text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Formula One/archive1

Formula One
Accurate, well-written, well-organized, and comprehensive. This is a partial self-nom. The concerns raised in its last nomination have been thoroughly addressed. — Dan | Talk 05:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Object
 * The image Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but no fair use rationale is given.
 * The image Image:Rntbrm3litergp.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but is not directly related to the article. Any fair use claim is doubtful, and the image should probably be removed.
 * The image Image:BAR pitstop.jpg is under a license of "used with permission". This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.
 * --Carnildo 06:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the images and put in several of my own (all cc-by-sa) which seemed relevant. Unfortunately, it might prove difficult to find freely-licensed images of early F1 races, but I've made the best of present resources. — Dan | Talk 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This sport is catching popularity in the USA due to Danika Patrick, but this gives newbies a taste of what F1 is like. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support  Object (but almost a support) - Can you please look at the first paragraph in the section "The Future of Formula One" - "Rule changes".  Such phrases as  "Many within Formula One believe", "have also recently been in doubt" and particularly, "it is said that even..." are all rather weaselish terms.  One would be ok, but three in one paragraph makes me think "well who is saying these things?".  I'm sure it's well founded but it reads like unsubstantiated speculation, so it's really the tone of it that isn't quite right, rather than the substance.   Some old circuits "have to go" and "not safe from the chop" - very colloquial.  Could you reword them?  I've made some very minor copyedits elsewhere in the article, but I didn't want to fiddle with that paragraph because I think the whole paragraph should be rewritten, and I'm not sure how to best rewrite it.  That is my only criticism.  I think everything else is excellent.  If you can rework that paragraph, I'll definately support. Rossrs 14:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to rewrite the paragraph (I think you meant "Venue changes" rather than "Rule changes"), removing most of the 'weaselish' and colloquial phrases. doctorvee 16:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry, I did mean "Venue changes" - thank you, everything looks great! Rossrs 21:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Otherwise a good article worthy of joining the few FAs we have. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  08:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support' Object: Some additions needed:
 * 1) =Modern F1= is too short in comparison to the other history sections. Please increase the length.
 * 2) ...a qualifying session determines..., I think this should be more specific. Fastest lap time?
 * 3) Giuseppe Farina won the first... The person is not introduced. It should go like this: "Italian driver GF..."
 * 4) Cooper is linked to a dab page
 * 5) Similarly, the nationality of Sterling Moss and others should be mentioned
 * 6) Please use the footnote3 style of referencing instead of placing the inline link in the current fashion. (see Australia)
 * 7) How are the points distributed? Is there a page on WP?
 * 8) Please do not use editable subsections under =external links=,  use the ; (semi-colon) to create a heading. (See Economy of India)
 * 9) Does Geoff Crammond & MicroProse merit an inclusion under =See also=? Hardly anything to do with the core topic.
 * I think we've taken care of every problem except the one with referencing. That page explaining how it works made my head spin. Might it be possible to follow the old way of just collating every source in the references section? Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the referencing. There's now a very brief summary of the points system under "racing and strategy", but that section's main article, Formula One racing, addresses it in much more depth. — Dan | Talk 16:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Good work, but the ==Reference= section is not done correctly. See Geography of India. The =notes= section handles note. While all references should be collected together in a bulleted list in a =References= section, with all the bibliographic information necessary for a reader to easily identify and find the source. Read more here as clarified by User:Paul August.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, I've mimicked the style of the notes/references in the article you linked. — Dan | Talk 03:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * support but shouldn't the official F1 logo be near the top of the page rather than somewhere in the middle? Borisblue 15:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact it used to be at the top, but someone pointed out that this might appear as though we were using it as a logo for our coverage of the sport, which would be a trademark infringement. I re-inserted a paragraph which used to be under "modern F1" which explains the corporatization of F1 (a very recent phenomenon) and the relevance of the logo at that location. — Dan | Talk 16:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Support; there seem to be no more troubling issues with this article. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. With this as a featured article, we might be able to court some of the NASCAR dads. . One last thought, I agree with Rdsmith on the F1 logo, but it also seems a bit out of place in its current location. Perhaps just moving it above the "safety is a paramont concern" image would make it seem more in place, or moving it to the left side, so as not to have the pictures stacked - [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]] 22:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the logo is a very recent development (pioneered by Bernie Ecclestone as a part of his attempt to build the sport a corporate identity several years ago), I placed it in "modern F1" alongside a description of said corporatization. I feel that the image is still most relevant there. — Dan | Talk 23:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, but I'm asking about something else; the placement of the logo below the "Safety" image looks odd, and I thought it might have been better if it was moved to the left side, or perhaps just above the safety image. I read your comment to the user above, and I realize the reason for the placement so low down, but I don't see why it is so oddly stacked. With your approval, I'll move it. Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]] 01:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Some quibbles remain:
 * Having been an F1 follower for 15 years, the introductory paragraph to this Wiki is very confusing.
 * "Formula One, abbreviated to F1, is a type of Grand Prix motor racing."
 * (Grand Prix racing IS F1, there are no other types of Grand Prix. Other classes are GP2, F3, etc).
 * "It is regarded as the highest class of single-seat open-wheel formula racing and consists of two annual World Championships, one for drivers and one for constructors (teams)."
 * Very confusing, as it implies that there are two annnual parallel run series. It is infact a single series where manufacturers and drivers compete for separate championships.

 * Doctorvee has corrected these. — Dan | Talk 23:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Object for the moment - I am a big fan of the sport, but this article just doesn't grip me at the moment.
 * The intro says F1 is also known as Grand Prix Racing - why, then, do they have separate articles?
 * There are quite a lot of very short paragraphs, which give the prose a choppy feel, and some sections are too heavily abridged from main articles.
 * The history from 1950 to 1980, 1980 to 2000, and 2000 to 2005 each have about the same amount of text - a history should give a bit more detail about the early years I think.
 * The description of the evolution of the sport is a bit confusing in places, eg para 2 of 'The early years' talks about how Jack Brabham demonstrated the superiority of mid-engine designs, then says everyone switched to rear engines in 1961.
 * Some things I think are factually wrong - eg Williams, Ferrari and McLaren being described as 'The Big Three': as long as I've been following F1, those three plus Benetton/Renault have been known as 'The Big Four'.
 * The 'Racing and strategy' section doesn't contain any details of strategies.
 * There is some odd phrasing, such as 'A typical circuit usually...'. Worldtraveller 22:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The Grand Prix motor racing article covers Grand Prix racing from the turn of the century until 1950, when the name Formula One was first used and became the more popular of the two. I'll work on addressing the other objections. — Dan | Talk 23:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Accurate, concise, pics and refs are pesent and all issues seem to be resolved.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  04:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Tomintexas

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! pamri 05:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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

title: User talk:Tomintexas


text:
Jászberény

Jászberény is a city and market centre in Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county in Hungary.

Location
Jászberény is located in central Hungary, on the Zagyva River, a tributary of the Tisza River. It is about 60 km from Budapest.

History
The oldest archeological finds from the Jászság, the area around Jászberény, originate from nomadic people of the stone-age and date back 16500 years B.C. Excavations (2002) in Jászberény and Jásztelek aiming for traces of the hunter and gatherers of the mesolithic in the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain by Róbert Kertész detected distinct indications of settlements. During this period, the climate in the region began to warm up. Thus, the ice-age coniferous forests were gradually replaced by deciduous forests, the eco-system changed and a new fauna was established in the Carpathian basin. Under the pressure of climate change, the formerly nomadic people settled down. Traces from that time indicate that people actively planted common hazel thus establishing an early form of agriculture.

Further south from the region, tillage and animal husbandry were already established during the same period. Since the development of agriculture in the Carpathian basin was determining for the development in Europe, this findings represent a mile-stone in archeology.

At about 6000 B.C. permanently inhabited settlements were established along the paleo-Zagyva river. Around 2800 B.C., people from further south, commanding bronze-castings began to settle the areas. From that time, settlements in the form of tells are proven. These represent the most northern find of that specific form.

Around 400 to 300 B.C. traces of Celtic people coming from the west are found in the Jászság. Celtic graveyards were found near Jászberény at Hajta and Jászjákohalma. During the first century A.D. Iatzygic tribes migrated from Sarmatia to the later Jászság. After being defeated by the Romans during the Marcomannic Wars, the Iazyges paid tribute to Rome and they became a part of the Roman border-defence at the Limes Sarmatiae. Their settlements can be still found during the invasion of the Huns in the 5th century A.D. In the middle of the 6th. century, Eurasian Avars began to settle the Jász-region who in turn were pushed away around 895 by the immigrating Hungarians.

