text:
Talk:Gabriel's Rebellion

Overblown and speculative
It is unlikely that a large group of slaves gathered to stage a "rebellion" at Richmond, Virginia. Slaves were too busy working. The Virginia militia was composed of lawmen on horseback who wielded swords and guns. This article describing a "rebellion" is overblown. Slaves never owned horses, swords, and guns. There are great excesses of guesswork and speculation in the article. Superslum 14:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This page was once named Gabriel(slave), but someone re-titled it. Some American slaves were unable to afford a pair of shoes, so they worked in their bare feet.  It is unlikely that people without shoes on their feet would "meticulously" plot a "rebellion" against well-equipped lawmen.  Superslum 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of fabrications in Wikipedia. The mention of "white co-conspirators" is one of the most peculiar statements that I have seen.  White men did not hold discussions with slaves.  Superslum 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is commonly known as "Gabriel Prosser's rebellion" ... art least as far as I have heard. Google tends to agree. google search MPS 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The PBS article is really bizarre. The slaveowners, the slave patrol, and the State Militia would never have tolerated a gathering of 1,000 slaves. Slaves lived in police states that were designed to maintain slavery.  A slave could not eat a bite of food without having his master's permission.  Slaves were watched by overseers.

 * Some strange people gained control of the PBS organization about 25 years ago when the funding was withdrawn. Strange emanations have appeared from the PBS group for the last two or three decades.  In other words, PBS has been infiltrated and changed into a group that produces propaganda.  141.158.121.27 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comments demonstrate the worst kind of opinionated prejudice that Wikipedia has occasionally been accused of. Superslum demonstrates abysmal ignorance of the history of slavery. Read the first chapter of Lerone Bennet Jr.'s BEFORE THE MAYFLOWER (4th edition or later), read MYNE OWNE GROUND about Antonio Johnson, the Angolan who came to own 250 acres in Virginia, read VIRGINIA IN TRANSITION by Rhys Isaac, read SOCIOLOGY OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA by Morris Talpalar, just for starters, and then make the claim that "white" people did not hold discussions with slaves. European servants and African servants were marrying each other for 200 years before rigid racial distinctions were consistently enforced. Nor was slavery such a rigid police state until AFTER Gabriel's and Nat Turner's rebellions. As the Virginia press reported at the time "it is a pity, but slavery and tyranny must go together."

Gabriel's and Denmark Vesey's revolts were VERY nearly successful, and the powers that were in both Virginia and South Carolina recognized it -- in considerable fear. Nat Turner's was hardly likely to succeed, because by that time slaves had so much less to work with.

As to separating what is KNOWN from "Edgerton's conclusions about it," that is a naive and uninformed instruction. Hardly anything is KNOWN. There were few written records or recorded anecdotes from contemporaries, the story was suppressed during the decades after the revolt, and various pseudo-historians wrote distorted accounts that reflected the misconceptions of their own time, not the attitudes that really ruled life in 1800. Edgerton's work is one of the best efforts to date to dig back into contemporary records in a thorough way, but it is not yet definitive. Nor is there any better research available. Gabriel was literate, well read, well informed on the politics of federalists vs. republicans, well acquainted with the French revolution, and worked as a skilled ironsmith in foundries in Richmond. Many of his followers were not field hands at all, they worked in foundries, warehouses, and coal mines. Llawnrodded

 * What a laugh. No one can arm themself with sticks, stones, and a few hand tools and then stage a "rebellion" against horsemen armed with cutlasses and shotguns. The claim that Gabriel "almost" succeeded is absurd.  Another claim that I have noticed in the Wikipedia is that white people "lived in fear of a slave revolt."  I do not know what to make of that particular statement, except to say that it is a fabrication that is exactly opposed to the words of slaveowners who said that negroes were "docile" and that white men were "hostile" and "not suited to slavery."
 * I know that slaves who existed during the colonial era were treated more kindly than those of Gabriel's era. It is of no significance whatsoever that earlier slaves were treated more gently.  Things worsened for slaves after the founding of the Republic. Samuel Hopkins was a religious man who spoke out from the pulpit against Negroes. Robert Finley was a college professor who  hoped to transfer colored people out of the country.  Those men were alive when Gabriel was alive. Gabriel was not affected by long-dead people such as Miles Standish and Pilgrims who arrived on the Mayflower.
 * People submit similar obfuscatory statements at Gag rule. They mention inappropriate worthless things.  Worst of all is that they have erased the most important factor associated with Gag rule, which is that the Congressmen abridged their own First Amendment right to petition their government.  They (Congressmen) would not submit themselves to the rules contained in their own supreme law.  Superslum 16:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
I am curious about what is meant by "neutrality" in a biographical article about a leader of a slave revolt, dead for two centuries. I presume we are not trying to present both the good and bad aspects of slavery, or be neutral as to whether Gabriel had a moral right to organize a revolt (although if we were writing in 1800, we literally would have had to do just that to be "neutral.") If we are to be neutral as to WHETHER he organized a revolt at all, someone will have to present some FACTS indicating that he did not. Contemporary authorities in Virginia were quite terrified that he did, and that he came close to success. Finally, as I have noted before, Edgerton's work provides the most thorough parsing of facts that exists, although his conclusions, derived from those facts, are subject to debate. There is not much more neutrality to offer than to state that openly. The link below leads to a very good factual summary, with a solid bibliography.

Superslum needs to do some reading, a LOT of reading, before he has anything credible to say. All comments posted here reflect his own personal fantasy of what slavery was, having no basis in history, or in the reality lived by those who were slaves.

The NPOV note is conclusionary. It is UNLIKELY??? that planters made deliberate choices in response to Gabriel's rebellion? Planters, and the Virginia government in which they were the dominant element, made substantial changes in laws, and in organization of militia and slave patrols, in DIRECT response to this rebellion. That response MADE slavery the institution it became in the decades prior to the civil war!

User : Llawnrodded — Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sailing North from Richmond
This would be quite a feat, that is to sail north on a schooner from Richmond and reach Norfolk. The James River runs east and west and Norfolk is about 90-100 miles east of Richmond. I don't believe there is a way to sail north from Richmond on a schooner.
 * Perhaps they equipped a wagon with sails, and then "sailed north" across the land. The claim that they "sailed north" from Richmond proves that people will submit all sorts of nonsensical statements into Wikipedia.  Wikipedia contains many more similar fabrications.  Velocicaptor 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, so fix it? --Dhartung | Talk 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to fix this article because someone will promptly discard the correct statements. "Anyone can edit" means that "no holds barred" editing is allowed.  Changing some of the articles in Wikipedia is impossible.  The sentence that claims that "Gabriel's plan" would have affected the Presidential of 1800 is a very strange statement.  Slaves did not produce plans.  How many white men were slain by those slaves?  Probably none.  Who was "Author Douglas Edgerton?"  Why is he the primary authority being cited?  Was he a Ku Klux Klansman?  Velocicaptor 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're that cynical about Wikipedia, participating may not be very rewarding for you, is all I can say. I do know that the Egerton additions were added as argumentative and I and other editors succeeded in confining them to its own section. The main rationale seems to be that he wrote a book recently. There are other primary sources that could be cited. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some insight
Please forgive me for my inability to properly use html, I'm simply a history teacher who has read Egerton's book on Gabriels rebellion and wanted to offer some insight into your discussion. First of all, Gabriel Prosser wasn't the typical slave you've descrbied, barefoot etc. He was a skilled artisan and was well read. He knew of the Revolution of 1800 and felt that it would be an oppurtune time to try to abolish slavery. The election of 1800 has been refferred to the Revolution of 1800 because it was a peaceful transfer of power from the federalists to the Democratic Republicans(Antt-Federalists). Thomas Jefferson it was well known was against slavery. Prosser knew this and figured that it would be an oppurtune time to stage a rebellion because he would have the sympathy of the nations highest office.

As a result of Prossers skills as an artisan he saw himself lent out to plantations all over. As a result Prosser was able to interact with slaves on a level that that lay people today would consider improbable if not impossible. Because of Gabriel's status with whites and his abilities he naturally had great standing among his peers and it became easy for him to convince people that such a rebellion would not only prove possible but would work. As his plan grew, so did the number of skilled slaves that could visit other plantations. As a result, you could liken Gabriel to a General issuing orders to his field commanders(the other artisans) and they in turn disseminated that information along to the grunts (slaves throughout the various plantations.) Please note that this rebellion took two years in planning and was unlike other slave rebellions you've read about in history books. The south was compleletly alarmed because of the widespread scale of this rebellion as well as the details that went into it.

