after the 18th century to mean a speakers podium or pulpit as well as a raised theatrical platform.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rostra. 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/20070116113911/http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/dunkle/romnlife/rostra.htm to http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/dunkle/romnlife/rostra.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rostra


text: User talk:130.13.116.89

title: User talk:130.13.116.89


text:
User talk:Daveirl

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006
Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 03:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daveirl


text:
User talk:Savonarola XV

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Savonarola XV


text:
Chrysler Norseman

The Chrysler Norseman was a four-seat fastback coupe built in 1956 as a concept car. Although designed by Chrysler's stylists, actual construction was contracted out to the Italian coach-building firm of Carrozzeria Ghia. The concept car was lost during the sinking of the SS Andrea Doria.

Design
Virgil Exner, working in Chrysler's Advanced Styling Group, developed lower, sleeker, and more aggressive-looking automobiles for Chrysler in the 1950s. Exner also wanted maximum all-around visibility from the car's interior and he took the design of the Norseman to the limit. The dream car was named for Exner's ancestry.

The Norseman was designed by the Chrysler Corporation Engineering Division and built by Ghia of Turin, Italy. Ghia had experience in the construction of low-volume vehicles and one-off prototypes. Chrysler wanted a fully drivable vehicle, not just a rolling mockup, so all normal systems for the powertrain, braking, suspension, were installed. Power was from a modified 331 CID Chrysler Hemi engine producing 235 hp with a pushbutton-controlled Powerflite automatic transmission. The body panels on the car were made of aluminum with "a sharply sloping hood, upswept tail fins and a covered, smooth underbody for aerodynamic efficiency." The Norseman combined a "sweeping fastback rear end design and Chrysler's own take on a tailfin and bumper treatment."

More difficult to fabricate was its unusual cantilevered roof, which was secured to the body only at the rear C pillars. There were no side pillars, and at the front the roof rested only lightly on a fully frameless windshield. An advanced 12 square foot power sliding glass panel sunroof feature was difficult to integrate into a slender roof structure lacking A-pillar support at the front. The windshield and roof glass was specially made by PPG Industries to provide strength and be shatterproof. The door glass was ventless (having no small vent window at the front), a styling theme that would become popular some fifteen years later. The interior featured four bucket seats and the retractable reel-type seatbelts were mounted in the door and fastened across the occupants to the full-length center console which was later adopted in the early 1990s to satisfy passive restraint regulations enacted by the US Department of Transportation. Other features included concealed automatic headlights, door handles, and concealed trunk lid opening device.

Building the complicated car, with its advanced features, took fifteen months and the car was finally delivered to the freight forwarder. it was estimated to cost US$150,000 (in 1956 dollars). The car missed its intended cargo shipment from Italy and was instead put into a container on the next available ship, the passenger ocean liner SS Andrea Doria.

Legacy
The car was to be a featured attraction of Chrysler's auto show exhibit for 1957 and was shipped from Turin by Ghia to New York City in July 1956. The car was shipped on the ocean liner SS Andrea Doria, which was involved in a collision off the coast of Massachusetts and sank, with the loss of fifty-one lives and all cargo.

The beautiful, one-of-a-kind automobile was a "fascinating casualty" of the sinking of the Andrea Doria. As a result, the car was never shown to the public and was never seen by most of the stylists who worked on it. It is known to automotive historians, however, through photographs and specifications. Chrysler never used the cantilevered roof design in any subsequent vehicle.

Automotive designer Dick Teague, who worked for Chrysler as a stylist during the mid-1950s, was responsible for many of American Motors' vehicles and the "Norseman's resemblance to the 1965 Rambler Marlin fastback coupe, or vice versa, was uncanny."

The remains of the Norseman were found in Andrea Doria's number two cargo hold in 1994 by diver David Bright. By the time it was found, it had disintegrated into a pile of debris with only the wheels still being recognizable.

title: Chrysler Norseman


text:
Clifton Gardens

Clifton Gardens may refer to:

 * Clifton Gardens, New South Wales
 * Clifton Gardens, New York

title: Clifton Gardens


text:
Talk:Angelman syndrome

Imprinting
There's a contradiction between the statement about imprinting (an AS father can have a Prader-Willi daughter, which I agree is possible in theory according to what's known about the genetics of each syndrome) and the statement that no one with AS has ever been known to have a child.