During the regency of Béla IV of Hungary in the 13th century, Jasz people (sometimes mistaken for the formerly settling Iazyges), requested permission to settle in the Carpathian basin and were assigned the Jász-region. Based on language studies, these people can be traced to Indo-Iranians origins. Their former designation of Ász changed unter Turkish and Slavic influences to Jász. Their settlements ranged from the southern borders of the Mátra westward to the Gödöllő Hills (Hungarian Gödöllői-dombság), eastwards almost to the river Tisza and south to the modern-day Szolnok. South of them, the Kipchaks (Hungarian Kun) were settled. In the 15th century, these two regions formed a castle-district with the center at Berény, which also became county-capital of the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County until 1876.

1536, the Jászság was attacked and conquered by Turkish forces. They established a military post at Jászberény in the remains of the former Franciscan abbey and the 1472 erected church.

After the end of the Turkish rule, Leopold I sold the Jászság to the Teutonic Knights (22. March 1702) and disestablished the privileges of the county. The Teutonic Knights also took Jászberény as main seat and made it the official capital of the county Jászkun, consisting out of Jászság, Kiskunság and Nagykunság. In the general population, the sale was opposed. The region therefore supported Francis II Rákóczi in Rákóczi's War of Independence but, after defeat, they took to legal means, collected the required sum and bought their own county back. 1745, the re-buy (redemption) was approved by Maria Theresa of Austria who also reestablished the county's privileges.

As a consequence of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, the autonomous administration of the Jászkun region were abolished again. The three-part region was divided up and parts were assigned to two new counties with the capitals of Jászberény and Jászápati.

1860, the region regained its self-administration for the last time only to ultimately lose it 1877. Kiskunság was divided between the Pest and the Bács comitat. Jászság and Nagykunság formed the new comitat of Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok. The new capital of the comitat became Szolnok and Jászberény lost its former importance.

In the 1950s, various industrial firms chose to settle in Jászberény which had been very much an agricultural community up to this point. This development resulted in an increase in the number and type of jobs available and brought increased prosperity to the inhabitants of Jászberény. Despite the economic difficulties of recent years, Jászberény has continued to grow and has been able to invest in the necessary infrastructure. At the same time, more and more firms have chosen Jászberény as a centre for their operations. However, Jászberény not only values economic growth but has also developed into a cultural center of national renown.

Industry
Jászberény has long been known for its refrigerator factory. It is currently owned by Electrolux. Notable companies in the city include Jász Plasztik Kft. (plastic products) and Szatmári Kft..

Transport
Jászkun Volán operates multiple routes of local buses, mostly between the city centre and the industrial district. The station for long distance buses is located in the city centre, with direct services to Budapest and various other cities. Jászberény also has a train station further away from the city centre. MÁV operates hourly services on weekdays to Hatvan and Szolnok.

Politics
The current mayor of Jászberény is Budai Lóránt.

The local Municipal Assembly has 14 members divided into 2 political parties and alliances: In the 2024 municipal elections the Jointly for Jászberény Association, made up of civil and opposition parties, won all electoral districts. The government-ruling Fidesz sent assembly members through compensation list.

Twin towns – sister cities
Jászberény is twinned with:

 * 🇮🇹 Conselve, Italy
 * 🇭🇺 Lajosmizse, Hungary
 * 🇷🇴 Lunca de Sus, Romania
 * 🇷🇴 Sângeorgiu de Mureș, Romania
 * 🇺🇸 Sedalia, United States
 * 🇵🇱 Sucha Beskidzka, Poland
 * 🇺🇦 Tiachiv, Ukraine
 * 🇸🇰 Topoľčany, Slovakia
 * 🇩🇪 Vechta, Germany
 * 🇮🇷 Yazd, Iran

title: Jászberény


text:
List of Alaska state parks

Alaska’s state park system is managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The system contains over 120 units spanning 3,427,895 acres, making it far larger than any other state park system in the United States. The State Park system began in 1970 with the creation of Denali State Park, Chugach State Park and Kachemak Bay State Park, three of the largest and still most popular parks in the state system. Wood-Tikchik State Park is the largest state park in the United States, comprising some 15% of total state park land in the nation. The division manages full state parks, state recreation areas, state recreation sites, and state historic sites.

Anchorage area park

 * Chugach State Park

Copper River Basin area parks

 * Dry Creek State Recreation Site
 * Lake Louise State Recreation Area
 * Liberty Falls State Recreation Site
 * Porcupine Creek State Recreation Site
 * Squirrel Creek State Recreation Site

Interior Alaska parks

 * Fairbanks area
 * Birch Lake State Recreation Site Chenarivervalley.jpg
 * Chena River State Recreation Area
 * Chena River State Recreation Site
 * Harding Lake State Recreation Area
 * Lower Chatanika River State Recreation Area
 * Salcha River State Recreation Site
 * Upper Chatanika River State Recreation Site
 * Delta Junction area
 * Big Delta State Historical Park
 * Clearwater State Recreation Site
 * Delta State Recreation Site
 * Donnelly Creek State Recreation Site
 * Fielding Lake State Recreation Site
 * Quartz Lake State Recreation Area Quartzlake.JPG
 * Tok area
 * Eagle Trail State Recreation Site
 * Moon Lake State Recreation Site
 * Tok River State Recreation Site

Kenai Peninsula area parks

 * Homer area
 * Anchor River State Recreation Area
 * Deep Creek State Recreation Area
 * Diamond Creek State Recreation Area
 * Stariski State Recreation Site Sunrise on Kachemak Bay.jpg
 * Kachemak Bay State Park and Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park
 * Ninilchik State Recreation Area
 * Kenai/Soldotna area
 * Captain Cook State Recreation Area Stormy Lake bay.jpg at Captain Cook SRA]]
 * Clam Gulch State Recreation Area
 * Crooked Creek State Recreation Site
 * Johnson Lake State Recreation Area
 * Kasilof River State Recreation Site
 * Kenai River Special Management Area
 * Morgan’s Landing State Recreation Area
 * Scout Lake State Recreation Site
 * Seward area
 * Caines Head State Recreation Area
 * Driftwood Bay State Marine Park
 * Lowell Point State Recreation Site
 * Safety Cove State Marine Park
 * Sandspit Point State Marine Park
 * Sunny Cove State Marine Park
 * Thumb Cove State Marine Park

Kodiak Island area parks

 * Afognak Island State Park
 * Buskin River State Recreation Site
 * Fort Abercrombie State Historical Park
 * Pasagshak River State Recreation Site
 * Shuyak Island State Park
 * Woody Island State Recreation Site

Matanuska-Susitna Valley area parks

 * Big Lake North State Recreation Area
 * Big Lake South State Recreation Site
 * Blair Lake State Recreation Site
 * Denali State Park
 * Lake Louise State Recreation Area
 * Nancy Lake State Recreation Area
 * Nancy Lake State Recreation Site
 * Finger Lake State Recreation Area
 * Hatcher Pass East Special Management Area
 * Independence Mine State Historical Park
 * Kepler-Bradley Lakes State Recreation Area
 * King Mountain State Recreation Site
 * Matanuska Glacier State Recreation Site
 * Montana Creek State Recreation Site
 * Rocky Lake State Recreation Site
 * Summit Lake State Recreation Site
 * Tokositna River State Recreation Site
 * Willow Creek State Recreation Area

Prince William Sound area parks

 * Bettles Bay State Marine Park
 * Blueberry Lake State Recreation Site
 * Boswell Bay Beaches State Marine Park
 * Canoe Passage State Marine Park
 * Decision Point State Marine Park
 * Entry Cove State Marine Park
 * Granite Bay State Marine Park
 * Horseshoe Bay State Marine Park
 * Jack Bay State Marine Park
 * Kayak Island State Marine Park
 * Sawmill Bay State Marine Park
 * Shoup Bay State Marine Park
 * South Esther Island State Marine Park
 * Surprise Cove State Marine Park
 * Surprise Ridge State Marine Park
 * Worthington Glacier State Recreation Site
 * Ziegler Cove State Marine Park

Southeast Alaska parks

 * Haines/Skagway area
 * Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve
 * Chilkat Islands State Marine Park
 * Chilkat State Park
 * Chilkoot Lake State Recreation Site
 * Mosquito Lake State Recreation Site
 * Portage Cove State Recreation Site
 * Sullivan Island State Marine Park
 * Juneau area
 * Eagle Beach State Recreation Area
 * Ernest Gruening State Historical Park
 * Funter Bay State Marine Park
 * Juneau Trail System
 * Oliver Inlet State Marine Park
 * Point Bridget State Park
 * Shelter Island State Marine Park
 * St. James Bay State Marine Park
 * Taku Harbor State Marine Park
 * Wickersham State Historic Site
 * Ketchikan area
 * Black Sands Beach State Marine Park
 * Dall Bay State Marine Park
 * Grindall Island State Marine Park
 * Refuge Cove State Recreation Site
 * Settlers Cove State Recreation Site
 * Totem Bight State Historical Park
 * Sitka area
 * Baranof Castle Hill State Historic Site
 * Big Bear/Baby Bear State Marine Park
 * Halibut Point State Recreation Site
 * Magoun Islands State Marine Park
 * Old Sitka State Historical Park
 * Sealion Cove State Marine Park
 * Security Bay State Marine Park
 * Wrangell/Petersburg area
 * Beecher Pass State Marine Park
 * Joe Mace Island State Marine Park
 * Petroglyph Beach State Historic Site
 * Thoms Place State Marine Park

Southwest Alaska parks

 * Lake Aleknagik State Recreation Site
 * Wood-Tikchik State Park

title: List of Alaska state parks


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wiki brah

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Wiki_brah | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

This Request for Comment specifically deals with two separate issues. Issue #1: The anal sex and cocaine obsessed User:Wiki_brah has repeatedly ignored warnings from various administrators and editors to cease making nonsense articles. While promising he will improve his contributions, his new articles remain pointless, nonsense, and smack of eccentric "original research." The great majority of his articles have been speedily deleted or deleted after a "Vote for Deletion."