As for the weapons issue. One of Gabriel's conspirators was going to leave one of the armorys unlocked so that the slaves could indeed arm themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by "Wunderer" 163.150.15.246 (talk • contribs).
 * Much of what you say above is accepted and tangential to the dispute. The major problem, going back a year or two here, occurred because someone came in and edited the article with conclusionary attribution to Egerton and forced the article to argue with itself, e.g. "Smith was a solicitor. Actually Smith was not a solicitor, but a barrister. Writer Jones says that all the historians who say he was a solicitor were anti-Smith." It isn't so much that Egerton's conclusions were startlingly different but that they were presented as argumentative when they did not need to be. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

External link removal
I don't know specifically what means in objecting to the external link at http://www.africawithin.com/bios/gabriel_prosser.htm ("out of date and incorrect" helps but is still vague), but the link doesn't add a great deal to the current version of the article and comes from an apparently self-published source, so removing it at this time seems acceptable. I would like to caution 74.71.74.239 that future removals should be explained in the edit summary or on the article Talk page (here), rather than no explanation or an explanation placed in the article. Whether removing something from or adding something to an article, if an editor disputes that action, it is always best to discuss it in some manner rather than engaging in an edit war. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * (1) You're absolutely right about the edit war. A look at the article's history or User talk:74.71.74.239 shows that his edits have been repeatedly reverted and, most recently, the reason for the reversion was spelled out and he was invited to explain his edits here.

 * (2) As I wrote at User talk:74.71.74.239, I did some further research, including re-reading Aptheker's American Negro Slave Revolts, and concluded that the website was inaccurate and fanciful. One specific example is that Prosser did not intend to create a "Kingdom of Virginia" and make himself king, as the site says. I don't know the editor's objections since he never explained himself as I asked him to, but he was right: the site was a bad reference. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm glad you sorted it out! Of course, if the anon had explained himself in the first place, this point could have been reached sooner. --Dhartung | Talk 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Do most people think that it is safe to remove the NPOV tag? It is kind of confusing why it is even there, as it is right smack in the middle of a section where information about a book is being presented. The strange person who added the tag has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'm, totally, removing the tag speak up if this was a bad choice. Leondegrance — Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes on Edgerton

 * As the contributor who first introduced Edgerton's research, coming back after two years or so, I am amazed at all the pseudo-controversy. I introduced it because it needed to be part of any article, and I carefully delineated it as one scholar's recent research, because I knew it would be controversial. If I wished to simply impose my own view of what is credible, Edgerton would be it. But even so, nobody ever gets ALL the truth, or perfect accuracy, in any book. There has been a good deal of mythology about Gabriel, first because the authorities tried to suppress contemporary information, then, because people with a dramatic flair or their own agenda looked back from 100 years or more later and wrote pure fantasy. Edgerton is the only detailed scholarship to look back to remaining contemporary sources that anyone has produced -- of course he has, as do we all, a point of view which guided his interpretation of the data. But he offers much better data than any other published source. As to PBS, I would want to see a FOOTNOTED transcript, and then check THEIR sources, before accepting it as anything but drama, potentially informative drama, but hardly authoritative. The point that Gabriel did not plan to make himself "King of Virginia" is well taken. He was a republican, in the sense used at that time, and fully intended to live in a multi-racial republic once the point had been forcefully made that all slaves were to be freed. After all, he worked and socialized with "white" people of his own class (industrial artisans) as did others of his color and occupation, free and slave. The article is looking rather good right now, everybody has done well at adding details and shaping it coherently. --Llawnrodded  —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Historiography
This usually means looking at how historians have treated a topic over time. Most of the discussion here seems to be about Egerton's book, and it's not even clear what the controversies were. I doubt if many historians really worried about whether the man was known as Gabriel or Gabriel Prosser. In the past it may have been considered easier, or even more respectful, to use a surname for Gabriel, whether or not he had formally adopted one for himself. There were probably many different versions in different records. I understand that people should no longer assume that slaves adopted masters' names; many freedmen after the Civil War, for instance, adopted new names, names that had meaning for them.--Parkwells (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking Good
Well, for all the back and forth in discussion, the article presently looks quite good, and well balanced in the best sense of the word, presenting many reasonably well researched facts which might support a number of conclusions, none of which are definitive.

A breif noted about "sailing north from Richmond." During that period, roads were abysmal, so the most efficient way to get from Richmond to Norfolk was to sail down the James River, then south along the coast to Norfolk. It would have taken much longer to go overland. Since rivers run where they run, and no canal had been dug the other way, it was necessary to "go with the flow." Llawnrodded (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriel Prosser. 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/20091206001455/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/ to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/

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) 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriel Prosser. 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/20090303160032/http://www.co.caroline.va.us/gabirelpardon.html to http://www.co.caroline.va.us/gabirelpardon.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gabriel's Rebellion


text: Category:Norwegian Coast Guard

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

title: Category:Norwegian Coast Guard


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phroziac

Phroziac
[ Vote here] (56/2/2) ending 20:33 6 September 2005 (UTC) - User has matured enough to use admin powers benefiting wikipedia. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Absolutely. :D --Phroziac (talk) 21:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support NOT just because username sounds like Prozac. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Andre ( talk ) 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) However, I suggest you remember the difference between IRC and the mailing list... :-) [[smoddy ]] 21:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Um, YES! Ryan Norton T 21:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. She's the kind of admin I wish I had been when I was her age (oh, wait, they didn't even have the web then, and wikis were only invented in ...). Anyway, I hope this endorsement doesn't attract a lot of oppose votes (oh, no, she hangs out with who?). Uncle Ed 21:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you mean, "she hangs out with whom?"  --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support She's not one already?! — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support another one in a long line of candidates I thought were admins already... :) - ulayiti (talk)  22:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I have known Phroziac in person for some time now via IRC, and also via her contributions on the wiki. She is a conscientious, pleasant, intelligent editor who has made a high level of contribution to the wiki in a comparatively short period of time. I am sure that Phroziac shall make excellent use of admin tools... and... I'm amazed she isn't one already :-) --NicholasTurnbull 23:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. For being an excellent Wikipedian and having a username that sounds like Prozac. Nufy8 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Phroziac knows what she's doing, she knows how to do it and when, and she's got a lot of wiki-experience already. We need admins with the right balance of everything. Rob Church Talk 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. All-round good girl. Denelson83 00:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support— rolled back some of his contributions. Has been a consistent contributor. Also, her focus is on the 'dirty work' instead of simple editing. With the promotion, she could be better able to carryout her task.  Journalist C./ Holla @ me!
 * 8) support DUDE! I was gonna do this next month! *shakes fist at Coolcat!* Aw well, great girl, blah blah, vote for her =) Sasquatch 讲 看  01:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - seems solid enough. Evercat 02:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, thought she was already an admin. Jaxl | talk 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Supportize. Subjected the subject to one of my not-quite-infamous-yet grillings on wikipedia policy. She passes :-) Kim Bruning 03:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support.  A mature user who deserves the janitor's mop.   ral  315  03:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Support So, it's finally happened. :) Congrats. I just want to note that in addition to his contributions on Wikipedia, Phroziac also founded her own wiki. She has already had a taste of sysop rights over there.  Acetic Acid  ( talk ) 03:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support =Nichalp   «Talk»=  03:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, feydey 11:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support [Pere] I think she is completely deserving to be a wiki admin, i could not think of a more suitable website to be given the opportunity to work with such a all american talent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.131 (talk • contribs) 10:51, August 31, 2005
 * 17) *While I'm sure Phroziac appreciates your vote of confidence, I'm afraid anons cannot vote in RFAs. Perhaps you will consider creating an account? Acetic  ' Acid  15:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Quality of edits goes ahead of quantity. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) TINC. David Gerard 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Only a cabal member would deny the existance of the cabal :o --Phroziac (talk) 13:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, . the wub   "?/!"  15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gblaz 16:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Definitely.  +sj +  17:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Ucucha|... 19:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Johann Wolfgang 20:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I'd rather you had more edits. Try again at 1,500. (Yes, I realize I have 700) --WikiFan04 19:17, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT) Support. --WikiFan04
 * 8) Support Jtkiefer  T - 22:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. -Splash 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. *drew 23:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I trust her to use admin rights responsibly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. --DCLXVI 02:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. --Alan Au 05:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Oui! -- Essjay ·  Talk 05:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Thought she was one already. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Yep. Thought she was one already. She shall be a good admin. Bratsche talk 13:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) '''Support. Shimgray 14:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Definitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support --Saluyot 00:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Extreme thespian support ;-) Func( t, c, @,) 01:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support --Doc (?) 08:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Joolz 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support... I'm torn between "she's not one already?!" and "hold on, she has less than half as many edits as I do!". I'll support her though, per She's Not One Already?!. :-)  I've seen her around, and she does good work. --Idont Havaname 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. I've only been here a few weeks, but she has been a constant, level headed, source of information and advice on IRC. --GraemeL (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Robert McClenon 19:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support I've seen this girl everywhere
 V. Molotov [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]]  20:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support: She's not an admin? User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Ja! \Mike(z)  13:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Not one already? N (t/c) 16:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) The Cabal Supports This User. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support even though I don't know this user, voting Oppose at this point would be useless. — J I P | Talk 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Meets my guidelines. Willingness to not only edit Wikipedia on dialup, but also to revert vandalism on dialup, shows dedication. :-) android  79  17:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been stuck on dialup for quite a while, is dialup really that bad? ;) -- Phroziac (talk) 19:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, I'm on dialup too! Alphax τεχ 14:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose. I'd rather you had more edits. Try again at 1,500. (Yes, I realize I have 700) --WikiFan04 19:17, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT) Support. --WikiFan04
 * But you felt that you were worthy of becoming an admin! -- JamesTeterenko 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I withdrew! --WikiFan04