Is the statement about the person with AS fathering a daughter with PW theoretical only, or has it ever been shown to occur? -Ikkyu2 03:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's only theoretical. The only case that's known is a mother with AS having a daughter with AS. Pub med link to article —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvictaHOG (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Imprinting (which is discussed in the wikipedia article) explains how the same grm. An individual gets one copy of 15 from paternal and maternal sources, but either copy that he/she gives up to offspring, must be reset to paternal, if the person in question is a guy; or maternal if she is a woman. Every copy of chromosome 15 in a sperm should be paternal imprinted, despite the fact that 50% of them WERE maternally imprinted before spermatogensis. So in theory it might be possible for an AS or a PW patient to have even a normal son or daughter, or there might be an increased risk of either AS/PW. However, many of the deficits in both are severe and fertility might be affected, and life span might be shorted to the point where offspring are unlikely. DocGratis 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Links
Added some links to the Angelman page, however, some editors are saying that they think the links shouldn't be there. Some of the links added are to various countries websites containing further information on AS. In my opinion these links should be there, because they support the document in providing more information, as do the forum links. Aussieland 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've got this
I have all symptoms expept below adverage head size and epilepsy, my head is larger than normal. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.54.130 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

-no, you don't. the article is pretty accurate when it suggests that a best case scenario with Angelman Syndrome would be a vocabulary of about 50 words. none of those words are likely to be 'epilepsy'. 70.139.127.53 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Angelman != Aspergers
I removed "Although often considered part of the autistic spectrum" from the article. Angelman syndrome is not at all considered part of the autistic spectrum. I've studied both and met and worked with people with Angelman Syndrome and people from all over the autistic spectrum, and there's no mistaking one for the other. 70.139.127.53 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect reference
1 Angelman, Harvey should read Angelman, Harry - I believe? O schipper (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi can we not use this boy with a puppet image?
It's really, really creepy it gives me nightmares big time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.13.143.73 (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

-Please, please, this. Oh god this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.176.153 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't understand why that image is used here either. I guess the implication is that the child in the image has Angelman syndrome, but that's not actually stated in the caption.--Eloil (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd add that the child clearly doesn't have Angelman Syndrome: it's just not in the range of their capabilities to produce a drawing like that. At best, the painting is an apocryphal source for the name that Harry Angelman gave for the disease. It would be more relevant to have a photograph of someone who is actually genetically diagnosed with the disease. 75.101.50.36 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I have moved the image to the history section. I am surprised nobody did this before - since we do not know with reasonable certainty that this painting is of someone who has this image, it should not be in the infobox.  The only reason it should be in the article at all is that it is clarifies the text in the history section.
 * If anyone has a freely-licensed image of someone with this syndrome AND the use of that image would not violate WP:BLP or other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I would encourage them to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons then add the image to the infobox. I have left the image= and caption= lines in the infobox for this purpose.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the picture for the second time, last time my edits were reverted. There is no need to use this picture on the page, it is completely unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.39.213 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, moving image to the History section. It's an important part of the history, but placement in the infobox incorrectly implies this is a picture of a person with the syndrome. --GRuban (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And found an actual image of a person with the syndrome for the infobox. --GRuban (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Added content under "Treatment and cure"
Added links to two doctors, Dr Weeber and Dr Philpot, as they are set to begin phase II human clinical trials on compounds that have shown significant promise in the mouse model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBissonnette (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Awesome. I've provided the original source for the second item, plus a news item from its publisher, Nature. Graham 87 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you - I've a long way to go in learning the ins and outs - Much appreciated! MBissonnette (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

 * These seem like promotions, and do not express an objective view of the breadth of research going on about Angelman Syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.5.60 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve the section. Graham 87 05:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

