text:
Talk:Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent

Wrong Section
The section on Arab Islamic expansion into Kabul, Balkh or Kapisa have nothing to do with India nor were they ever part of India. Much of this section is irrelevant to Islam in India and falls under; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Afghanistan

Therefore a suggest a pure re-write of this entire section Akmal94 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let us not get too stuck on modern day terminology. The Arab expansion happened along two axes (Sindh and Afghanistan), and we need to understand both of them together.
 * Mind you that this page is not on "Islam" but on Muslim expansion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Expanding the lead
User:My Lord, could you explain what were they ALL removed? What should be kept and removed?--79.75.50.221 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you changing your IP address? I think this is sock puppetry. Dagana4 (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not, since the ip changes whenerver swithed off. U can ask a CU for confirmation.--79.75.45.146 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many (most home users) are given dynamic IP addresses by their internet service providers. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of your added content is off-topic. This article is about Muslim conquests. It is not about some other achievements that appear to justify the conquests and that too in lead section. Dagana4 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, the WP:BURDEN of arguing for changes is always on those who want to make changes. Any changes to the lead especially require WP:CONSENSUS, and you need to establish it first before making revisions. If they are rejected, then you need to discuss them here.
 * Also, see MOS:LEAD to find out what a lead is supposed to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The proposed new lead:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I think a case can be made that the progress of the "Muslim conquests" in the Indian subcontinent should be summarised in some form. But it should be based on regimes and dates, not by name-dropping a Khalji here and a Tughluq there.
 * We also need delineate the three agencies: Umayyad/Abbasid caliphates, Turko-Afghan dynasties and the Mughals. The resistance from the native groups: the Rajputs, the Vijayanagara empire, the Maratha, the Sikh empire etc., and the internal fissures among the Muslim regimes are also important.
 * We also need to clarify that the "Muslim conquest" in the Indian subcontinent did not imply an erasure of the pre-existing cultures/religions as it happened elsewhere (say, in West Asia or Central Asia). To a large degree the Muslim regimes were syncretic.
 * It is probably best to leave out the economy issue. I don't see clear sources that can say one thing or other. (The Indian economy was quite strong before the Muslims set foot in India, and it was equally strong when the Muslims yielded to the British.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, yes the economic topic has been removed, but I strongly disagree that the indian economy was stronger both before or after the Muslims came. The zenith was reached in the 17th century. Some argue that the Mauryan (not worth to consider ancient times) and Gupta Empire might have had 35% of world gdp (during Aurangzeb was 25%), but I can't find any evidences. Could you find it for me? Thank you. 79.75.43.195 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is not how it works. The WP:BURDEN to show the veracity of the content rests on those who want to add content. So, which of those three sources [3], [4] and [5], say what you said? What do they say? It is your job to demonstrate, not my job to disprove you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 Just removed. Those sources mention about the economy of Mughal, that 25% of world GDP. Could you please give a proper reply about the other discussion? So is there any sources that says that were more economically developed empires than the mughals, and had world gdp more than 25%? 79.75.43.195 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is WP:NOTAFORUM and I am not required to give you any replies. I have looked through the three sources you gave for the second paragraph and none of them says anything remotely like what you wrote. Let us take the phrases one by one.
 * You claim that the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire made it the world's largest economy. Which source said that? Please provide a quotation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked the same thing as you asked. Could you provide any sources that says mauryan one was wealthier than mughal? Also i already removed them, and yes the sources says that mughal was the wealthiest empire in the world, also the other one shows each country's economy, India's one being the highest, followed by china.79.75.43.195 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

not talked about
outside of india the only peoples known to crusade into,imperialize and colonialize india are alexander the great(greeks) and the british.nothing about the 2200 years in between are talked about.all of history,human causality and behavior,has to be remembered as much as possible,as accurately as possible and with as little bias as possible.stop cherry picking and weaponizing for your own resentful convenience.and stop scapegoating-it's the roots of bigotry and racism.it only causes more adverse reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.249.141 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Title
The correlation that certain few conquests and kingdoms have with Islam is merely coincidental. The Indian subcontinent has seen countless conquests across different divides of religions, ethnic cultures, kingdoms throughout its history occuring at the exact same time. It is merely a matter of coincidence considering larger multicontinental empires spanning across a multitude of kingdoms and nations across human races were increasing. Islam being the youngest religion for the time period was popular.