 * 1) Oppose. Sorry, and no offense, as I'm sure you're a great editor, but I feel it is important for admins to have experience adding content, and have experience in the ups and downs that come with that, in order to be able to do much of the job effectively. It looks like you'll get enough support though, so you won't miss mine :). Adding an answer that I'm sure you knew wasn't what I was looking for, but you were honest anyway, does raise your stock in my book, so I'd be happy to support in the future given some consistent content addition. - Taxman Talk 19:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I doubt my edit habits will change much. By the way, part of the problem is that most of the stuff I know about, is stuff that wikipedia has nice articles on. :) I found some HVAC articles that could use some work however. Oh, and if you see a stub you think i might be interested in, feel free to leave a link on my talk page. :o -- Phroziac (talk) 22:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for many topics Wikipedia is well beyond what most of us can add from our own knowledge. Anyway that probably never was a good practice as good research and citing authoritative sources is much more valuable. No one really cares that I know how a swaption works, but citing a prominent textbook for it is valuable. Anyway, like I said, you'll be fine. - Taxman Talk 17:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) Not enough edits. — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-09-3 04:02
 * How many would you like to see by the way? Phroziac (talk) 04:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact that you have only really have been here for three months since 3 June (I do not really count the edits you made to the sandbox on 2 June) combined with your relatively low edit count makes me abstain for now. It is just I do not feel comfortable judging what in my opinion is a low sample of someone's experience here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean i've been here since 2 June, and made sandbox edits on 1 June? I hope you mean low edit counts in general, not for three months -- I'm on Wikipedia all the time! -- Phroziac (talk) 23:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: Actually it's a combination of both of those factors, the edit count and the time period, that makes me abstain for now. The dates I have given above are for your first dozen or so edits that you made under your account. Just because "you are on here all the time" doesn't give me enough information to judge you one way or another. It is one thing to read and study Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but it is a different experience actually applying them in practice towards different situations, especially ones that "don't go by the book" or ones that involve "problem users" and vandals. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. -- Phroziac (talk) 03:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1070 edits. Andre ( talk ) 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * What does [[smoddy ]]'s comment mean? I personally view both the mailing list and IRC as deeply inferior to posting a message somewhere on the Wiki. -Splash 21:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User:smoddy talks rather encrypted and hence rarely make sense :P. I guess its something they know between each other... Yes I am fascinated with the obvious. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, a while back smoddy commented that I did not have to reply to every post on the list. I reply there a lot. ;) By the way, I don't think they are inferior, but they have much different purposes. IRC gets fast responses, and is mostly not about wikipedia, and the mailing list has a bigger audience then most talk pages. --Phroziac (talk) 23:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * So does that mean you'd prefer to sound out the mailing list to sounding out a page on the wiki somewhere? -Splash 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no, not exactly. I actually don't start new threads on the mailing list that often, I usually just reply there. If it's about wikipedia in general, I'd post it on the list, and if it's about a page or a dozen, i'd post it on relevant talk pages somewhere. --Phroziac (talk) 00:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * /me has only just seen this conversation. /me thinks that IRC is a place to make silly, off-topic comments, and use commands like /me.  [[smoddy ]] 16:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * /me agrees, but notes that sometimes /someone says "oh, but I asked on IRC(or mailing list) and /someoneelse said deleting VfD was ok", and things like that. Phroziac didn't and I'm sure wouldn't, but I wanted to make sure. -Splash 16:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * /me laughs. heh. /me is hungry. /me would definitely ask anything quite like that on the wiki, by the way. -- Phroziac (talk) 18:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1070 is really light. The count doesn't matter so much to me, but it does indicate a lack of the type of experience I'd like to see. Can you point to at least some examples of your best contribution of material to articles? - Taxman Talk 23:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Light? Hmm, I guess you could say that. I bet it'll be atleast 1150ish before this RFA closes. Anyway, I don't do that much in the way of big edits, I usually do smaller janitorial tasks, like copyediting, RC patrol, new page patrol (mmm copyvios...). I can't think of any examples at the moment, but I did fix 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane this morning, it said that they started using 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane in 1995, but they actually started sometime in the early 90s, and in 1995 Dichloridofluoromethane was banned. I also know I saw some large unwikified lumps on new page patrol, and wikified those, but I can't find them in my contribs right now :) --Phroziac (talk) 01:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, i did it. I have 1158 now, and I wasn't even trying. I'm such a wikiholic :/ -- Phroziac (talk) 23:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that you didn't note that at your 1150th edit spells a little hope for you, but the fact that you did remember to check and did so indicates the dreaded editcoutitis is upon you. Run. But seriously I hope you don't take offense to my vote as I am just voting how I feel. - Taxman Talk 18:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, your vote's no problem. Editcountitis? I'm just a trivia freak. :) -- Phroziac (talk) 20:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * No favorite contributions? Really?  --Alan Au 22:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually have been thinking about it, and I can think of a few I especially like. I like the picture I put on 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, but it's actually on Commons, so does that count here? I also am pretty happy about finding that misinformation on the previously mentioned article, which I mentioned elsewhere on this rfa. I'm working on finding the exact date of the first tetrafluoroethane AC systems in cars though, if it's possible. And most of these edits get deleted, but I'm really happy about my copyvio tagging. It takes as much effort to do that as to write a really good stub sometimes. I couldn't do this as well without Coolcat's IRC bot by the way. Oh, and Scat Tracker is still a stub last time I looked, but I intend to contribute even more to that. I like that edit, and it's actually something i know a lot about. I remember those hours I spent getting a broken torque converter off my scat tracker! I had to cut the jackshaft off. I'm sure I could probably think of others. Oh, and I've done several audio pronunciations for Wiktionary, which are on commons. I have an american inland north accent, which nobody else who does these on en.wikt: has. :) None of them would really go into Wikipedia well, but I was thinking it might be neat to find a use for my nice voice and audio recording/editing skills on wikipedia also. I couldn't do spoken articles unfortunately, I tend to screw up when I get talking. Also, my voice is deeper then "the big voice guy" on a recent contest on a local radio station. -- Phroziac (talk) 00:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * See my comments on Splash's nomination. Excellent candidate, still too early.   Good luck if he gets it. --Tony Sidaway Talk  11:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I've already been doing RC patrol for a while, the rollback button would be nice for that. Unfortunately I have dialup, and most of the time I try to revert, it gets reverted before my edit goes through! ugh! Delete would be nice too. And, block to get rid of those pesky vandals and other issues. I would excersize extreme caution with the latter two, however.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Not really, most of my contributions have been copyedits, RC patrol, and other somewhat minor edits, and i'm very pleased with all of them. :)
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I haven't really had conflicts in editing, and I follow 1rr. -Ril-'s recent actions have caused me some stress, as have several vandals, such as Willy on Wheels, and that penis vandal (the one that puts pictures of penises everywhere, not the one that redirects my user page to penis...). Oh, and that whole 6th vfd of GNAA thing! None of it has really been major enough to do more then walk away for a while. Sometimes I have had to contact admins to deal with vandals, and sometimes I ask friends for opinions on things. In the future, I would pretty much do the same thing, except I have to assume the vandals will dislike me even more.

--Phroziac (talk) 21:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


title: User:Cholmes75/Players


text: Category:Star Wars television series

title: Category:Star Wars television series


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThePhalanx.com

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

ThePhalanx.com
Vanity; Created by anonymous IP 167.193.152.201 and User:Scyoung121, presumably the same person, who has done nothing but promote this site, write articles on it, add links to it to unrelated articles, etc. Site has only existed since November of last year. Jdavidb 20:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Also need to delete The Phalanx, started out as a poor redirect and now a correct redirect, again created by the same person. Jdavidb 20:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and clean up this guy's spam elsewhere. Sdedeo 20:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising, and fairly obvious at that ---Outlander 20:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep i just discovered this site, it looks like every other entry here, why delete? macjacob 20:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. You've made one edit at Wikipedia, and you're qualified to tell us it looks like every other article?   How long have you been on Wikipedia? Jdavidb 13:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * One might suspect the user is trying out a new pair of socks ---Outlander 18:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam. Amren (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't a democracy but I figured I was at least entitled to my opinion, delete it for all I care macjacob 18:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article (if you can call it that) is crap! Mb1000 17:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Badvertisment. Alf melmac 09:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Gabriel (rebel)/to do

 * Parse out known biography from Egerton's conclusions about it. Then we can have an "Early life" section that's reasonably fleshed out, and the controversial part can be handled separately.
 * NPOV the Impact section, which implies among other things an active policy choice made by planters (and somehow only after this rebellion, which is unlikely).

title: Talk:Gabriel (rebel)/to do


text:
The Brothers (1972 TV series)

The Brothers is a British television series, produced and shown by the BBC between 1972 and 1976.

Debuting with the death of road haulage magnate Robert Hammond, the series followed the trials and tribulations of the company and family/families he left behind, with equal shares in Hammond Transport Services left to each of his three sons and to his secretary (who was revealed to have been Hammond's mistress and the mother of his illegitimate daughter).