Issue #2: User:Wiki_brah has likewise ignored warnings from various administrators and editors to cease making and proposing nonsense templates. Many of his templates have been speedily deleted, including one that he created describing porno "actress's" proficiency at anal sex.

This Request for Comment shall not delve into the other aspects of User:Wiki_brah's disruptive behavior such as his annoying and whiny comments posted on many users' talk pages.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * The users first edit of the Lisa Kushell article
 * Bizzare POV rant at Anal Sex in Brasil
 * More of the same at Cocaine use in Brasil
 * Another knowing addition of nonsense at Bisexuality in Brazil
 * Claiming on his user page that he speaks ten languages, User:Wiki_brah
 * Speedily deleted nonsense at List of Reasons why Doing Cocaine in Brasil is Fun (now at BJAODN)
 * Unnecessary and offensive Adolf Hitler (South Park)
 * Speedily deleted Fetishes in Brazil, where he linked anal sex with male domination and bemoaned the lack of female dominatrixes in Brazil.
 * How could we forgot this gem:

 * Another Silly template at Template:Hot_Jewish_Actress-stub
 * This Bizzare request at Stub Proposals

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * What Wikipedia is Not
 * Original Research
 * WP:NPOV
 * Disrupting Wikipedia
 * Verifiability

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links) User_talk:Wiki_brah provides much evidence of other users warning him on his behavior and pleading with him to conform and follow the basic guidelines, but some of them are listed here:
 * My unanswered request to him at:
 * User:Lucky_6.9 warns him countless times including at:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * TheDeletator 03:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Lucky 6.9 05:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Soltak | Talk 00:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC) (I was going to file this myself but hadn't yet gotten round to it, my thanks to TheDeletator.)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (sigh, and I think he has real potential)
 * Calton | Talk 00:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC). I'm skeptical of the potential, myself.
 * Lectonar 11:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC); although, if his babel is genuine, he could be a great help....
 * Grutness 15:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC); the user has a somewhat bizarre approach to the use of templates, to say the least.
 * Andrewa 19:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC); This user shows a good deal of intelligence, and some evidence of substance abuse and/or mental illness, possibly faked; There's no evidence of good faith, and IMO little prospect that they will ever be other than a waste of time, sadly.
 * android 79  03:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC) I don't really care why he's creating all these nonsense articles. It just needs to stop.
 * Ashley Pomeroy 19:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Total fake. Block forever. There are thousands of good people in the world who can only dream of using Wikipedia; there's no reason to humour people who waste our time and money.
 * Gator1 00:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)Wow I can't believe you have put up with him this long, Lucky. You are a better man/woman than I.  I vote BAN and I have no reservations or guilt about it whatsoever.
 * Thanks and LOL. The face that stares back at me in the mirror is a "he," barring any unfortunate situation wherein a woman has a moustache and other male...accoutrements.  Sorry.  Couldn't resist. - Lucky 6.9 06:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Troll. Andre ( talk ) 04:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Blank Verse  ∅ 15:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Has provided nothing but horrid nonsense.
 * Merovingian (t) (c) 12:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fernando Rizo T/C 22:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC). User's conduct in this RfC has dispelled any notions I may have had regarding his youth/immaturity and potential for recoverability. He has done nothing but create work for other editors.
 * -- Soir (say hi) 04:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * EDM 06:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC) Get this freak off Wikipedia posthaste and give Lucky the Eternal Alchemist's Award or something for having tried to transmute this base metal.
 * Job E  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 02:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I donnt understand what you are yellng at me about I mean tlook at tmy usser page I mean I am just trying to help out with things I can write about dont you think its my business how I live my live and even if I do some stuff that we dont approve of in the U.S.A,. its still ok I mean its so hard sometimes so we can either do something the easy way or the hard way. ( I asaww that in a movie once) thank you Obrigado, Wiki brah 02:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: Look at the above comment closely.  It says:  even if I do some stuff that we dont approve of in the U.S.A,. its still ok.  Unless that's a typo, that strongly suggests that Wiki brah is not from Brazil as suggested, especially given his propensity toward writing US-centric articles.  Case in point is his latest idiosyncratic edit, Dinner and a Movie, a program shown on TBS.  Unless cable or satellite TV in Sao Paulo is beaming a lot of US networks into the area, I now find myself wondering just how the heck he knows about these subjects.  If US cable is, in fact, beamed into Brazil, I withdraw the comment. - Lucky 6.9 19:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think an equally fair interpretation is "English not a first language / poor typing anyway." TNT has a Latin America-specific network (TNTLA); the website has a Portugese option so Brazil is definitely a recipient of that.  Since I don't read Spanish or Portugese, I can't check this, but combining several US network feeds (that is, the Turner system) into one international station seems reasonable.  Also, I think TBS frequently simulcasts their US signal in Spanish; it wouldn't be much of a stretch to get that into South America.  Couple that with WB's extensive use of Brasil early on and I don't think there's a definitive case for misdirection here. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:29:33, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Hi its me again, User:Lucky_6.9 I thank you for all your help and your kind words. Its getting late here but not to worry I just did three lines of prime Peruvian Flake and my mother and father are asleep for the night. I might call up some hookers to come over and party a bit. I feel much more lucid right now, my typing is improved and I feel calm, alert, ready to go!! If I could feel like this all the time I think I could write much more better on the Wikipedia article-space, as Lucky calls it. And like I told lucky, I'm writing on TV and movies in Argentina, Brasil, and the U.S.A. all that we get on satellite here at my parents house thank you! Well, I'll check back in later if the hookers dont come over thanks!Wiki brah 02:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That tears it. Unless this is ready for an RfA, I'm ready for a permanent ban.  If it's appropriate at this point in time, I'd like to pull the plug.  Any objections? - Lucky 6.9 02:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * And now this prime nonsense: HI Lucky 6 point 9 what is going on its me again!!  I'm feeling just stupendous right now!  I saw your comments and left you all a note of the Request for Comment page.  I'm really really sorry about being sooo naughty and hope we can turn a new page in our lives and start over from the beginning.  I'm feeling great and quite lively tonight!! Have a good ONE !!! :) Wiki brah 02:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)  Someone try telling me this isn't a troll while keeping a straight face. - Lucky 6.9 02:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi its me again hello good evning. I was in Rio de Janeiro with my father for a week and it was fun we had a nice place to satay and I lerned a blot I am thinking the writing is better for me when I can do a littel bit of something before I sit down it makes it betterWiki brah 01:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view by McClenon
This is a very strange editor who clearly has some distinctive preoccupations including a preoccupation with defining very strange templates. The certifiers and endorsers of this Request for Comments / Request for Corrective Action have, as is usually the case in Wikipedia, been very patient with an editor who seems to mean well but is simply so bizarre that he has no concept of collaboration. He appears to be treating the Wikipedia as his private litterbox and leaving other editors to clean up his mess. I wish that I could see any evidence of real potential, but I don't. I wish that there were some alternative to simply keeping him out of here, but I don't see what it is.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 10:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Lucky 6.9 17:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Soltak | Talk 18:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) EDM 17:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC) This summary captures the essence of the user's problem very well and I'm joining it in light of WB's latest adornment to my Talk page.
 * 5) I agree. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Andrevan
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

This is just a troll, and not a terribly good one. He should probably be blocked permanently.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Andre ( talk ) 04:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Hipocrite - « Talk » 20:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC) - though I think it needs to touch RFAr first...