MalaCards
Hi, I would like to add a link under "Classification and external resources" to the AS page in MalaCards, which integrates lots of useful information. How can I do it ? Here's the link: http://www.malacards.org/card/angelman_syndrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.76.61.23 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 * You can't, as it's not in Infobox disease, probably because it's an aggregator. You can suggest its addition at Template talk:Infobox disease or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Graham 87 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Angelman syndrome. 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/20130527124717/http://www.angelman.org/_angelman/assets/File/facts%20about%20as%202009%203-19-10.pdf to http://www.angelman.org/_angelman/assets/File/facts%20about%20as%202009%203-19-10.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.angelman.org/stay-informed/facts-about-angelman-syndrome---7th-edition/harry-angelman-and-the-history-of-as/

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) 00:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Reversion: Epidemiology
In 2015, an editor added qualifying language to the Epidemiology section concerning a study from Denmark (but not the Dutch study), claiming that the language was from the article. There were several problems with the edit. First, it claimed that the study said that its subjects were "Anglo-Saxon." As far as I know the Danes have never been referred to as "Anglo-Saxons," and the well-referenced Wikipedia article Anglo-Saxons contains no such 'fact." Second, only an abstract of the reference article is available outside of a pay-wall, and the editor made several other edits to the article at the same time, with only 2 mentioning a putative reading of the full study. Third, the same editor was banned for 24 hours in 2016, for offenses including making false statements—which I think these are. I've reverted the edits. Tapered (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"Happy Puppet Syndrome"
This is a pejorative, I am removing the reference to it in the sidebar (along with the picture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.39.213 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see what is wrong with the picture. The synonym for this condition is well referenced and commonly used. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The picture does not show someone with Angelman's Syndrome, see the above talk section. I am in contact with the ASF to work on getting a better picture, but in the meantime I very strongly feel that a 16th century painting that does not have anything to do with the actual syndrome shouldn't be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.144.111.49 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Added an edit that "Happy Puppet Syndrome" is BOTH pejorative and inaccurate. The misnomer only describes the hyperactivity and suggest a complete lack of higher level brain activity - the latter is inaccurate and the former is not present in all cases. --- smitha96, aug 2018
 * Yes we have a ref that says it is pejorative. The ref added did not state it was inaccurate? Would need a ref for that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * The placement of the painting confused me as well.

 * But pejorative or not, the term is a very apt description of the gait and demeanor of these children (I worked with two children, not adults). Even in Dr Angelman's quote, he refers to them as "puppet children" for that very reason. One of the children learned to keep her mouth closed and stopped drooling (though still smiling constantly). As the article states, she learned to toilet during the day. She also learned to become self-preserving and so was transferred to a group home. The other child was unable to learn or toilet successfully. He had to be watched closely for pica, especially during the December holidays (shiny was irresistible). This behavior is not mentioned in the article, so I guess that it is either very rare in this population, or it was his own personal characteristic? Neither child ever attempted to speak, though the girl was very attentive when spoken to.

 * What is the significance of the letter "B" in the info box images? Goodnight!, Wordreader (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 * To clarify, when I wrote: "The other child was unable to learn or toilet successfully.", this was during the years when I worked at the institution where this boy lived. I do not know what milestones he may have achieved after I left the place. Again, goodnight! Wordreader (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The infobox gives the pronunciation as /ˈeɪndʒəlmən/ – that is, like "angel"-man, as the name is spelled. However, Oxford Dictionaries online gives the pronunciation as /ˈaNGɡəlmən/, as though it were spelled "angle"-man. Is there any way to confirm how Harry Angelman pronounced his name? Milkunderwood (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead references
Hey -- is there something I'm missing with the referencing in the lead? Per WP:LEADCITE, referencing in leads is to be avoided. Is there a specific medicine citation guideline I'm missing? Thanks! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Cymru.lass you need space in my user name for the ping to work. And yes there is at WP:MEDRS that says refs in the lead are fine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Caregiver Support/Parental Support
Hi all, I think it would be appropriate to add a section on caregiver support. For many newly diagnosed families, this may be the first page they read on this syndrome. It would be good to include support groups and research orgs.