Synopsis
The series was based around conflict within the Hammond family over the direction of the family firm, a London-based road haulage business called Hammond Transport Services, after the death of patriarch Robert Hammond. The eldest son, Edward (played by Glyn Owen during the first series and by Patrick O'Connell for the remainder of the show's run), prepares to take over the running of the business, only to find that his father has left equal shares to his two other sons, Brian (Richard Easton), a dull accountant and David (Robin Chadwick), a young graduate - and to his mistress and secretary Jennifer Kingsley (Jennifer Wilson). Storylines throughout the series dealt with plans to expand the business into an international concern, coupled with more family-orientated plots as Edward and Jennifer fall in love and marry.

Other prominent characters included Robert Hammond's hard-faced widow and the mother of the three brothers, Mary (Jean Anderson), who is determined to continue exercising her own influence over her family, Brian's shrewish wife Ann (Hilary Tindall) and David's girlfriend then wife Jill (Gabrielle Drake). Later characters to be introduced included the loathsome financial whizkid, merchant banker and proto-yuppie Paul Merroney (Colin Baker), April Winter (Liza Goddard), who became Merroney's wife, and Jane Maxwell (Kate O'Mara), the tough female boss of an air freight business. Baker and Goddard married in real life in 1976, but divorced in 1978.

Bill, the foreman (Derek Benfield), demonstrated how the workplace of the 1970s was changing. His elevation from the shop floor to a key member of the board was met with resistance from both ends, and the subsequent decades allow this to be seen in context, one way that management and workers may work closer together to maintain the company's competitive outlook. The character of Paul Merroney can in hindsight be viewed as a prototype for the new Thatcher-inspired generation of corporate go-getters.

The show also featured Mike Pratt playing the character Don Stacey (1975–76). This was the final role that he played before his early death.

After the end of the seventh series in 1976, the show finished. There was no formal cancellation of the show but a further series was never commissioned.

Created by Gerard Glaister and N. J. Crisp, Glaister was also the producer of the series. The Brothers became a highly popular Sunday night favourite with BBC viewers throughout its run.

A re-run of the series on Talking Pictures TV began on Monday 1 January 2024

Cast album
The popularity of the series in The Netherlands (where it was titled The Hammonds) resulted in a Christmas album recorded by the main characters. Christmas with The Hammonds, produced by Dutch TV host Willem Duys, reached number 22 in the Dutch LP Top 50 in December 1976.

Series 1
Broadcast on Friday evenings on BBC1, in varying time slots, with the most common time slot being 8:10pm–9:00pm.

Series 2
Broadcast on Sunday evenings on BBC1 from 7:25pm–8:15pm.

Series 3
Broadcast on Sunday evenings on BBC1 from 7:25pm–8:15pm.

Series 4
Broadcast on Sunday evenings on BBC1 from 7:25pm–8:15pm, with a one-week break in the series on 24 November 1974.

Series 5
Broadcast on Sunday evenings on BBC1 from 7:25pm–8:15pm.

Series 6
Broadcast on Sunday evenings on BBC1 from 7:25pm–8:15pm.

Series 7
Broadcast on Sunday evenings on BBC1 from 7:25pm–8:15pm.

DVD releases
In October 2017, the complete series of The Brothers was released in the UK as a 27 disc DVD boxed set, released by Simply Media. The seven different series had previously been released on DVD individually by Simply Media from October 2015 to July 2017.

In October 2006, Series 1 of The Brothers had originally been released on DVD by DD Home Entertainment, and for nine years from 2006-2015 only Series 1 had been available on DVD.

title: The Brothers (1972 TV series)


text: User talk:151.203.3.233

title: User talk:151.203.3.233


text:
User:Mostlymuppet

email: sethdavidmiller@gmail.com

web: http://www.mostlymuppet.com

title: User:Mostlymuppet


text:
Outlaw Kid

The Outlaw Kid is a fictional Western hero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character originally appeared in the company's 1950s iteration, Atlas Comics. A lesser-known character than the company's Kid Colt, Rawhide Kid or Two-Gun Kid, he also starred in a reprint series in the 1970s and a short-lived revival.

The Outlaw Kid was Lance Temple, an Old West lawyer and Civil War veteran living with his blinded father on a ranch. Though promising his father he would never take up a gun, he nonetheless felt the need to right wrongs expediently on the near-lawless frontier, and created a masked identity in order to keep his gunslinging secret.

Publication history
Comic-book artist Doug Wildey, later a noted animation designer, illustrated three to four stories per issue of the 19-issue series The Outlaw Kid (cover dated Sept. 1954-Sept. 1957). Joe Maneely provided most of the covers. Backup features were usually "The Black Rider," drawn by Syd Shores, or an anthological Western tale. An additional Outlaw Kid story appeared in Wild Western #43 (May 1955). Well over a year after the original series ended, two other Outlaw Kid stories by Wildey, presumably from inventory, saw print, in Kid Colt, Outlaw #82 (Jan. 1959) and Wyatt Earp #24 (Aug. 1959).

Comics historian Ken Quattro called the series Wildey's most "noteworthy" Western work: "In concept, it was typical of all the Stan Lee-created Kids (Colt, Rawhide, Two-Gun, Ringo, etc.). What set it apart was Wildey's art. ... The Outlaw Kid was a monthly opportunity for Wildey to hone and develop his burgeoning art skills. Using Outlaw Kid #11 (May, 1956) as an example of his work well into the series, the influence of cinema on his work is evident. Though he may have had this influence all along, now it is readily apparent, with panels staged like film scenes. The characters have a realistic, illustrative look to them. ... Most significantly, his artwork finally had the consistent luster of professionalism. Wildey varied his inking from the fine stroke of an etching to the bold use of solid blacks to attain dramatic chiaroscuro effects."

When Marvel began reprinting the series in The Outlaw Kid vol. 2, #1–30 (Aug. 1970 – Oct. 1975), it became the best-selling among the company's Western reprints. Gil Kane, John Severin and Herb Trimpe, among others, provided new cover art. When the 1950s Wildey material ran out, Marvel commissioned new stories, by writer Mike Friedrich, followed by the unrelated Gary Friedrich, with art by Marvel Western veteran Dick Ayers. Yet with these new stories, in issues #10–16 (Oct. 1972 – June 1973), sales dropped, after which the title began re-reprinting Wildey's work. Wildey reprints also appeared in the 1970s Marvel series Mighty Marvel Western (#9) and Western Gunfighters.

The Outlaw Kid reappeared in the four-issue limited series Blaze of Glory: The Last Ride of the Western Heroes (2000), by writer John Ostrander and artist Leonardo Manco, which specifically retconned that the naively clean-cut Marvel Western stories of years past were merely dime novel fictions of the characters' actual lives. It was revealed here that Temple's father, who did not want him gunslinging, had died from the shock of learning of his son's alter ego, and that a guilt-wracked Temple, blaming himself for his father's death, developed a split personality and was unaware he was the Outlaw Kid. Indeed, he was actually searching for the Outlaw Kid in the miniseries. He dies in the last issue, helping defend the town of Wonderment. His last act was to use dynamite to kill some opponents, noting his father would have been happy he did not use a gun. As series writer John Ostrander explained, "The Outlaw Kid was once described as the closest thing in the Old West to Spider-Man. He had a father who so disapproved of guns that the character created the Outlaw Kid, and would only use guns when he was The Outlaw Kid. In my version of it, he's gone a little bit over the edge, in that his father eventually found out, and the heart attack killed him, and he's devised the Outlaw Kid into a whole different personality. And in his regular personality, he thinks the Outlaw Kid is the killer, so he's hunting himself through the miniseries."

Legacy
The mutant Outlaw of Agency X is a descendant of the Outlaw Kid.

List of Doug Wildey's Outlaw Kid stories
This list is incomplete.

 * The Outlaw Kid #1 (Sept. 1954)
 * "The Beginning!"
 * "Jaws of Death!"
 * "A Killer's Trap!"

 * The Outlaw Kid #2 (Nov. 1954)
 * "The Fast Gun!" a.k.a. "The Fast Draw" (rep. Vol. 2, #3)
 * "Redman's Revenge!"
 * "Fury at Echo Pass!"