Outside view by Redwolf24
This editor just keeps going and going, but he seems to be in good faith. For this reason, I do not believe in an indefinite block, unless he continues his behavior. I have given him a block expiring October 1. If he keeps up his shenanigans, he will get a two month block. If he keeps it up after that, THEN I believe we should indefinitely block him.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Good idea. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with the staggered block system Redwolf24 has proposed.  Ral  315  23:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Redwolf's approach is fine for now; if Wiki brah causes any more problems, however, I will endorse Andrevan's view.   paul klenk 23:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) This seems like a measured and reasonable response. Keep an eye open for socks, though. Nandesuka 23:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with this idea. However, as Paul Klenk stated, I may support Andrevan's view instead if Wiki Brah continues to cause trouble. Jaxl | talk 00:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Thanks for posting this--I thought I was the one out in left field when reviewing some of his edits ;-). Even if done in good faith, he should modify his behavior after being directed by more than one editor on more than one occasion (nicely) that his editing style is inappropriate and in violation of several Wiki-policies.  I agree with Redwolf's approach as it shows that the collaborative community does mean this seriously.  Though, I am afraid that it probably won't make any difference in the long run.  A shame, truly.  - Roby Wayne  Talk •  Hist 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Agreed. I can see what is making people angry about this guy, but I just find some of his changes hilarious. I don't agree that he's in good faith, but I'm keeping a smile on my face, and support your descision about the block. - 09:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 06:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC) From what I've seen, the user seems to be acting in good faith.
 * 10) Mild support for this one. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Tony Sidaway
Autism and wikipedia

There are two cases that concern me a lot because of the characteristics exhibited by the main editors involved.

, whose case has been accepted by the Arbitration committee and is still in the evidence phase, is not an obvious vandal or troll. He has made large numbers of vanishingly small stubs, some of which have grown into very impressive articles, and also asked intriguing, childlike, questions in an appropriate forum.

, who has been subjected to many blocks from his earliest appearance in mid-August, has written articles that have been identified as "nonsense" by RC patrollers, but in a discussion with fellow administrators they tended to the opinion that the articles were acceptable newbie stubs and did not merit the vandalism warnings that they provoked:

 * 06:56, 14 August 2005 deleted "Keyboard dust bag" (content was: 'You might have seen this little dillio at the automatic repair garage or any other place where typist have dirty or greazy hands. This is the thinty...' (and the only contributor was 'Wiki brah'))

 * 06:55, 14 August 2005 deleted "Cellshell" (content was: 'this is that colored plastic pice that fits over your cell pohne. It changed its colors, see? These things are not all that populbar anymore with th...' (and the only contributor was 'Wiki brah'))

 * 06:50, 14 August 2005 deleted "Altimeter calibration knob" (content was: 'THIS is the small dial or knob on the console of an airplane that lets you adjust the altimeter to set the barometric pressure that is cruical to the ...' (and the only contributor was 'Wiki brah'))

For some time I have had a strong suspicion that Maoririder may be autistic. Wiki brah's contributions also fit the pattern.

The above reminds me of an early response to Maoririder:

 * "Those "bloody-nosed beetle" and "big-eyed bug" nanostubs are tantamount to vandalism. If you'd like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thanks."

While the stubs in question were indeed tiny, they were hardly vandalism. Big-eyed bug, for instance, read as follows:

 * It is a type of bug.

 * Template:Bug-stub

Today Wikipedia has coverage for both of those insects, mainly thanks to Maoririder's stubs and the good faith expansions performed by other editors.

 * Bloody-nosed_Beetle
 * Big-eyed_bug

Another of Maoririder's stubs was Portland High School. Later moved to "Portland High School, Portland, Maine" Maoririder's original stub read:

 * It is located in Portland, Maine

 * Template:Maine-stub

The article was listed on AfD four days after its creation. The article was expanded--the school, founded in 1821, turned out to be one of the first public high schools founded in the United States after the Revolution, and the article was expanded in a few minutes and, via a premature speedy delete or two, the result of the debate was keep, with only one vote to delete.

Now this isn't a deletionism-versus-inclusionism. Let us accept, for now, that it might be quite reasonable to delete very short stubs rather than expand them. No, this is about how the authors of articles that appear weird, but not obviously malicious, should be treated.

Both Maoririder and Wiki brah have been labelled, variously, trolls and vandals, although I do not see strong evidence to support either label.

Both of them have expressed a strong wish to produce work for Wikipedia. Both of them produce articles that appear weird to non-autists. In my opinion, neither represents a threat to Wikipedia commensurate to the treatment they have received.

In my opinion, the world's first encyclopedia that anyone can edit should not continue knowingly to alienate, abuse and reject autists. We need a policy that enables autists to be identified early and welcomed in an appropriate manner so that, whenever possible, they can produce valuable work for Wikipedia. Don't bite the newbies applies in spades for people with special needs.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Tony Sidaway Talk 06:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 06:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Agreed. Since this doesn't seem to be the first time this has happened, this should be generally addressed somewhere.
 * 3) Kappa 07:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) David Gerard 08:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC) This isn't your common vandal or troublemaker. While appreciating that RC/newpages patrollers see more crap than anyone who hasn't done it would believe, this is a time to step back and think hard about what's going on here.
 * 5) Secretlondon 20:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC) We've had autistics before see User:AlexPlank and the surrounding history. Secretlondon 20:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Classic Autistic. Spankthecrumpet 23:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Charles Aubrey Eaton

Charles Aubrey Eaton (March 29, 1868 – January 23, 1953) was a Canadian-born American clergyman and politician who led congregations at Natick, Massachusetts, 1893–1895; Bloor Street, Toronto, 1895–1901; Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 1901–1909; and Madison Avenue, New York City, 1909 to 1916. Eaton served in the United States House of Representatives from 1925 to 1953, representing the New Jersey's 4th congressional district from 1925 to 1933, and (as a result of redistricting based on the 1930 census) the New Jersey's 5th congressional district from 1933 to 1953. He participated in the creation of the United Nations.

Biography
Eaton was clergyman, journalist, U.S. congressman and a signatory to original United Nations Charter. He was born on a farm near Pugwash, Nova Scotia. A son of Stephen Eaton, a shipbuilder and farmer, and Mary Desiah (Parker) Eaton, he attended school locally and worked on his father's farm. From 1884 to 1886, he attended school in Amherst, Nova Scotia, where he was baptized and chose to become a Baptist minister. In 1890, he received a B.A. from Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Three years later he graduated with the B.D. from Newton Theological Institution, Newton Centre, Massachusetts, and was ordained a Baptist minister. In 1893, he served as a pastor at the First Baptist Church of Natick, Massachusetts. At Natick, he met Mary Winifred Parlin (May 11, 1874 – November 12, 1948), daughter of local merchant and Civil War veteran William D. Parlin and Mary Brown. They were married June 26, 1895, and had six children. Also in 1895, he became a citizen of the United States and was named pastor at a Bloor Street church in Toronto. He received the M.A. from McMaster University in Toronto in 1896, was awarded a D.D. by Baylor University in 1899 and Acadia University in 1907, and an LL.D. from McMaster University in 1916.

In 1924, Eaton was elected as a Republican from New Jersey to the 69th U.S. Congress and to the thirteen succeeding Congresses, serving until 1952. He was a steadfast opponent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. However, his ability to work well with both Republicans and Democrats would prompt presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman to frequently invite "Doc" Eaton, as he was sometimes known, to the White House as an informal advisor.

On June 26, 1945, appointed by President Roosevelt, Eaton was one of the signers of the original United Nations Charter, the international organization's foundational treaty, in San Francisco, California. In 1947 he became chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs and of the Herter Committee. With a Democratic president (Harry S. Truman) and a Republican Congress, and with the influence of economic aid in foreign policy, the chairmanship was a powerful post. Eaton's leadership was at times strongly challenged by the neo-isolationist group in the House, but he achieved the passage of every piece of legislation that he sponsored, including continuation of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), a program of aid to Greece and Turkey (the Truman Doctrine), and the Marshall Plan. The opposition to these programs centered in the House and Eaton was their chief defender. The passage of the Marshall Plan was a high point in Eaton's political career. President Truman gave testimony in his memoirs to Eaton for his bipartisan support of American foreign policy. Twenty days after his retirement from Congress, Eaton died in Washington, D.C., and was interred in Hillside Cemetery in Scotch Plains, New Jersey.

Evangelism
In 1904, Eaton's commitment to evangelism got him arrested on the streets of Cleveland, Ohio, for persistently ignoring by-laws prohibiting street preaching. However, he wanted to extend his ministry beyond the churches, into which many of the spiritually needy never stepped. At the same time, Eaton was the preacher at Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, situated on Cleveland's "millionaire's row", and as a result he came to the attention of John D. Rockefeller, a summer resident of Cleveland who attended church there. They became lifelong friends, and this connection influenced Eaton's future path. It also influenced that of another well-known Canadian who went on to have an outstanding career in the United States, his nephew, Cyrus S. Eaton. He introduced him to Rockefeller in 1901, when Cyrus was still a university student. Cyrus went on to work for Rockefeller, and eventually become one of Cleveland's first citizens, and one of America's premier industrialists. Charles moved to North Plainfield, New Jersey, in 1909, and started a dairy farm, while at the same time preaching to a prominent New York City Baptist congregation, the Madison Avenue Baptist Church. The area in which he lived separated from North Plainfield in 1926, and the Borough of Watchung, New Jersey, was founded there. He lived there until his death.