Should this be it's own heading or a sub-heading in society and culture? For now, I may add it as a sub heading on society and culture. Please let me know if there are objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitha96 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted it before noticing this message, per the medical Manual of Style. Hopefully newly diagnosed families get information from hospital leaflets before they come here. Graham 87 15:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Typically one would only cover this based on high quality secondary sources. People can find them easily via google. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of "AS" versus "Angelman syndrome"
The article inconsistently switches between "AS" and "Angelman syndrome." The abbreviation is nice to avoid long cumbersome sentences, but it feels awkward when it is used less than half the time when referring to the syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinhern (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Unimportant
Is the race of the Mexican girl shown in the picture really an important thing to add? The way it's phrased rubs me the wrong way. This proposed edit may be unnecessary but I feel like its.. Well, maybe a tad racist? What do y'all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applejuiceandpeachh (talk • contribs) 08:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and have edited the caption. Laurier  (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Angelman syndrome


text:
User talk:Dwhelan

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006
Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 03:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dwhelan


text:
Rick Parets

Rick Parets is an avant-garde comedian, performing both live and in feature films. Parets grew up in Tenafly, New Jersey, United States. He rose to international fame with his portrayal of Mnester in the 1979 classic Caligula. After a series of commercials and outside projects following the movie, Parets earned a role as the Inquisitor on the TV show Witness. Then, in 1999, Parets played a detective in the Michael Chiklis, Jennifer Tilly, and William Hurt blockbuster Do Not Disturb.

title: Rick Parets


text:
File:Gotcha box.JPG

Description
Cover art of Gotcha! The Sport! for NES

Fair use in Gotcha! The Sport!
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) LJN has released no such images into the public domain, and a replacement image could not be created that would adequately provide the same information.
 * 2) The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article.
 * 3) The image resolution has been significantly decreased from the original, so copies made from it would be of inferior quality.
 * 4) The use of this image neither detracts from the game nor inhibits its salability in any way.

title: File:Gotcha box.JPG


text:
UMP

UMP may refer to:

Science

 * Ultra metal-poor star, refers to a type of star with extremely low levels of heavier elements
 * Uniformly most powerful test, in statistical hypothesis testing
 * Uridine monophosphate, a nucleotide
 * Utility maximization problem

Organisations

 * Ulba Metallurgical Plant
 * Ulyanovsk Mechanical Plant
 * Union for a Popular Movement or UMP, as of 2015 the former name of the main right-wing political party in France
 * Union of Moderate Parties or UMP, the main Vanuatuan francophone and conservative party
 * United Midwestern Promoters, a racing sanctioning body
 * Universiti Malaysia Pahang, a university in Malaysia

Places

 * Indianapolis Metropolitan Airport (by FAA code)
 * Uzumba-Maramba-Pfungwe, Zimbabwe

Other

 * Heckler & Koch UMP, a submachine gun
 * Umpila language, by ISO 639 code
 * Universal mapping property

title: UMP


text:
User talk:Jumpingrat~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha!
I found you!!! Keep up the good work on Wikipedia!

Ciao, Leo

Image:NUS logo.jpg
Hello Jumpingrat, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:NUS logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Jumpingrat. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:55, 17 May 2007 (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 Jumpingrat. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jumpingrat~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 01:00, 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) 14:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jumpingrat~enwiki


text: Template:Van Halen

title: Template:Van Halen


text: File:American Association for Women Radiologists (logo).png


text:
MathSciNet

MathSciNet is a searchable online bibliographic database created by the American Mathematical Society in 1996. It contains all of the contents of the journal Mathematical Reviews (MR) since 1940 along with an extensive author database, links to other MR entries, citations, full journal entries, and links to original articles. It contains almost 3.6 million items and over 2.3 million links to original articles.

Along with its parent publication Mathematical Reviews, MathSciNet has become an essential tool for researchers in the mathematical sciences. Access to the database is by subscription only and is not generally available to individual researchers who are not affiliated with a larger subscribing institution.