 * The Outlaw Kid #3 (Jan. 1955)(rep. Vol. 2, #1)
 * "Hostage"
 * "Breakthrough"
 * "Showdown"

 * The Outlaw Kid #4 (Mar. 1955)
 * [cover]
 * "Ghost Town"
 * "Death Battle"
 * "Rruummbblle"

 * The Outlaw Kid #5 (May 1955)(rep. Vol. 2, #2)
 * "Two of a Kind"
 * "The Newcomers"
 * "Flames of Violence"

 * The Outlaw Kid #8 (Nov. 1955)
 * "Helping Hand"
 * "Gun Law"
 * "The Outsider"

 * The Outlaw Kid #10 (March 1956)(rep. Vol. 2, #3)
 * "The Fast Draw"
 * "Renegade Rout"
 * "Stand Up and Fight"
 * "The Man Behind the Guns"

 * The Outlaw Kid #11 (May 1956) (rep. Vol. 2, #4)
 * "Losers Take Nothing"
 * "Six-gun Gamble"
 * "Fang and Claw"
 * "The Riddle of Scorpion Creek"

 * The Outlaw Kid #12 (July 1956)
 * "Six-Gun Menace"
 * "The Riddle of Fargo Pass"
 * "Badman's Choice"
 * "Range War"

 * The Outlaw Kid #13 (Sept. 1956)
 * "Flames Along the Border"
 * "Bully's Bluff" (rep. Vol. 2, #7, Aug. 1971)
 * "Scourge of the Plains"
 * "Appointment With Danger"

 * The Outlaw Kid #14 (Nov. 1956)
 * "Whistling Lead"
 * "Gunning for Trouble"
 * "Gun Duel"
 * "The Land Grabbers"

 * The Outlaw Kid #15 (Jan. 1957)
 * "Duel in the Desert"
 * "Guns For Hire"
 * "Six-Gun Challenge"
 * "Along The Outlaw Trail"

 * The Outlaw Kid #16 (Mar. 1957)
 * "Six-Gun Meeting"
 * "Redmen on the Rampage"
 * "Treachery on the Trail"
 * "Law and Order"

 * The Outlaw Kid #17 (May 1957)
 * "Gunning For Trouble"
 * "Empty Holsters"
 * "Fists of Steel"
 * "Showdown at Sunup"

 * The Outlaw Kid #18 (July 1957)
 * "Menace on Main Street"
 * "The Ambushers Strike"
 * "Six-Gun PayoFf"
 * "The Kid's Revenge"

 * The Outlaw Kid #19 (Sept. 1957)
 * "When the Owlhoots Rode"
 * "Revenge of the Redmen"
 * "Gun Crazy"
 * "Treachery in Caliber City"

 * Wyatt Earp #24 (Aug. 1959)
 * "The Man Behind the Guns" (reprint #10?)

REPRINTS

Information will go above when sourced.

 * The Outlaw Kid Vol. 2, #5 (April 1971)
 * "Empty holsters!"
 * "Fists of steel!"
 * "Showdown at Sunup!"
 * "Gunning for Trouble!"

 * The Outlaw Kid Vol. 2, #6 (June 1971; re-reprinted #22, June 1974)
 * "Redmen on the Rampage!"
 * "Six-Gun Meeting!"
 * "Law and Order!"

 * The Outlaw Kid Vol. 2, #9 (Dec. 1971; re-reprinted #25, Dec. 1974)
 * "Gun Law"
 * "The Outsider"

 * The Outlaw Kid Vol. 2, #10 (June 1972)
 * "The Origin of the Outlaw Kid"

title: Outlaw Kid


text:
Garrard Ardeneum

Gerrard Ardeneum in McAlester, Oklahoma, United States, (sometimes called the McAlester Arboretum in confusion with an arboretum of this name in Missouri) was established 1990 as combination of an arboretum and a museum with landscaped gardens and historical artifacts. It is located at 501 North 5th Street.

title: Garrard Ardeneum


text: User talk:202.56.253.177

title: User talk:202.56.253.177


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Linuxbeak

Linuxbeak
Final: (23/14/10) Ended 20:38 September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll run too. Andre poked me on IRC to run for bureaucrat, and I figure that it wouldn't hurt anything to do so. I have been using Wikipedia for at least a couple of years. I started editing anonymously from school about a year and a half ago, and I was finally compelled to join as a registered user on March 12, 2005. Like everyone else, I made some of the expected newbie mistakes, but I also learned quickly how to do things "the Wikipedia way". As a way of saying thanks to Wikipedia, I completely overhauled the Civil Air Patrol article, and with some effort and dedication (thanks in no small part to Bishonen), I sucessfully nominated the article to FA status. Just before I hit three months as a Wikipedia editor, User:AntonioMartin nominated me to the post of administrator, and on June 6, 2005, I was elected in. Shortly thereafter, on June 20, 2005, I was given channel operator permissions for the Wikipedia IRC channel, #wikipedia. Just yesterday, on August 29, 2005, I pledged to dedicate some of my abilities in programming and coding towards the development of the Mediawiki software.

I can say with confidence that I am one (not the one ;-) ) of the most active administrators on Wikipedia. I don't have any problem getting down and dirty when it comes to fighting vandalism and disruptive users, and as you can see from this, as well as my user page's history, I believe I have enjoyed at least a level of success in doing my job correctly. I try to be friendly with everyone, but even with those that I disagree with, I see value and strength in community. I am one who is willing to admit his errors and flaws as well as one who is willing to give second chances. I think of myself as fair, efficent and able.