Journalism
Eaton was sociological editor of the Toronto Globe (1896–1901), associate editor of Westminster (1899–1901), special correspondent for The Times, New-York Tribune, and Boston Transcript while in Toronto. He was editor of Leslie's Weekly (1919, 1920), and (while director of labor relations at General Electric's National Lamp Works) editor of Light (1923–1924).

title: Charles Aubrey Eaton


text:
Talk:Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site

Untitled
Original content:

Step into a reconstructed earthlodge and imagine boiling buffalo meat in a clay pot or pounding corn with a mortar and pestle. View the artistry of everyday and ceremonial clothing, bags, and implements. Listen to memories of traditional Hidatsa Indian life, then walk through the past to the Sakakawea site, where earthlodge depressions hint of their life in a vibrant village, alive with games, ceremonies, and trade.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. 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/20060701063727/http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/salley4/ to http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/salley4/

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) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
Luiseño

The Luiseño or Payómkawichum are an Indigenous people of California who, at the time of the first contacts with the Spanish in the 16th century, inhabited the coastal area of southern California, ranging 50 mi from the present-day southern part of Los Angeles County to the northern part of San Diego County, and inland 30 mi. In the Luiseño language, the people call themselves Payómkawichum (also spelled Payómkowishum), meaning "People of the West." After the establishment of Mission San Luis Rey de Francia (The Mission of Saint Louis King of France), "the Payómkawichum began to be called San Luiseños, and later, just Luiseños by Spanish missionaries due to their proximity to this San Luis Rey mission.

Today there are six federally recognized tribes of Luiseño bands based in southern California, all with reservations. Another organized band is not federally recognized.

Pre-colonization
The Payómkawichum were successful in utilizing a number of natural resources to provide food and clothing. They had a close relationship with their natural environment. They used many of the native plants, harvesting many kinds of seeds, berries, nuts, fruits, and vegetables for a varied and nutritious diet. The land also was inhabited by many different species of animals which the men hunted for game and skins. Hunters took antelopes, bobcats, deer, elk, foxes, mice, mountain lions, rabbits, wood rats, river otters, ground squirrels, and a wide variety of insects. The Luiseño used toxins leached from the nuts of California buckeye to stupefy fish in order to harvest them in mountain creeks.

Estimates for the pre-contact populations of most native groups in California have varied substantially. In the 1920s, A. L. Kroeber put the 1770 population of the Luiseño (including the Juaneño) at 4,000–5,000; he estimated the population in 1910 as 500. The historian Raymond C. White proposed a historic population of 10,000 in his work of the 1960s. Pablo Tac, born in 1820, recorded, "perhaps from oral history and official records" that approximately five thousand people were living in Payómkawichum territory prior to the arrival of the Spanish.

Mission period
The first Spanish missions were established in California in 1769. For nearly 30 years, Payómkawichum "who lived in the autonomous territories on the mesas and coastal valleys" in the western region of their traditional territory, "witnessed the constant incursion of caravans that moved north and south through their land on El Camino Real."

Spanish missionaries established Mission San Luis Rey de Francia entirely within the borders of Payómkawichum territory in 1798. Known as the "King of the Missions," it was founded on June 13, 1798, by Father Fermín Francisco de Lasuén, located in what is now Oceanside, California, in northern San Diego County. It was the Spanish First Military District.

Mexican period
The Mexican Empire assumed ownership of Payómkawichum lands after defeating Spain in the Mexican War of Independence in 1821. The following year, Mexican troops confiscated all coastal lands from the Payómkawichum in 1822, granting much of the land to Mexican settlers, who became known as Californios, to develop the land for agriculture.

Mexican-American War
The Payómkawichum did not actively participate in the war, but fell victim to the violence following the Battle of San Pasqual. Eleven Californio lancers from the battle arrived at Rancho Pauma and stole horses from the Pauma Band of the Luiseno. The Pauma Band apprehended the thieves and sought to punish them and initially let them off with a warning. However, an American present at the trial successfully convinced the Luiseño to execute them, leading to the execution of all Californio thieves known to the Californios as the Pauma Massacre.

News of the execution reached the Mexican General José María Flores in Los Ángeles, he sent a Mexican force under José del Carmen Lugo in retaliation to execute the chiefs responsible for executing the Californios. Along the way Lugo met with a group of Cahuilla led by Cooswootna (Juan Antonio), who decided to join forces to attack their Payómkawichum rival. News of the advance reached Temecula, leading the Payómkawichum to hide in the nearby caves and canyons. The allied forces took the high ground on the meadows and the Payómkawichum troops charged up the hill to meet them, leading to the Temecula massacre. The battle killed over 100 Temecula Payómkawichum and the Payómkawichum were defeated. The captured soldiers were handed over to the Cahuilla, who executed all of the prisoners. The Mormon Battalion later reached Temecula and allowed the survivors to bury their dead.

American period
After the war, Payómkawichum leaders entered negotiations to sign the Treaty of Temecula and Treaty of San Luis Rey to protect their lands, but the treaties remained unratified. After the admission of the State of California, the state allowed White Americans to impose indentured servitude on Indigenous Californians under the Act for the Governance and Protection of Indians. In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant allowed reservations to be established in the area. That same year, the state of California evicted the Payómkawichum in the Temecula Valley to be redistributed to American ranchers. In 1882, another round of reservations was permitted to be established under President Chester A. Arthur after the details of the Temecula eviction scheme were revealed.Boarding school programs were established to assimilate the Payómkawichum into subservience and American culture, whose children were enrolled into the Sherman Indian School in Riverside. The Pauma, Pala, and Rincon Bands sued for the right to enroll their children at local schools.

Gems were discovered around the Pala Reservation in the 1890s, extracting pink tourmaline, pegmatite, and morganite beryl (the latter being the first discovery of the gem of its kind). Pink tourmaline quickly became the top export as Dowager Empress Cixi of the Qing dynasty spoke highly of the gem in 1902, which became the tribe's main export until 1911 when the Dowager died.

The Payómkawichum were allowed to pursue gambling operations on their reservations after its legalization in the 1980s, which allowed them to establish several casinos in their reservations in the 2000s, including but not limited to the Pala Casino Resort and Spa (2000), Pechanga Resort & Casino (2002), and Harrah's Resort Southern California (2004). This newfound wealth also allowed the Pechanga Band to purchase the naming rights to the San Diego Sports Arena, now known as Pechanga Arena.

During the October 2007 California wildfires, the Poomacha Fire ravaged the La Jolla Indian Reservation, destroying 92% of the reservation. State and federal agencies provided aid to rebuild the tribe's facilities and residents of the tribe were able to return to the reservation by the end of the next year.

Language
The Luiseño language belongs to the Cupan group of Takic languages, within the major Uto-Aztecan family of languages. About 30 to 40 people speak the language. In some of the independent bands, individuals are studying the language, language preservation materials are being compiled, and singers sing traditional songs in the language. Pablo Tac, born at San Luis Rey in 1822, devised a written form of Luiseño language through "his study of Latin grammar and Spanish" while working "among international scholars in Rome." Although Tac had to conform to "Latin grammatical constructions, his word choice and his narrative form, along with his continual translation between Luiseño and Spanish, establish an Indigenous framework for understanding Luiseño."

Bands
Today Luiseño people are enrolled in the following recognized tribes and one unrecognized tribe:

Riverside County

 * 'áaway, on a head branch of Santa Margarita River
 * Awa’, Aguanga
 * Chawimai, Los Duraznos, Cahuilla valley
 * Hurúmpa, west of Riverside
 * Méexa, on Santa Margarita River northwest of Temecula
 * Pawi, warm spring in middle of village at Cahuilla valley
 * Páayaxchi, on Elsinore Lake
 * Pichaang, Pechanga
 * Șuvóowu Șuvóova, east of San Jacinto Soboba
 * Táa'akwi, at the head of Santa Margarita River
 * Teméeku, east of Temecula

San Diego County

 * 'ahúuya, near the upper course of San Luis Rey River
 * 'akíipa, near Kahpa
 * 'áalapi, San Pascual south of the middle course of the San Luis Rey River
 * Húyyulkum, on the upper course of San Luis Rey River
 * 'ikáymay, near San Luis Rey Mission
 * Qáxpa, on the middle course of San Luis Rey River
 * Katúktu, between Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey Rivers, north of San Luis Rey
 * Qée'ish, Qéch, south of San Luis Rey Mission
 * Qewéw, on the upper course of San Luis Rey River
 * Kóolu, near the upper course of San Luis Rey River
 * Kúuki, on the upper course of San Luis Rey River
 * Kwáa'alam, on the lower course of San Luis Rey River
 * Maláamay, northeast of Pala
 * Mixéelum pompáwvo, near Escondido
 * Ngóoriva
 * Pa'áa'aw, near Tái Palomar mountain
 * Páala, at Pala
 * Páalimay, on the coast between Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda Creeks, Carlsbad
 * Panakare, north of Escondido
 * Páașuku, near the headwaters of San Luis Rey River
 * Páawma, east of Pala Pauma
 * Pochóorivo, on the upper course of San Luis Rey River
 * Sóowmay, south of the middle course of San Luis Rey River
 * Șakíshmay (Luiseño or Diegueño), on the boundary line between the two peoples
 * Șíikapa, Palomar, west of Escondido
 * Táaxanashpa, La Jolla
 * Táakwish poșáppila, east of Palomar Mountain
 * Tá'i, close to Palomar Mountain
 * Tapá'may, north of Katúktu
 * Tómqav, west of Pala
 * 'úshmay, at Las Flores
 * Waxáwmay, Guajome on San Luis Rey River above San Luis Rey
 * Wiyóoya, at the mouth of San Luis Rey River
 * Wi'áasamay, east of San Luis Rey
 * Wáșxa, Rincon near the upper course of San Luis Rey River
 * Yamí', near Húyyulkum