For the first 40 years of its existence, traditional typesetting was used to produce the Mathematical Reviews journal. Starting in 1980 bibliographic information and the reviews themselves were produced in both print and electronic form. This formed the basis of the first purely electronic version called MathFile launched in 1982. Further enhancements were added over the next 18 years and the current version known as MathSciNet went online in 1996.

Unlike most other abstracting databases, MathSciNet takes care to uniquely identify authors. Its author search allows the user to find publications associated with a given author record, even if multiple authors have exactly the same name or if the same person publishes under multiple names or name variants. Mathematical Reviews personnel will sometimes even contact authors to ensure that MathSciNet has correctly attributed their papers.

MathSciNet co-develops the Mathematics Subject Classification taxonomy with zbMATH.

Scope
MathSciNet contains information on over 3 million articles and over eight hundred thousand authors indexed from 1800 mathematical journals, many of them abstracted "cover-to-cover". A portion of those journals (about 450 in 2012) are designated as "Reference List Journals"; for MathSciNet entries of papers from these journals original reference lists are included.

In addition, reviews or bibliographical information on selected articles is included from many engineering, computer science and other applied journals abstracted by MathSciNet. The selection is done by the editors of Mathematical Reviews. The editors accept suggestions to cover additional journals, but do not reconsider missing articles for inclusion.

title: MathSciNet


text: User talk:69.179.159.185

title: User talk:69.179.159.185


text: Category:Fiction about shapeshifting

title: Category:Fiction about shapeshifting


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Metroblogging

 * I don't think there are any socks here, just people voting. Don't act like wikipedia, because you don't. 12.111.139.2 01:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it hard to not do a personal attack here, 12.111.139.2, but even though I voted to keep, it didn't mean me wanting to be "invited" to a Hurricane Katrina revert war on my talk page. Why is it so important to link Katrina to metroblogging?  It's pure vanity.  I voted to keep in spite of it being a blogging site, not because of it.  Blogging is vanity driven attention seeking, the only people who think that it's important, and the next generation of news reporting are the bloggers, the only ones who actually read blogs.  It's not like they're Moby or anything is it? - Hahnchen 03:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to link Katrina to Metroblogging, the fact is that major news sources are sourcing Metroblogging New Orleans as a very good place to look for up to the minute details that aren't being reported elsewhere. I thought it would be a useful addition to the Katrina article, some people agreed, some people disagreed. The people who disagreed didn't like being questioned and here we are. Sean Bonner 05:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I give up. This site is a biased waste of time. Everyone here hates blogs, ... probably because you all know that blogs are superior to wikis because they don't let people foul up everything you say. Take your revisionist ruleset and shove it.12.111.139.2 03:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't hate blogs, just the vast vast majority of them. Nothing wrong with metablogging though, I voted keep. - Hahnchen 03:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

notablity
I'm not trying to be argumentative by asking this, I'm trying to better understand the Wikipedia editing process so if someone could explain this I'd appreciate it. The WP:WEB says that for a website to be notable it needs at least one of three things, #2 being

2. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years.
 * National or international media attention means editorial content produced by a national or international news content provider, with particular weight given to off-line sources of news such as newpapers and national broadcasters.

In the last week Metroblogging has been written about in the print newspaper The Chicago Tribune, on German Broadcast TV (Tagestheman), and online at News.com, ZDnet. I've personally also talked with writers from print news papers the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post as well as MSNBC that are doing articles including Metroblogging. That's mearly the past week. In the past two months Metroblogging has been written about in The National Business Review, MSNBC.com, The Guardian UK, Salon and The Wall Street Journal. As mentioned in the article it's also been recently choosen as a Best of the Web by Forbes, and covered not so recently in The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post and The Houston Chronicle. In August 2004 The Associated Press wrote an article on local blogs and spent a lot of time talking about Metroblogging which was picked up by hundreds of new sources accross the country (here's the link to it on USA Today). What I'm getting at is that this is no small list of major press, all within the last 2 years as required.