I am running for bureaucrat now because I know for a fact that I can be trusted by the Wikipedia community. I strongly believe that the reason why I have been entrusted with a relatively large portion of responsibility in a relatively short period of time is because I have proven that I am, in fact, reliable and trustworthy. I also believe that it has come time that more existing administrators are elected to the offices of bureaucrat. I know that I am fully able to take on the extra responsibility and handle it to the better of Wikipedia. I am now asking you to allow me to demonstrate it even further by granting me the position of bureaucrat. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Strong support. Go, Linuxbeak, go! Great editor and admin. Andre ( talk ) 20:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. One of our most level-headed and careful admins. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support SqueakBox 20:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely support. Very engaged as an admin. Makes the rest of us look bad. Edit conflicted twice on this vote!-- Pakaran 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This one's a "d'uh". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support 6 months for bureaucratship is too little on principle, but he's everywhere, so I must support.--Scimitar parley 21:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - the experience is a bit light, but I've had nothing but productive dealings here, and no indication that the lack of time conceals anything worrying. Always good to see a name I know. Shimgray 21:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Me and Redwolf24 stole your talk page messaging thing!!!! :-) Ryan Norton T 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support You're very helpful on IRC...and why not another bureaucrat (as long as we don't have 5000 ) — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  22:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I'm sure he'll make a great Bureacrate Tony the Marine 02:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Apoyo Fuerte!!! Linuxbreak is an awesome wikipedian who always works within reasonable parameters and has the mind and intelligence to be a bureaucrat, and help wikipedia go to another level in society of the 2000s. Let's celebrate early and have a Cuban cigar, Linux! Ooops! I forgot, Cuban cigars are not allowed here and, well, you are young...but you will win! Antonio (Puerto Rican) Cigarro Autentico Martin 12:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support – personally dealt with this user on a few occasions. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) To me, the quality of a user's experience with the project matters more than its lenght. Ingoolemo   talk  20:13, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Never directly interacted, but from what I have seen, would make a good bureaucrat Tintin 04:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Merovingian (t) (c) 12:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support! --Kbdank71 16:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Mild Support. Strong support in 6 months or so. --2mcm 06:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Prevent editcountitis (or in this case, accountageitis). Linuxbeak is an excellent user. Radiant_ >|< 08:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I think Linuxbeak would make a good bureaucrat. — J I P | Talk 12:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Fire Fox T  C 16:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I haven't seen Linuxbreak in many if any edit wars, and only being around 6 months is a weak arguement. Falphin 20:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. If adminship is no big deal, then bureaucratship should be a formality. --MarkSweep ✍ 16:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Looks like it's not going to pass, but I do want to register my support. Ral  315  22:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Linuxbeak, you're an excellent admin and a very nice guy, but I think a bureaucrat should have a bit more than six months of tenure with the project. You have my full support next March (providing you don't go completely wacko in the meantime :-) — Dan | Talk 21:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (PS - I don't know if I should really be voting since I'm a nominee too, so if the vote's close, I'll gladly change my mind — Dan | Talk)
 * 1) I agree with Dan that you need more time as an active participant, a registered user and an admin. Also, the edginess that you have shown in your dealings with users like JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs) and MARMOT (talk • contribs) is a problem for me. I think a bureaucrat needs to be more detached. I am looking forward to supporting you at a later date. FreplySpang (talk) 21:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your vote, and I agree with you: I have been edgy when dealing with those two. In my own defense, I must mention that Jarlaxle did in fact e-mail bomb me, and MARMOT to this day still vandalizes Wikipedia. It was through my "dedication", have you, that MARMOT was discovered to be the user behind the User:Love Virus vandalbot attacks. Still, I totally agree that I should be a little less edgy. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: too new. CDThieme 21:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I believe that "bureaucratship" legitimately requires judgement that is borne only of time and ongoing engagement in administrative and community-related tasks. Fewer than six months, no matter how intense the work during that time, is not enough. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, I'm sure you're an excellent admin and so, but six months is just not enough time and experience. Will support in a few more months. - ulayiti (talk)  23:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, despite his favorable background as an editor and as an admin. Six months is not what I would consider enough time for somebody to be promoted to the status of bureaucrat. --Sn0wflake 02:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for a few reasons. First, as stated above, you haven't been here for very long. I think you should at least be an admin for six months before being promoted to b-cratship. Secondly, do we really need four new bureaucrats? The three who ran below are essentially stepping up in the absenceof Cecropia, Raul654, and Angela, who have other concerns at the moment. Third, I'm not too crazy about your last answer. You sound a bit cocky.  Acetic Acid  ( talk  ) 06:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Like other oppose votes that have "meat" to them, I appreciate your feedback. However, I do have some fundamental issues with parts of your opposition. Ever since first voting on RFA, the entire notion of "we don't need any more bureaucrats" has struck me as a bit too conservative. I figure that if a person is deserving of a position of responsibility and if he or she has demonstrated maturity and reliability that would be expected, then why stop the person from being promoted? There isn't anything "wrong" with having more on a team rather than less; in fact, it strengthens the pool (see my response to Dragons flight's comment). I'm not accusing you of "disruption", per sey, because you hold a known stance. However, I think voting against somebody because "they're fit for the job, but we don't need anyone else" is the same as voting oppose because you disagree with the system. There's a reason why there's a "Requests for bureaucratship" section, and that's to allow administrators to request it. If there is a serious feeling that "we don't need any more bureaucrats", then let's get rid of the entire "Requests for Bureaucratship" section altogether. Now... second. You say my last answer is "cocky". I disagree. There's a difference between being "cocky" and being "assertive". Sure, I've made mistakes in the past. However, I also know that out of the thousands of contributions I have made, the vast majority of them are of quality. I'm not trying to make any attempt to brag; instead, I'm trying to show that my work is of a worthwhile nature. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't get me wrong. I would never oppose someone for the sole reason of "we have enough already." If they are qualified, they desire you. I just don't think you're qualified, at least not yet. Six months as an administrator and a year old account sound a bit more promising. As for the part about being assertive, it's great to have a positive outlook on your contributions. There have been a few times on RFA where I've seen people refer to themselves and their work as mediocre, poor, etc. But you sound a little too sure of yourself in that last answer. Even in the nomination foreword, you consider yourself "one of the most active administrators." You don't know that for a fact. I'll gladly support you in a few more months. Provided you don't go on a vandalism spree anytime soon, I'll have no reason to oppose you again. Acetic  ' Acid  21:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can appreciate and understand that. Thanks for the reply! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. For short length of time with the project and the uneasiness I have with the tone of the comments you are making throughout this process. See also my comment below and Michael Snow's "neutral". Dragons flight 20:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I do think you are a fine contributor and admin, but I personally feel that beaurocrats must have a minimum of six months experience as an administrator before being promoted. Thryduulf 11:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Amazing admin and contributor but I think I'll wait for some more time.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  13:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Nothing personal, just not completely convinced we need that many more bureaucrats. Even if we do need to promote a few more, (as seems will happen), I would prefer ones with more experience. Jonathunder 20:47, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I believe you will go many places, but I don't feel you have been on long enough, regardless of your number of edits. --WikiFan04Talk 19:03, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)
 * 7) Oppose. Quoting Linuxbeak from above: I know for a fact that I can be trusted by the Wikipedia community. This statement strikes me as bizarre. Trust is something given to a person not assumed by that person. Simply on the basis of what Linuxbeak has written in his own self-nom I vote against. Oska 22:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? You're opposing me because I'm confident in my trustworthiness and my reliability to the community? I know that I'm trustworthy, and I know that the Wikipedia community can trust me. You're opposing me because I state that? I'm sorry if I sound exhasperated, but a vote opposing me because of something that I said... which if anything is positive... is unfair. Please elaborate. What is it that you find "wrong" with me stating that? I don't follow your logic at all. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Look I'm sorry Linuxbeak but yr reply just contributes to my feeling that you lack maturity for this position in not seeing my point at all. Simply, I give credence to other people saying I respect and trust so-and-so rather than so-and-so proclaiming I am worthy of trust and respect. See the difference? The tone of yr self-nom is all rather demanding and self-promotional. And how people speak on Wikipedia is in my opinion a valid criterion for judging when careful and sincere communication is very important in fostering effective co-operation and community feeling. Oska 00:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, all bureaucrat requests are self-noms... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I used the term 'self-nom' merely in its descriptive sense and not as a criticism. Oska 00:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) I always find "voting neutral" to be a weird thing, but I feel a need to express my views here. As noted, Linuxbeak's experience is relatively short, and I would add that some of the points mentioned in his favor have little bearing on whether he would make a good bureaucrat. Blocking vandals has no connection to the work bureaucrats do. I also find the tone of Linuxbeak's statement, which smacks of an election campaign (who are you running against?), a little out of place, which suggests an underdeveloped appreciation of community norms. This relates much more closely to bureaucrat qualifications, since they need to have a very keen sense of the mood in the room in order to make the right call in close cases. I don't think Linuxbeak completely unqualified, but my concerns leave me close to opposing. Finally, I would say that if Linuxbeak is serious about working on MediaWiki development, his efforts are needed far more there than with the very limited set of tasks handled by bureaucrats. --Michael Snow 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Maybe he is a little new to be a bureaucrat, but maybe not. But I feel he's a great guy and would probably be a good bureaucrat. --Phroziac (talk) 02:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Just as I think you need three months before getting admin, a bureaucrat should have a fair while, I think. Neutral for now, but "yes" in six months - Linuxbeak is a fine and clueful admin who got up to speed quickly - David Gerard 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Like others, I would prefer a few more months of experience serving as just an admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Linuxbeak, you know what I think already, and Michael and David already said it again. Not no, but not now; keep doing a fine job as an admin and think about running again after some more time has passed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm on the fence since Linuxbeak is a great contributor and likely deserving, but I'm a little concerned by the recent upsurge in the number of bureaucrat nominations. Would support a later nomination, if it weren't a self-nom . --Alan Au 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrat nominations are always self-noms. Andre ( talk ) 00:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I won't worry about that part of it then. Still, even though I feel bad about it (because he really does do a good job), I can't quite bring myself to fully support so soon after his adminship. --Alan Au 09:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral leaning weak support. Linuxbeak is a great admin and Wikipedian; I do not question that for a second. However, while I feel that adminship should be no big deal and handed to nearly all good faith and civil users, bureaucratship IS a big deal. Other than closing some more VFDs as speedy keeps, I do not see sufficent experience in determing consensus on other things. Also, the user is newer than I would like to see in a bureacrat (preferably at least a year.) Having said all that, I simply cannot oppose such a hard-working admin. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, absolutely nothing against the editor, but I concur with the thought that he may need more time as an admin before jumping into bureaucratship. I would definitely support in the future. K1Bond007 21:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) NeutralRobert McClenon 19:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral  Journalist C./ Holla @ me!
 * Question: Linuxbreak, your answers seem to be strangely missing something I would expect to see in a forum like this, so I am going to give you a chance to have a try at it. Why do we need another bureaucrat, and how will you, in that capacity, benefit the community? Sure, good editors and admins deserve a pat on the back, but that in itself is not a reason to keep giving them more power. Your statements in the introduction are coming across to me as something like: "I've been good, please reward me" (An oversimplification, I know, and probably not how you meant it). I'd much rather hear something along the lines of "If you trust me with this, I'll use the power to make the world a better place, and here's how:...". So, would you care to take a go at explaining why making more bureaucrats, and you in particular, will be good for the community? Dragons flight 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. I want to think of the bureaucrats as a team. A team, like a chain, is only as strong as it's weakest link, and that is why only the best are accepted to be on the team. Likewise, a team may be strengthend by adding a strong player. Our bureaucrats are swamped; Angela is constantly busy with the Wikimedia board, Raul654 is similiarly busy, and Cecropia is going on a Wikiholiday. With each new task, the effectiveness of the bureaucrat team dwindles, and not because they aren't capable, but because they are swamped. I have proven to be an effective administrator, and I believe that I can also be an effective bureaucrat. By being a part of that team, I can utilize my skills and energy towards productivity. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was in error - it looks like it really is too early. Ah well, at least now you have a sneak preview of next time. Andre ( talk ) 02:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * A. I have. To become an administrator is not just a matter of what the overt consensus reflects. I know that this has happened in the past: an editor receives a fair amount of votes, both for and against his or her promotion, and then it is discovered that both sides have been using meatpuppets or socks. At this point, the bureaucrat must assess the situation. How much influence did the unfair votes have on legit voters? Is there evidence of a past dispute that might have triggered this? Is there evidence of a "herd mindset"? All of these factors must come into play. Unless there is no evidence whatsoever of vote tampering or manipulation, an RFA is not as clear-cut as an 80% consensus. Every case is different; it is up to the bureaucrat to investigate and determine the correct action, and then consult with the other bureaucrats.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. Undoubtedly, some users might not be the most popular. However, popularity has absolutely no business entering the arguement over consensus. If an editor has reached at least an 80% level of consensus (more or less), then that editor is to be promoted. As I have stated before, I don't have any issues with getting my hands dirty and upholding what Wikipedia has set forth as established rules and policies.
 * 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * A. First, I'm going to be ever-so-slightly unoriginal and steal from Andre's nomination. My contributions are hereby laid out in front of you, and I invite you to audit them. I also invite you to look at my block logs. I believe I do not only follow Wikipedia policies, I also believe that I effectively enforce it fairly. As far as engaging others in the community, I've always been one to drag people I know into IRC. It is, quite frankly, one of the most effective places to learn about Wikipedia, and you get to make a lot of friends. I know I have.


text:
User talk:Xinoph/Template:MLB Franchise

Logo
Please save your logo with another, more precise name, thanks. Otherwise your logo is easily, inadvertently overwritten. Best regards, --Janke | Talk 20:39:00, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xinoph/Template:MLB Franchise


text:
User:Caerwine/Citadel of Doom (Xiaolin Showdown)

Citadel of Doom is episode 202 of Xiaolin Showdown. It first aired in the United States on September 18, 2004.