Notable Luiseños

 * Richard Lee Bugbee (1948–2023), culture keeper and ethnobotany instructor
 * Pete Calac (1892–1968), football player
 * Freddy Herrera, musician
 * Sky Hopinka (b. 1984), is a visual artist and film-maker
 * James Luna (1950–2018), performance artist
 * Bonita Wa Wa Calachaw Nuñez (1888-1972), painter
 * Jamie Okuma (b. 1977), beadwork artist, fashion designer
 * Joely Proudfit (b. 1968-1969), professor and media consultant
 * Fritz Scholder (1937–2005), painter and sculptor
 * Ruth-Ann Thorn (b. 1965), art dealer, documentary film maker
 * Pablo Tac (1822–1841), scholar

title: Luiseño


text:
User talk:Udara123

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! pamri 05:22, August 30, 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:Udara123


text:
User talk:NeilN

I still miss you, NeilN!
I know that you haven't been on Wikipedia for some time now, but I just wanted to leave you a message nonetheless and let you know that I miss you a lot, and that I was thinking about you...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Me, too. It's hard not to know why you're not editing, you had such a big impact on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Was thinking of you today. Hope you are well. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Add me to the list of people who wish you were still around. It's a shame you haven't been active since 2018. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I too wish you were here NeilN, — Paleo Neonate  – 02:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I miss you too Neil. We didnt interact much, but it was your talkpage where me, and PaleoNeonate interacted for the first time. You two were good to me in my early days here. If it wasnt for you and a couple of other editors, I might have left the project in my early days. I hope you are fine in real life. If possible, kindly drop at least one line message on your talkpage. Take care of yourself, and yours. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Boy did you bash me real hard during my early days of editing but for some awkward reason I actually miss you. I really do hope and pray that all is well with you. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just came to say the same thing. I'm not sure we ever interacted, but I remember your name and have a positive impression of you. Whatever you're up to these days, I hope God is blessing you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Same here, Sir, god bless you thank you kind sir - Mini Stephen Hawkins of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.158.16.17 (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hi, NeilN. Some years back, I remember an exchange that I had with you on my Talk-Page. Were you ever an administrator here on Wikipedia? Just curious.Davidbena (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 * NeilN has not edited since October 2018 (and I still miss him). To answer your question yes he was an admin. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/List of terrorist incidents in April 2017
Template:Editnotices/Page/List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:NeilN


text:
Talk:Rebecca Quick

Untitled
This thing comes across like a vanity piece/resume..--Hooperbloob 05:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just a little but I think the piece is basically OK.--Mantanmoreland 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Becky is attractive, but this entry is on the hairy edge of non-notable. If she wasn't co-anchoring Sqwak Box, there's really not much else in Becky's bio that calls for an encyclopedia entry. That's probably a good thing as she has not been involved in any Bartiromoesque scandals. Also she hasn't written any books like Maria or Liz, so it's quite difficult to fill out this entry with anything substantial. Still a fan, but this does raise the question does every other so-far otherwise non-notable news talking head on TV deserve a wikipedia entry? It's a catch-22 that journalists and reporters should be reporting the story, not being a part of it. Wikipedia's not supposed to be a fan site. But Becky will probably succeed Katie Couric as CBS anchor in 2030 or something, so let's watch this entry grow perhaps. This is borderline biography stuff right now. Piperdown 03:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

copyright violation
The text is lifted word for word from the CNBC external link.--80.6.163.58 12:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I flagged it here, but do not have time to fix it myself. Someone must. The template cannot be simply removed, not even by an admin. It's a flagrant copyvio. rootology  ( T ) 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married.
Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

There is also visual published evidence available (http://www.cedarrun.org/newsletter/Spring03.pdf) identifying Quick with her previous husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I've semi'd the page again. Please stop the edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm reluctant to use an apparent gossip page as a source, likewise a local pamphlet, but the NY Times article in particular seems significant, as does to repeated mention. I'm a bit dubious as the particular way this is being presented, with a small parenthetical that "Quick was previously married", but some rephrasing might help. On a bit of a tangent, I am curious as to exactly why those sources seem so reluctant to mention this "computer programmer" by name, but the point is probably moot. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that at least two users have expressed in edit summaries their opposition to inclusion of this information:
 * "rv. source is not a reliable source. per BLP)" (Syrthiss) (Referring to WP:BLP policy) Superseded; see below.(21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC))
 * "The source provided is inadaquate. Does not mention anything past marriages." (KeltieMartinFan). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably make clear my previous comments relating to this, both here and here... not exactly directly related to the matter at hand, but I've looked at and commented on it before, a bit. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Coppertwig- Only User:KeltieMartinFan has adamantly opposed the inclusion.
 * Here's the actual gist of comments today by User:Syrthiss: " You have my blessing to reintroduce the previous marriage information, though you will likely still have to convince others. You might open a section on the talk page and make the step by step explanation (without the gossip column as a reliable source, tho you can use that as a basis for your argument that the current marriage is to the producer)." User:Syrthiss (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 talk 00:06, 6 August 2009, note added by Abd (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the original for that comment by Syrthiss:. The IP editor is naive and did not understand how to proceed, should not have made the edit to the article, but should have proceeded with the discussion only. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Abd - The IP editor should have proceeded with the discussion only? Based on...what?
 * Sources for correct data were offered, and the weighty opinions of previous participating editors were sought (and used). More procedural effort appears to have been made by the IP editor than with most edits that occur on Wikipedia.
 * Perhaps the IP editor was naive about past presumptions of an edit war, but that's not convincing to argue the edit should not have occurred.
 * And your response here is all the more odd considering the long message you left at the page of User talk:Coppertwig strongly supporting evidence for the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is weird. Don't know how I've wandered in here - I don't even know who this woman is - but why is there a problem recording that she has married twice? The NYT citation looks sound for her being married in 2006 to a man who was at the time a computer programmer. It's not unusual for people to divorce and remarry these days. If anything, I'd say there was more doubt about her current hubbie - all the info seems to come from one gossip column source, with other gossip sources over the past six months reporting all sorts of other rubbish about this lady (one alleged she had married Jordanian royalty!!!!!)  Just the simple sentence "Rebecca Quick has been married twice.  Her current husband is........." with a link to both sources. The first chap doesn't seem to be in any way Wikipedia notable, so guidelines indicate there's no need to say any more.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's my conclusion. Anon, you are inexperienced here and you mistook a conclusion that you were correct and should discuss it, with a conclusion that you -- or the other editor -- should re-assert the edit to the article. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and you can be blocked for pushing what is absolutely true. Inclusion is a more complex decision than "It's true." Elen, your conclusion matches that of Syrthiss and myself. The anon, and possibly a friend of the anon, or maybe someone independent, has been trying to insert exactly this: information that Quick was previously married, and she rather obviously was. We have a direct secondary source with the name, and given the rough confirmation from major media source, we can cite the direct source, thus anyone who wants to find out the name can find it. --Abd (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It looks to me that we can put the previous marriage info into the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as it's properly worded, and the most adequate source is in placed. That's the issue we have been dealing with from all of this.  Unsourced information.  The newsletter in questioned isn't adequate enough. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * "That's the issue WE have been dealing with from all of this"?
 * Then WE all look forward to the day when the properly worded entry occurs! : )
 * 162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is the best source?
 * "husband Peter Shay" (newsletter of a wildlife refuge)
 * "previously married to a computer programmer" (New York Post)
 * "recently married ... Matthew Quayle" (Gawker, January 2009)
 * "with her husband, who is a computer programmer." (New York Times, January 2006)
 * "once married to Peter Shay" (CNBCfix)
 * Discussion of the editing of this article. (CNBCfix)
 * I suggest using both the New York Times and CNBCfix as refs to establish that she was previously married, and the Gawker to establish the recent marriage. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I don't think it need say anything about either husband, unless they suddenly develop notability. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe there was all this disruption over this. The source was already there, and being used for the claim that she "lives in Haworth, New Jersey." Forest for the trees. That was a 2006 source, and it has the "computer programmer" info, so, without any synthesis about this, except I specified "husband" as "then-husband," which is a qualification true about all reports of existing fact that might change, and here we have, don't we, some reason to believe that it *has* changed, polyandry being prohibited in most places, especially New Jersey. Because this is so effing obvious, and should have been from the beginning, I've made the change, as a previously uninvolved editor who has no axe to grind on this content, and I wish the best for Rebecca Quick, Peter Shay (my rather obvious guess), and Mquayle. And Keltie, WTF were you doing here? Edit warring to keep a quite simple fact out, claiming no source, when the source was there all along, through all this? Why were you so intensely concerned about this?