So my question is to the people who are voting for deleation with a reasoning being that Metroblogging is non-notable, what press would make it notable or are you not considering the WP:WEB guidelines and basing that decision on something else, such as the current content of the article or if you personally have ever heard of Metroblogging? Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to get a better understanding of how this works. Thanks. Sean Bonner 15:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, and it just shows the power of spamming and self-promotion. If you've been agressive elseware as you have been on wikipedia in getting your sites mentioned wherever you can, it's no shock. But still a lot of work so, Good job... Jumping more than 10k in rank in two days might even be a record. --24.165.233.150 06:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, you figured it out. It has nothing to do with the 500 or so bloggers who are all busting their ass to create a usefull network or the massive ammounts of media attention all those efforts have been getting in the past week. Puh-leese. Sean Bonner 06:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reasonable questions. To me, you don't appear to be picking a fight at all, so I wouldn't worry about that.   The best thing to do in these cases is putting the sources in the article, so everyone can see why this site is important.  FWIW, the Tribune link is non-public.  But since there are many, you may find that it's no problem at all getting this article kept.  Friday (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Call For Votes
Since I'm getting the feeling Gmaxwell is wording things to try and sway a certain opinion, both in his original VFD and in this note, I wanted to provide a link to the post on my personal blog that he's referring to with this note. I think I'm being very clear that people should not create accounts here for the sole purpose of voting on this issue, nor endorsing sockpuppet votes. Sean Bonner 07:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Calling for people to vote on a VfD from your blog was totally inappropriate. You're not doing yourself any favors by going from page to page inserting links to your blogs, either. Sdedeo 18:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not trying to cause trouble here and if I'm doing something wrong I want to understand why so that I don't make the same mistake in the future. Dystopos said my appeal was not in bad faith, and I certainly didn't make it in bad faith - in fact I went out of my way asking people to vote for OR against it, so I'm curious why you feel it was totally inappropriate? If I found an article that I thought needed help would it be inappropriate to post something on a blog asking for edits? If not why is this different? I'm really just trying to understand the problems people are having and how to solve them. Sean Bonner 18:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Sean. You are stirring up a lot of ill will by engaging in revert wars over insertion of links to sites that you have a personal interest in promoting. There is nothing wikipedians hate more than spam and vanity. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, do so in some way other than creating links to your sites. Sdedeo 18:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the above, but I'll comment on the original question anyway. This is just my own opinion, but many editors feel that bringing new editors into wikipedia in order to give input on a VfD is inappropriate.  Commenting on a VfD should be done with respect to the deletion policy, which newbies are of course unlikely to be familiar with.  Similiar things have happened before, with a bunch of new editors coming in and saying "Keep this article because.." and inserting some irrelevant reason.  This has left a bad taste in the mouth of many editors here.  Friday (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What I said was that your appeal did not appear to be in bad faith. That's not the same as saying it was proper. People make mistakes in good faith rather frequently. In the context of a pattern of behavior in which Wikipedia has been improperly used to promote Metroblogs, others may take a more critical view. I suggest stepping aside from the VfD to prevent these lashes and backlashes. Dystopos 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the insight on this. I'm going to take your advice and step back and let things happen however they might. I was trying to do the right thing and I'm sorry if I offended anyone. 19:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth: I didn't mention the appeal on his blog out of any bad faith. When I saw the post it lacked the instruction to tell people not to go vote that it has now, and I didn't see why else he would he would mention it... Since such posts goof with the voting it's usually wise to mention them. On his blog, Sean implies that I don't like him but it would only be accurate to say that I do not think highly of his contributions. I didn't make my request out of any malice but rather made it after discovering the article while going through Sean's contributions after he added a link which I thought was inappropriate to the hurricane article multiple times (and was reverted multiple times).  If I had any malice for Sean I would have lobbied for a 3RR violation banning too. ;)  After I saw his edit history on his account and an IP he previously used and that it contained mostly vanity insertions, I thought this page is probably too (actually if I'd seen the summed alexa rank I would have been more certain of it).  All of my interactions in this matter were prior to Sean making fun of my italicized blogosphere, and only resulted from my casual interaction as a wikipedia reader. At this point, I still can't say that I dislike him, although I now think in addition to having lame contributions he's also pretty petty and his friends are not the brightest bulbs in the pack... As for the vote, I don't really care about the outcome, as I've long since (in wikipedia time) stopped contributing to Wikipedia for multiple reasons... and cruft in an encyclopedia I'm not working on doesn't cause me 'pride in my work' issues. :) --Gmaxwell 23:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