Blurb as could have been used to advertise the episode.

Synopsis
Description of what happened.

Shen Gong Wu
The Shen Gong Wu that are revealed, that display new powers or are merely used.

Guest Characters
Characters other than the eight main characters that appear.

Showdowns
Who wagered who, what Wu were involved, a discription of the locale and contest.

Clay's Downhome Sayings
You can usually count on Clay to come up with at least one of these per episode.

Kimiko's Techno-Fashion
Kimiko has a different outfit in nearly every episode.

Raimundo's Schemes
Raimundo often schemes to make his life at the temple easier.

The Wisdom of Master Fung
Master Fung is fond of inscrutable sayings. Here you can scrute them.

Dojo's Wu Sense
Dojo often suffers a rash or itch when Wu reveal themselves.

Jack Spicer's Bots
Jack Spicer often introduces a new bot designed especially for the episode.


text: Category:African swords

title: Category:African swords


text:
User talk:Cropton

Hi Cropton, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes ( ~ ). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Andre ( talk ) 20:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Andre (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

July 2009
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

title: User talk:Cropton


text: User talk:69.133.35.238

title: User talk:69.133.35.238


text:
Talk:24-7 Prayer Movement

I'd like to know the reason for the addition of the "some" before "Christians believe that Yahweh chose the tabernacle and subsequent temple to be a dwelling place, a habitation of God." Is this actually a disputed point amongst Christians? Throughout the dedication of both the tabernacle and the is refered to as the "house of the Lord". There are several references to His "habitation", and both were marked by the Shekinah Glory resting in the Holy of Holies.

Qinah

title: Talk:24-7 Prayer Movement


text: User:Joshurtree/tmp

title: User:Joshurtree/tmp


text:
VTC

VTC may refer to:

Academia

 * Vehicular Technology Conference
 * Vermont Technical College, US
 * Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine and Research Institute, US
 * Vocational Training Council, Hong Kong

Other

 * Vacaville Transportation Center, California, a bus station
 * Vertcoin, a cryptocurrency
 * Vesicular-tubular cluster, an organelle in eukaryotic cells
 * Veterans Transition Center, California, US
 * Video teleconferencing, see videotelephony
 * Vietnam Television Corporation
 * Virginia Transformer Corporation
 * Visual terminal chart, another name for terminal area chart (especially in Australia).
 * Volunteer Training Corps (1914–1918), UK

title: VTC


text:
User talk:Mostlymuppet

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Mostlymuppet


text:
Mary Johnston

Mary Johnston (November 21, 1870 – May 9, 1936) was an American novelist and women's rights advocate from Virginia. She was one of America's best selling authors during her writing career and had three silent films adapted from her novels. Johnston was also an active member of the Equal Suffrage League of Virginia, using her writing skills and notability to draw attention to the cause of women's suffrage in Virginia.

Early life
Mary Johnston was born in the small town of Buchanan, Virginia, the eldest child of John William Johnston, an American Civil War veteran, and Elizabeth Dixon Alexander Johnston. Due to frequent illness, she was educated at home by family and tutors. She grew up with a love of books and was financially independent enough to devote herself to writing.

When Johnston was 16, her father's work with the Georgia Pacific Railroad caused the family to move to Birmingham, Alabama. Shortly after the move, Johnston began attending the Atlanta Female Institute and College of Music in Atlanta, Georgia. She attended the school for three months; this was the only formal education Johnston would receive.

After her mother's death in 1889, Johnston acted as her father's companion and as a surrogate mother for her five younger siblings.

Johnston's family moved to New York 1892. They returned to Birmingham in 1896, and then moved to Richmond, Virginia in 1902.

Career
Johnston wrote historical books and novels that often combined romance with history. Her first book, Prisoners of Hope (1898), dealt with colonial times in Virginia as did her second novel, To Have and to Hold (1900), and later, Sir Mortimer (1904). The Goddess of Reason (1907) uses the theme of the French Revolution, and in Lewis Rand (1908) the author portrayed political life at the dawn of the 19th century.

To Have and to Hold was serialized in The Atlantic Monthly in 1899 and published in book form 1900, by Houghton Mifflin. The book proved enormously popular and was the bestselling novel in the United States in 1900. Johnston's next work, titled Audrey, was the fifth bestselling book in the U.S. in 1902, and Sir Mortimer, serialized in Harper's Monthly magazine from November 1903 through April 1904, was published in 1904. Her best-selling 1911 novel on the American Civil War, The Long Roll, brought Johnston into open conflict with Stonewall Jackson's widow, Mary Anna Jackson. Beyond her native America, Johnston's novels were also very popular in Canada and in England.

During her long career Johnston wrote, in addition to 23 novels, numerous short stories, two long narrative poems, and one play.

Her book titled Hagar (1913), considered to be one of the first feminist novels as well as somewhat autobiographical, captures the early days of women's rights. Johnston's deep focus on female suffrage in the United States is documented by her letters and correspondence with women working for the right to vote. But Hagar created a controversy among men and tradition-minded women, who were upset by the book's progressive ideas. Many refused to purchase it and subsequent Johnston novels.

During her life, Johnston was close friends with Gone with the Wind author Margaret Mitchell, who once commented: "I hesitate to write about the South after having read Mary Johnston."

Film adaptations
Three of Johnston's books were adapted to film. Audrey was made into a 1916 silent film of the same name, and her blockbuster work To Have and to Hold was made into silent films both in 1916 and in 1922. Pioneers of the Old South was adapted as the film  (1923).

Women's suffrage advocacy
Johnston was an early an active member of the Equal Suffrage League of Virginia (ESL), which was founded in November 1909 by other Richmond-area activists like Lila Meade Valentine, Ellen Glasgow, and Kate Waller Barrett. She chaired the ESL's legislative and lecture committees and served as vice president from 1911 to 1914.

On December 12, 1909, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published a pro-suffragist article written by Johnston entitled “The Status of Women.” The ESL would go on to reprint this article, along with another entitled "These Things Can Be Done" in Virginia Suffrage News, a monthly paper created to increase communication among the suffrage leagues across the state of Virginia. Johnston's writings in support of women's suffrage also appeared in national publications, including the Atlantic Monthly and Woman's Journal and Suffrage News.

In 1910, Johnston took elocution lessons to improve her public speaking skills. She would go on to deliver several speeches in support of women's suffrage. In January 1912, she addressed Virginia's General Assembly. In December of that year, she spoke at the governors' conference at its annual meeting in Richmond. She also spoke at the closing event of the 1913 Woman Suffrage Procession in Washington, D.C.

Death and legacy
In 1936, Johnston died of Bright's disease at her home in Warm Springs, Virginia. She was 65 years old. Johnston was interred in Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond.

Three Hills, her house at Warm Springs, was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2013. Her Richmond home on Linden Row was listed in 1971.

Johnston was honored by the Library of Virginia as part of its 2005 class of Virginia Women in History.

Johnston's name is featured on the Wall of Honor on the Virginia Women's Monument, located in Capitol Square in Richmond.

Selected works

 * Prisoners of Hope (1898)
 * To Have and to Hold (By Order of the Company) (1900)
 * Audrey (1902), illustrations by Frederick Coffay Yohn
 * Pioneers of the Old South (1903)
 * Sir Mortimer (1904), illustrator F. C. Yohn
 * The Goddess of Reason (1907), a drama in five acts
 * Lewis Rand (1908), illustrator F. C. Yohn
 * The Long Roll (1911), with illustrations by N. C. Wyeth
 * Cease Firing (1912), illustrator N. C. Wyeth
 * Hagar (1913)
 * The Witch (1914), frontispiece in color by N. C. Wyeth
 * The Fortunes of Garin (1915), frontispiece in color by Arthur I. Keller
 * The Wanderers (1917)
 * Foes (1918)
 * Michael Forth (1919)
 * Sweet Rocket (1920)
 * Silver Cross (1921)
 * 1492 (1922)
 * The Great Valley (1926)
 * The Exile (1927)
 * Miss Delicia Allen (1932)

title: Mary Johnston


text:
User:Mdieke

Marilyn is an avid royal watcher and collector of books on the British royal family. She has a particular interest in Queen Victoria's time to the present. She also follows the Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and Belgian royal families. Along with contributing to Wikipedia articles on royalty, in the past she has acted as a royalty expert on askme.com and currently shares her vast knowledge of current British Royalty to users at Allexperts.com and Yahoo Answers. At some point in the day she can usually be found with a book on the royal family in her hands. When she's not writing, sleeping, eating, or showering, she combs the internet looking for royalty news that she can use for material.

She currently writes about British royalty in her satirical yet informative blog:

http://marilynsroyalblog.blogspot.com

User:Mdieke/draftart

title: User:Mdieke


text:
Talk:X-class submarine

Range
I seriousily doubt that the x class had a range of 1000 miles... Could anybody post links that tell how much fuel the x class had?