I also specified the living in Haworth thing so to restrict it to 2006, since, being married to a producer, who has accessed this article from New York IP belonging to NBC, there is a high probability she no longer lives in Haworth -- but perhaps her parents still live there.

I've added the additional source pointing to the wildlife refuge newsletter. I have no personal problem with the use of the Gawker article for what should be noncontroversial. I did not add the CNBCfix reference because it wasn't needed, but that reference -- tentatively, and I'm not intending to put more time into this -- was as good as the Gawker article. The Gawker information used to be an external link, and perhaps that will be restored.

I added the newsletter because it is as good a source as the gossip column, maybe even better, except as to notability, and because it mirrors that reference. The gossip column mentions the name of Quick's present husband, the newsletter the name of her former husband. With photos to boot. I hope we are done here. Be nice, do good work, and sign your contributions. --Abd (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I was not edit warring. Did you see me getting blocked over this for edit warring?  No.  162.6.97.3 and any of his socks have gotten blocked many times over for edit warring and other violations.  And it wasn't always me he dealt with. I have every right to be here, so don't give me that ridiculous attitude, Abd.  You were not there at the start  BTW, you supported the cause as to why this newsletter is NOT suppose to be there.  It's "gossip" which is strictly prohibited on wikipedia.  That is one of the most absolute (if not the most) unreliable source. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the newsletter isn't 'gossip'. The third sector is capable of producing accurate information - the only reason to assume that Cedar Run's newsletter was inaccurate would be if you had evidence that it had been hacked.  It's the info about her new hubbie that's from the gossip columnist.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That still does not excuse the fact that this newsletter doesn't mention anything about divorce, which has been the whole topic of this petty discussion.  Did you even read that newsletter?  The information about Quick is so microscopic.  And that small information that is listed just simply say that the guy standing next to her is her husband.  People who do not know any better and see that newsletter will automically assume that.  No mentionings about divorce in that thing.  Not adaquate.  Look for something else a lot more adaquate and acceptable if you're that adamant about mentioning Quick's marriage. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand your objection. If the sources don't mention divorce, there's no need for the Wikipedia article to mention it either; it can just say that she is recently married, and that she was previously married (which the sources do say), etc.  Do you mean we shouldn't link to an old newsletter because people might read it and jump to the conclusion that she's still married to the person she's reported as married to there?  I don't find that convincing.  Old information is still good.  The Wikipedia article makes it clear that that was a previous marriage.  No need to burn old books because they don't contain all the latest updates.  Are you suggesting that we not mention either of the marriages at all? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct the newsletter doesn't mention anything about divorce; however, the New York Times does mention the husband who is a computer programmer, and it is the source for her living in New Jersey with her husband. That was 2006. The newsletter is before that. The newsletter is not asserted as a necessary source for the former marriage, but only as an additional confirming reference, and for further information, i.e., the name of the former husband is there. There is other source for both, specifically the other gossip column. As Syrthiss pointed out, we have better sourcing for the former marriage than for the current one. Keltie, you have been removing all reference to the marriage many times; I just warned you for edit warring, I listed seven repetitive removals; you claimed there was no source, but, all along, the New York times mentioned the computer programmer husband, the newsletter source, and the other gossip column, were just confirmations, and they give the name. If someone wanted to do the research, it's possible other sources for the marriage can be found, but it doesn't seem to be worth it. The article with all three sources (NY Times, newsletter, Gawker, has a bare mention of both marriages, the occupation of both husbands, and neither name. With the newsletter, both husbands are named in the sources. It's balanced. Now, why, indeed, was this of such overriding importance to you that you would override prohibitions against edit warring and simply assert the same removal, over and over and over? Does this have anything to do with the prior removal by, apparently, the current husband from NBC IP and his single-edit account? Do you have any connection with NBC or the involved parties?
 * There is a general consensus here, do not oppose consensus with reversion, either short-term or long-term. If you will disclose your interest and real concern, it's possible something could be done, but your explanations, as it is, make no sense. "Microscopic." Okay. So? Small verifiable facts are still facts and verifiable. The first husband is notable because of the mention in the NY Times. Divorce has not been the topic of any discussion I've seen here. We may infer divorce, but we don't say divorce in the article. The topic is whether or not Quick was ever married before, and you have attempted to remove all reference to it, giving one weak reason after another. It seems your goal is not improving the project, but controlling it in this corner and, I think, others. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've put the Cedar Run source back in that Keltie took out with that strange edit summary, although I note that the New York Post ref that Bilby has replaced the Gawker with also makes reference to Quick having been married to a computer programmer before, so the matter may be moot by now.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You think that. But two people (Elen and Abd) out of slew of people is not a consensus.  It's weak, and like a said many times over, small and inadequate.  Other sources listed have already stated Quick's martial status.  And FYI, NO...I do not work for NBC.  And I'm NOT Matt Quayle either, nor to I have any association with Quick other than being a typical admirer of her work like millions of viewers. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * erm...pardon? Can't recall saying anything about you other than I found your edit summary strange.  I'm not going to argue about the ref, it's pretty moot now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, support keeping the wildlife ref because it gives the name of the former husband. I don't understand KeltiMartinFan's reason for removal. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's you, me, Abd, Syrthiss and the IP that kicked this off and found the source in the first place. Does anyone know what Keltie's issue with this is?

On RS/N somebody asked about a newsletter. Now I see the New York Post Page Six column is used as a source. That's not great. Also I see that a blog (Dealbreaker) is used as a source for something else. I've taken it out.-JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the New York Post Page Six column, but I see it as better than Gawker, which was the main alternative. That aside, I certainly agree with removing Dealbreaker - I had added a better source for the song, and reworded the Dealbreaker part to be clearly an opinion, but I was planning to raise it here anyway. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure why that there's all this fuss over an unnecessary reference. In the hope that this will clarify things: So, in the end, the newsletter is not a reliable source, offers nothing that the article currently needs, and we already have a reliable source covering the relevant material. Given that, there's no reason to include it, and good reasons not to. - Bilby (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:V, newsletters, of which this is one, are self published sources. Therefore they "should never be used as third-party sources about living persons".
 * Stepping aside from policy, it is reasonable to assume that a newsletter could make an error - in particular, the identity of someone in a photo, someone's name, or someone's marital status. Newsletters do not have a reputation for fact-checking - that's simply not what they're meant to do.
 * The newsletter itself only offers the supposed name of her first husband. There is nothing else of value in it. We don't have the name of her first husband in the article.
 * We already have a perfectly adequate source for the fact that she was, at some point, married to a computer programmer.
 * Per Bilby, I accept the deletion of the wildlife refuge newsletter. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A random thought from an outside editor (I read about this in RS/N): why is it so important to talk about her marital status? If solid sourcing is not available, the best thing is to leave it out. I'm not overjoyed about using a gossip column in a BLP, particularly a link to an article that raises ethical issues even if the text in the article doesn't. My vote would be to leave it out entirely. So she's married to X and was married to Y. Who cares? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm queasy about the Page Six item raising ethical issues. I've posted a note on this at the BLP Noticeboard. Seems questionable to me, but maybe it's OK. I'd like to get more opinions.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't oppose JohnnyB256 suggestion of excluding all of Quick's martial information on this article. I’m sure Miss Quick and those close to her would actually prefer it that way. At the same time, I don’t oppose having some acceptable information either. But if those close to Quick would rather not have this piece of information included, I would respect their decision and politely abide. Aside from that, as for the other part about my “issue” with this...to put it as very politely as I possibly can, my issue is that I was correct in my reasoning and those of you who oppose me were not, and are stubborn to think otherwise. I had my fair share of being at odds against editors such as this incident. My history log speaks for itself as to the type of edits I make on any article I touch. I am never one to stir controversy or put any defamatory edits in any article here on Wikipedia such as my primary opposition in all of this,162.6.97.3 (really it was 76.114.133.44, the real sockpuppeteer). That is my REAL issue, having to put with up with nonsense like this from irrational editors who no common sense and no decency. I know a lot of other editors, especiallly administrators, would concur with me on my last statement. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * The New York Times is solid evidence of a marriage to a computer programmer. A Gawker.com mention and The New York Post gossip column have been questionable sources for a marriage to Squawk Box's executive producer. Let's resolve that now.

 * On its business pages, The New York Post reported the following on Jan. 25, 2009:

 * WHAT CONFLICT?

 * "SQUAWK BOX" anchor Becky Quick and the show's executive producer, Matthew Quayle, recently took the walk down the aisle and while Quayle has supervisory duties over the show, neither will have to shift professional roles, CNBC said.