So I gather, by defintion vanity means if you supply a link to a site which you own/run/contribute to? If you read the page multiple people have stated that the link had some relevance, and if you check out Metroblogging, you can see all the sources that referenced it and see it is clearly not vanity. Think about it, next time you link wikipedia from off-site, it's not to provide additional information, it's vanity. --Illtillwillkillbill 08:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, go look at the version when I stuck the vfd tag on it. The content has improved a lot since then. The central notability rank we've used on wikipedia in the past has been alexa rank, and the site doesn't meet that criteria even according to it's operator. As far as vanity... Sean draws income from his sites and has linked them in many places on wikipedia. It does push the assumption of good faith. 24.165.233.150 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I draw income from the sites? That's news to me. Additionally Alexa isn't the only notability rank used according to the docs, one of three requirements needs to be met and we easilly meet the other two, additonally as of today the Alexa Rank of metblogs.com is 7,706 putting us well above the threshhold. Sean Bonner 20:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


text:
War of the Three Sanchos

The War of the Three Sanchos (Guerra de los Tres Sanchos) was a brief military conflict between three Spanish kingdoms in 1065–1067. The kingdoms were all ruled by Jiménez kings who were first cousins: Sancho II of Castile, Sancho IV of Navarre, and Sancho Ramírez of Aragon, all grandsons of Sancho the Great. The primary source for the war is the thirteenth-century Primera crónica general.

The brief war was ignited in part by the strife left over from the division of the kingdom of Sancho the Great in 1035. That division had left Navarre with a supremacy over the "petty kingdoms" (regula) of Castile and Aragon, but by 1065 Navarre was a vassal of Castile (now joined with the Kingdom of León). In 1065 Ferdinand the Great, the Castilian monarch died and his kingdom was divided between his sons, with the eldest, Sancho, taking Castile. Sancho of Castile was covetous of the lands of Bureba and Alta Rioja. Ferdinand had helped reconquer them from the Caliphate, but then had ceded them to his elder brother García Sánchez III of Navarre, the father of Sancho IV.

After an initial series of frontier raids, Sancho IV of Navarre asked for an alliance from Sancho Ramírez of Aragon. Most of the war took place in the region of Burgos and La Rioja. The war was also fought over Castile's ability to take part in the Reconquista, a capacity which had been diminished by the division of Ferdinand's kingdom in 1065. Sancho of Castile did try to extend his influence over the Muslim taifa of Zaragoza, which owed him parias. According to the twelfth-century Crónica Najerense, a battle was fought during which campaign his alférez, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, defeated his Navarrese counterpart, Jimeno Garcés, and gained the nickname campi doctor or "master of the field [of battle]", later to become famous in Spanish literature as el Campeador.

Between August and September 1067 Sancho Ramírez led a counterattack against Castile. Tradition is divided over who had the victory, the Chronicle of San Juan de la Peña attributes a rout to the Navarrese and Aragonese at Viana, while the Primera crónica attributes victory to Sancho of Castile. Ramón Menéndez Pidal and Bernard F. Reilly accept the latter tradition, Reilly citing a donation of December 1167 to the monastery of Oña by a Flaino Oriolez dominator Tetelie, a landholder in the Trespaderna district of the upper Ebro Valley. The participation of a Castilian magnate from the Navarrese border in an act by which Sancho formally defined the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Oca (the only bishopric in Castile) strongly suggests that Sancho was in a strong position. The chronicler of San Juan de la Peña, a Navarrese source, wrote that Sancho of Castile was forced to raise the siege of Viana and flee on a horse bedecked only in its halter; that he subsequently convinced Abd ar-Rahman of Huesca to go to war with Aragon; and that Sancho Ramírez eventually made peace with him anyway.