 * The X-Craft was towed to it's target area by a full-size submarine and the endurance figures given are more a question of how long the passage crew could tolerate the conditions inside. I don't have a figure available, but at a guess, the actual range of the X-Craft is probably only about 50-100 miles or so. Ian Dunster 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just found a range figure - it's 82 Nautical miles (151.8 km) at 2 knots. Ian Dunster 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just found some more figures - that 82 nm one above was the submerged range - surfaced range was a surprising 500 nm. The 500 nm figure itself is for the training XT class but I am assuming that the range would be the same for the operational X & XE classes as well. Ian Dunster 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

X-5
Where is the source that X-5 was scuttled? I thought it was sunk by gunners from the Tirpitz during Operation Source and not recovered....although one of the side charges was found unexploded on thebottom of the fjord.

Style
Which is the approved style for submarine designations, X1, X-1 or X.1? (see also this discussion). Drutt (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ERA
Hi, I just read this and was wondering what an ERA is. I don't think many readers will be familiar with it - I've read a lot of military history and haven't seen it. Can someone put it in brackets after the first use?Wodawik (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ERA = Engine Room Artificer, i.e. a mechanic. I've added the explanation to the page. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Engine use.
I cannot find any contemporary London bus that used this type of Gardner engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.130.59 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 * You possibly mean 'contemporaneous'. 121.44.185.245 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

X-7
Was she been really salvaged for museum restoration as is mentioned at text? But then.....where she is now and why is not mentioned in "surviving examples"? Thanks for info --Hornet24 (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

X-8
According to "Modern Submarine Warfare" (Miller, Jordan, 1987, Military Press), X-8 was lost during the Tirpitz operation when under tow in the North Sea. rough weather caused the starboard side pannier to spring a leak; it was jettisoned and exploded several minutes later, causing no damage. The port pannier shortly after developed a similar problem and was jettisoned as well. Its 120 minute time fuse functioned properly, yet the resulting explosion caused serious damage to both the X-8 and the tow vessel, even at a distance of 3 miles. The authors give this as an example of the unpredictable nature of explosions under water. They claim the damage forced the crew to abandon the X-8.

70.16.213.248 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Images of X-7 crew
Here are two images of the X-7 crew from Commons if anyone wants to use them in the article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:X-class submarine


text:
DVD-R DL

DVD-R DL (DL stands for Dual Layer ), also called DVD-R9, is a derivative of the DVD-R format standard. DVD-R DL discs hold 8.5 GB by utilizing two recordable dye layers, each capable of storing a little less than the 4.7 gigabyte (GB) of a single layer disc, almost doubling the total disc capacity. Discs can be read in many DVD devices (older units are less compatible) and can only be written using DVD-R DL compatible recorders. It is part of optical disc recording technologies for digital recording to optical disc. DVD-R DL products started appearing on the market during mid-2004.

Compatibility
DVD-R DL has compatibility issues with legacy DVD-ROM drives known as pickup head overrun. To avoid this issue, the two layers of the disc need to be equally recorded. But this is a contradiction with the sequential nature of the DVD recording. Thus DVD Forum under Pioneer's lead developed a technology known as Layer Jump Recording (LJR), which incrementally record smaller sections of each layer to maintain compatibility with DVD-ROM drives. DVD-R DL media has been discontinued by most manufacturers. DVD+R DL is dominating the market for dual layered media.

Dual layer recording
Dual Layer recording allows DVD-R and DVD+R discs to store significantly more data, up to 8.5 GB, per disc, compared with 4.7 GB for single-layer discs. DVD-R DL was developed for the DVD Forum by Pioneer Corporation, DVD+R DL (formally known as Double Layer) was developed for the DVD+RW Alliance by Philips and Mitsubishi Kagaku Media (MKM).

A Dual Layer disc differs from its usual DVD counterpart by employing a second physical layer within the disc itself. The drive with Dual Layer capability accesses the second layer by shining the laser through the first semi-transparent layer. The layer change can exhibit a noticeable pause in some DVD players, up to several seconds. This caused more than a few viewers to worry that their dual layer discs were damaged or defective, with the end result that studios began listing a standard message explaining the dual layer pausing effect on all dual layer disc packaging.

The stacked, shine-through arrangement of layers does come with a small increase in error rate due to reduced reflectivity of the written layers, and a similar small risk of crosstalk interference. One of the techniques employed to help compensate for these reliability shortcomings is a 10% increase in minimum mark (digital 0 or 1) length on the disc, with a corresponding 10% increase in rotation speed and 10% reduction in gross recordable capacity, accounting for the lower capacity of a single-sided dual-layer DVD at 8.5 billion bytes, versus a double-sized, single-layer DVD at 9.4 billion (for 12 cm discs). Detail differences in formatting and file structure mean the "usable" data area capacity does not change by exactly this much, but for all intents a DVD-R DL has effectively 20/11ths the capacity of a DVD-R SL, and the same holds for +R, commercially pressed, and 8 cm discs.

DVD recordable discs supporting this technology are backward compatible with some existing DVD players and DVD-ROM drives. Many current DVD recorders support dual-layer technology, and the price is now comparable to that of single-layer drives, though the blank media remains more expensive. The recording speeds reached by dual-layer media are still well below those of single-layer media.

There are two modes for dual layer orientation. With parallel track path (PTP), used on DVD-ROM, both layers start at the inside diameter (ID) and end at the outside diameter (OD) with the lead-out. With Opposite Track Path (OTP), used on DVD-Video, the lower layer starts at the ID and the upper layer starts at the OD where the first layer ends. The two layers share one lead-in and one lead-out. Only blank disks and drives that support the latter mode are currently available.

Recordable DVD capacity comparison
For comparison, the table below shows storage capacities of the four most common DVD recordable media, excluding DVD-RAM. (SL) stands for standard single-layer discs, while DL denotes the dual-layer variants. See articles on the formats in question for information on compatibility issues.

title: DVD-R DL


text:
Wangen

Wangen may refer to:

Germany

 * Wangen im Allgäu, Ravensburg district, Baden-Württemberg
 * Wangen (Göppingen), Göppingen district, Baden-Württemberg
 * Wangen, Saxony-Anhalt, a municipality in the Burgenland district, Saxony-Anhalt
 * Wangen, Stuttgart, a borough of the city of Stuttgart

Switzerland

 * Wangen an der Aare, Canton of Bern (Wangen BE)
 * Wangen District, named after Wangen an der Aare
 * Wangen bei Olten, Canton of Solothurn (Wangen SO)
 * Wangen, Schwyz, Canton of Schwyz (Wangen SZ)
 * Wangen-Brüttisellen, Canton of Zürich (Wangen ZH)

Other

 * Wangen, Bas-Rhin, Bas-Rhin department, France
 * Wangen, Indonesia, a village in Polanharjo, Klaten, Central Java, Indonesia

People

 * Frederick von Wangen (? - 1218), a Prince-Bishop of Trento

title: Wangen


text:
User talk:Bassel max

I have renamed your logo to avoid conflicts. "Logo.jpg" is a too common name, it needs to be more specific. Best regards, --Janke | Talk 20:47:41, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bassel max


text:
Alfred Carroll

Alfred Henry Carroll (March 2, 1846 – June 9, 1924 ) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1903 to 1914, as a member of the Conservative Party.

Early life
Carroll was born in the township of West Zorra, Oxford County, Canada West (now Ontario), the son of Daniel Carroll. He was educated at Woodstock, and first worked in the lumbering trade in Virginia. Carroll next was a merchant in Walkerton, Ontario.

Career
He was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in the 1903 provincial election, defeating Liberal candidate John Watson by twelve votes in South Brandon. The Conservatives won this election, and Carroll served in the legislature as a backbench supporter of Rodmond Roblin's administration.

He was re-elected by nine votes in the 1907 election, and by ten votes in 1910. He did not seek re-election in 1914.

Personal life
He married Mary Ellen Dent in 1877. In 1881, he came to Manitoba, where he was a farmer. Carroll served as a councillor and reeve for the Rural Municipality of Oakland. In religion, he was a member of the Church of England.

Death
In 1915, Carroll moved to Beachville, Ontario, where he died at the age of 78.

title: Alfred Carroll


text:
User:Blue muffin89

Hi! My name is Maria and I live in New York. I'm a junior in high school right now, so I pretty much use this site for help with homework and other school related stuff... And one day I decided I might as well create an account here, so tada!, here it is.

title: User:Blue muffin89


text:
Talk:Atlantic Basin (disambiguation)

Scope of Atlantic Basin
After creating this article based on one source, I've since discovered that this is not a universally accepted definition of what bodies of what are included in the basin. I'm looking forward to input from other editors while I continue to research the issue. Johntex 20:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atlantic Basin (disambiguation)


text:
Jane Baker

Jane Baker may refer to:

 * Jane Baker (1924–2014), British television writer, see Pip and Jane Baker
 * Jane Baker (mayor) (1923–2011), American mayor of San Mateo, California
 * Jane S. Baker (born 1945), former Republican member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives

title: Jane Baker


text: User talk:72.9.8.158

title: User talk:72.9.8.158


text: User talk:82.201.171.239

title: User talk:82.201.171.239