 * According to a network spokesman, both Quick and Quayle work for business news head Jonathan Wald. Though Quayle outranks Quick in title, they are technically equals in the sense that both report to Wald.

 * From that perspective, the spokesman said there is no conflict of interest in having the couple continue to work on the same show.

 * 162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I've subbed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Again? Really??
User:KeltieMartinFan is up to his old tricks trying to strong-arm the content of this article. Sad, isn't it?

76.114.197.43 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If KeltieMartinFan attempts to remove the information again, I will report her for edit warring. In the meantime, IP, I recommend not continuing to revert. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious. Is there some talking head pounding this "issue" or blog, ect? This "material" seems to be here for some "reason", not sure since I am not involved. Wikipedia is not a platform or battleground. It seems this should not be included unless it has been widely reported and notable and also since it currently reads like crap, ie, doesn't mention if she is divorced or 2nd marriage or any timing of events, ect, ect. This looks like the usuall smear campaign. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all old ground, debated ad nauseum (above), so no need to restate here. But the data's all documented, I.e. no scintilla of a smear.
 * User:Elen of the Roads -- Thanks for monitoring this, too. I don't want to get caught up in some 3-revert trap either! -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And it looks hardly from settled/consensus. Wikipedia is not a collection of "data" especially when it comes to BLP issues, which is obviously the case here. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, review the matter (above).This was settled. Data collection? No. Documented? Yes. -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Threeafterthree, the consensus was that it was worth saying that Becky Quick has been married twice. This is documented and (one would think) uncontroversial - it's not as if she kept her first husband locked in the attic when she married her second.  As her first husband is not himself notable in wikipedia terms, nothing more is said about him. However, for some reason KeltieMartinFan objects to the article containing any information that Becky Quick is a divorcee. If you read the section above, you'll see that KeltieMartinFan was part of the discussion. I'm not immovably attached to that particular set of words - indeed, where she lived in 2006 probably is irrelevant, but there's no reason that the article should not say that Becky Quick was married twice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Elen of the Roads, but how do we know she doesn't have her "first"? husband locked away?(j/k) Seriously, how do we know that was her "first" husband? We don't unless sources specifically say it was her first marriage. She could have been married multiple times for all we know. The current wording seems ok since we aren't mention the number of marriages or using the word divorce since that hasn't been sourced as well. Maybe she is a Mormon :), just kidding. Anyways, not trying to be a dick, just playing devils advocate, especially on BLPs. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * (Inhale, exhale). OK, here's the deal: Via her 15 hours (at the least) on television a week, Quick has freely stated innocuous information -- facts and opinions --about herself. Certainly items that would be interesting in her Wikipedia entry. She's not a MAJOR personality, but neither is Quick as relatively obscure as now seen.

 * One -- ONE! -- editor locked the article up for weeks (weeks!) over mention of a second marriage. That creates a climate where NO ONE is willing to add substance to the article. All because of ONE draconian (read: nonsensical) interpretation of BLP policy.

 * For example, Quick has repeated stated on SquawkBox her germ phobia. Essential information? Of course not. But interesting if you wanted to know more, which presumably one would be by visiting Wikipedia. But after the firefight to get (sort of) mention of a documented second marriage, why waste time in germ warfare? You add information and get branded as "having an agenda." It just makes for an incomplete record, and who needs that in any pedia? -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless her "germ phobia" is covered by RS, just having seen her mention it on the tube is the essence of original research. IP, do you watch her 15 hours a week :) ? Seriously, my question is why does this seem so important to you? Why is it so important to include what seems like really non notable personal info on a bio this short and so poorly sourced due to the fact this person is barely notable enough to have a bio in the first place? If folks are coming here to "learn more" about the minutia of this person, they will and should be disappointed. Wikipedia does/should error on the side of draconian interpretation of policy when it comes to BLPs. --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * You're arguing for the sense of arguing, right? Because you're not even in the ballpark on original research. Or an understanding of this person's celebrity niche in her field. (Ask Warren Buffett if he knows her. Oh, right, that's original research, right?)
 * You're wrong. Pedias should err on the marketplace-of-information principle, not toward censorship. --76.114.197.43 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not completely. I guess we agree to disagree on BLP policy then. Anyways, I don't have a horse in this race so carry on. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding two of the links in the notes, they still work, but they are being forwarded to the actual URLs (which, of course, might stop working at some point in the future). Suggest that the article be edited so those links point to the actual pages.

Note 2 (and external link): http://www.cnbc.com/becky-quick/ Note 3: http://nypost.com/2009/01/25/fuld-hides-home/ 50.46.202.203 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rebecca Quick


text:
Talk:Trekking

Himalayan treking
Why do the Himalayan Mountains deserve their own section in this article? Trekking, as I understand it, is enjoyed on 6 continents more or less equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.173.181 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Though I created the section but I support you, I think someone must start other sections of trekking in different continents. You know, I created the section with a hope that seeing the section other users might also start similiar sections, thus the status of the article.--Soumit Banerjee (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 * This word might be an anglicism. In the U.S. we would say backpacking instead. We tend not to have teahouses, alpine huts, or porters so we usually need to carry everything for self-suffiency.  There is, however, hiking with pack animals doing the heavy carrying.  I've never gone on one of those so I'm not sure if there's a compact term for it.  Anyhow, perhaps the etymology section should explain how the word is used in some countries, then mention -- or better link to -- equivalent terms used elsewhere. For exanple, what term would Brits use on the Continent when relying on alpine huts for food and lodging and not engaging in serious alpinism? LADave (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Article or Dab page
I don't get it. Is this an article or a dab page? I came to put a hatnote for Trek Bicycle Corporation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.43.39 (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Trekker
While creating a new article earlier, I added the wikilink trekker to the page and was a little surprised to discover that the link redirected to Trekkie, the Star Trek fan article. I caught it in time and manually directed the link to here where I wanted it, but I was wondering if Trekkie was really the best destination for that default redirect. It is my understanding that "trekker" is a legitimate word meaning - One who treks; thus, a hiker. I ran this issue by at the Trekkie talk page, but I am not very optimistic about any response I might get from there. I admitt there is an argument to be made for trekker to redirect to trekkie. Any thoughts? Where is the best place to raise issues about redirects? Racerx11 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I have made the page a disambiguation. --Voidvector (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Trekken, South Africa / Dutch
I think we should attribute the Dutch for the word 'trekken' because it is also stated in the Oxford dictionary that it originates from South Africa Dutch. And 'trekken' itself is a Dutch word. I would say, the word 'trek' originates from the Dutch 'trekken' but commonly used in South Africa / Africa. The Dutch once colonized the South Africa as far as I know, the South Africans also spoke Dutch. Rezonjov (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 * "Trekken" may well have been an Afrikaans word, although not used anymore. The line separating Dutch from Afrikaans wasn't always that clear. I would wager that the reason it is stated here that "trek" is from Afrikaans and not from Dutch is that it was absorbed into English through South African English from Afrikaans, and not from the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. Adriaan Joubert (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Page move
This article is about the verb, not the noun, just as Hiking is not called Hike and Swimming is not called Swim. I will move this page to Trekking unless there are objections. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 16:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Trek → Trekking –
 * natural title, as proposed in Sept 2011 at Talk:Trek and not opposed. Blocked by redirect. Pam  D  14:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CRITERIA. This seems to be inline with other topics linked from adventure travel. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (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.

Article merge with redirect?
WP has other very similar articles. Hiking for example, and this one has a good section on regional differences in terminology. Backpacking (wilderness) is a more North American variant, and there may be other terms and regional flavors. Nevertheless there is a great deal of overlap. Maybe these all need to be merged with redirects from Trekking, Tramping, etc. etc.? LADave (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In British English I'd suggest that "trekking" is the kind of multi-day hiking trip, in Himalayas or similar, for which one has a guide and perhaps porters. You wouldn't go "trekking" in the English Lake District, or even along the Pennine Way. Pam  D  15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been on self-guided multi-day hikes in Nepal -- both with and without a porter -- and called it trekking as well. OK, what do folks in the U.K. call hiking in the alps, using huts for food and lodging? Does the term change depending on whether you have a guide? LADave (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading this article, it seems to be about the same as "Backpacking (wilderness)". That from a non-English language point of view (I am Portuguese). So at first glance I support the merge, and advertised it on the article pages. - Nabla (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I think that terms like trekking, backpacking and walking tour are closely related. I would go on a walking tour in the English Lakes, the Alps, France, or Greece, but I might also use the words trek, or backpacking for the Alps, and especially for somewhere like Greece, where generally walking is less developed, though probably not for England -- but maybe for Scotland. There's also the related term hillwalking. Rwood128 (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have placed the section on trekking in the Himalyas in the Long distance trail article, which seems appropriate, as well as a brief extract in Backpacking (wilderness) article. As there doesn't seem to be any objection, I suggest that the merge should be made as soon as possible.Rwood128 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trekking