Castile retook Álava, the Montes de Oca, and Pancorvo, as well as Bureba and Alta Rioja, but the conflict ended in a stalemate 1067 when the death of Sancha of León, Ferdinand's widow, opened the way to war between Ferdinand's sons. The central issue in the conflict, the possession of the border territories, was resolved in 1076 when Sancho IV of Navarre was assassinated by his own brother and his kingdom partitioned between Sancho Ramírez of Aragon, who became king of Navarre as Sancho V, and Alfonso VI of León and Castile, who received the disputed lands.

title: War of the Three Sanchos


text:
J. P. Hubrick

John Peter (J.P.) Hubrick (1858 - January 22, 1930) was an Alaskan adventurer, hunter, newsman and photographer best known for his panoramic photographs of the Wrangell mountain range through the early 1900s. A resident of McCarthy, Alaska, Hubrick started the town's first newspaper, the Copper Bee in February 1916. The paper lasted for only four issues, however, and as such Hubrick's real legacy is derived from his photographic work.

Hubrick's photographic talent is evident in his breathtaking panoramas of the Alaskan countryside. The panoramas can be over six feet long and some are hand-tinted in supreme detail. Some carry scenes from the past. In the Hubrick panorama "Goat Trail," you can see many goats walking the trail. In the panorama "Taken From Nicolai Hill," you get a little snapshot of the Hubrick party at a photography shoot. You can see two riding horses, pack animals, and his guide.

It is said that most of Mr. Hubrick's photographs were personally sold in or around McCarthy, Alaska circa 1916–1930. The best count (guess) of known existing original photographic prints puts the number around 25. There are also some negatives. Hubrick copies are sold in Alaska for around $45. In addition to art, panoramas like those of J.P. Hubrick have other uses. They are used today to measure and compare changes in snow pack, providing valuable evidence on issues such as global warming. And herd sizes? How many goats, do you think, would be walking that trail today?

Hubrick died of diabetes in 1930. His works are considered very rare. The only known museum to have a collection is the University of Alaska.

title: J. P. Hubrick


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davien Crow

 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. Woohookitty 08:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Davien Crow
Non-notable musician, part of a group of three interrelated articles that I am recommending for deletion. DavidConrad 03:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. nnbv. -- BD2412 talk 05:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as platform for external linking. Could've been included in the article on the band. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per criterion A3; failing that, Delete. KissL 10:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-entity DV8 2XL 11:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I dont mind if this one is deleted. More information will be avalible later.
 * 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:
Gotcha! The Sport!

'Gotcha! The Sport!' is a video game released in 1987 for the Nintendo Entertainment System. It uses the Zapper light gun and is a capture the flag-style game played with paintball guns.

Gameplay
The player's mission is to get through the level, capture the enemy flag by shooting it, and return it to the base. The player avoids getting shot by the other team, running out of ammo, or running out of time. Controls require the Zapper and the gamepad. The directional pad moves the screen left and right. Ammo boxes sit on the ground or are carried by enemies in the background. Precise aim generates a significant bonus for leftover ammunition.

The three levels are Woods, Warehouse District, and Snow Fields. The Woods and Snow Fields levels feature enemies in military garb, and the Warehouse District features enemies modeled after early 1980s punks. These rounds repeat in this order infinitely; each time, the reaction time for the enemies to aim and fire is reduced.

Paintball guns
In addition to the video game, Entertech (a division of LJN) produced and sold paintball guns and related gear using the same name and logo as the video game. This includes The Enforcer double pistol set, The Commando, protective glasses, targets, and suits.

Reception
In February 1988, Computer Entertainer magazine reported of Gotcha: "We know our Nintendo owners love games they can use with their Zappers and this one offers some good shooting".

title: Gotcha! The Sport!


text:
User talk:Tdsanchez

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.
 * User:Redwolf24/Bootcamp My own personal summarized Bootcamp.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. 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.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 03:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

title: User talk:Tdsanchez


text: Category:Peruvian novelists

title: Category:Peruvian novelists


text:
User talk:Kwyjibbo~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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 Kwyjibbo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kwyjibbo~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 01:14, 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) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kwyjibbo~enwiki