Wars between kingdoms of the same faith have always been greater. Labeling a certain a few Kingdoms and associating them to Islam as a Religious conquest is not the right interpretation to the selective counts of history. Eoz.darkside (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Typo Eoz.darkside (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you might be onto something. I was reading through a book for a different article and came across a mention of periodization of Indian history on lines of religious identity which reminded me of this article. Excerpt from it below:

 * This makes me question, whether this article should even exist if contemporary scholarship disapproves of such periodisation? Looking at the content of the article, it does not have a sourced section or background for the article which gives a overview of the "Muslim conquests" as a phenomenon or a type of conquest. It is just a collection of invasions, kingdoms, dynasties and arbitrarily selected aspects or occurrences. I can also see a lot of uncited text.
 * If one can't find contemporary historical scholarship that directly relates to the subject of the article, that is "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent", then it is just original research and the entire article should be considered a product of synthesis. If this is inaccurate and shown to be a non-fringe viewpoint in contemporary scholarship, then the article needs to mention any debate or disagreement over its historiography and give an overview of the subject, cited to relevant sources that directly supports the periodisation.
 * , pinging since you appear to be have been active on the talk page for a fairly long period of time, what do you think of this? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC
 * This page predates me by a decade and it was itself preceded by Muslim conquests, which does seem to have WP:HISTRS covering the subject. The terminology is European. Indians would tend to call them "Muslim invasions" rather than "Muslim conquests". (Obviously India can never be "conquered" ;-)
 * "Muslim" is not just a religion. It is also a community (a world-wide ummah) and a political force. Trying to deny "Muslim conquests" is just as pointless as trying to deny "European colonialism" or "Hindu nationalism". They are as real as daylight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there contemporary scholarship which discusses "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent" or "Muslim invasions in India" or some variation of that? The page on "Muslim conquests" just talks about the conquests under Muhammad and the succeeding Caliphs, in others words conquests by a specific polity which is not quite the same as the collection here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 03:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there contemporary scholarship which discusses "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent" or "Muslim invasions in India" or some variation of that? I think the answer is an obvious yes. Any decent undergraduate textbook on Indian History will have some amount of relevant material and among specialist works, Derryl N. Maclean comes to my mind. [I have not really bothered to read the article and I only intend to state that the topic is encyclopedia-worthy.]TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , undergrad textbooks generally classify the period around the 12th and 16th century as the latter part of the medieval period and the beginning of the early modern period. Looking at Maclean's works; he has authored a book called Religion and Society in Arab Sind (1989). He has articles about the Mahdavia movement in the Delhi sultanate, a council in Akbar's court and another about Arab Sindh.
 * Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't help in clarifying whether the periodisation or classification of the Arab invasions, the varied Afghan invasions, the polity of the Delhi sultanate, the polities of the Deccan sultanates, the polity of the Mughal Empire, among others as a whole constituting a "Muslim conquests in India" exists in contemporary mainstream scholarship. If it does exist then that's alright although not obvious, the article would still need improvement and should include only those which are charecterised under this periodisation and any debate surrounding its historiography, but if not then this article should not exist. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there contemporary scholarship which discusses "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent" or "Muslim invasions in India" or some variation of that? I think the answer is an obvious yes. Any decent undergraduate textbook on Indian History will have some amount of relevant material and among specialist works, Derryl N. Maclean comes to my mind. [I have not really bothered to read the article and I only intend to state that the topic is encyclopedia-worthy.]TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , undergrad textbooks generally classify the period around the 12th and 16th century as the latter part of the medieval period and the beginning of the early modern period. Looking at Maclean's works; he has authored a book called Religion and Society in Arab Sind (1989). He has articles about the Mahdavia movement in the Delhi sultanate, a council in Akbar's court and another about Arab Sindh.
 * Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't help in clarifying whether the periodisation or classification of the Arab invasions, the varied Afghan invasions, the polity of the Delhi sultanate, the polities of the Deccan sultanates, the polity of the Mughal Empire, among others as a whole constituting a "Muslim conquests in India" exists in contemporary mainstream scholarship. If it does exist then that's alright although not obvious, the article would still need improvement and should include only those which are charecterised under this periodisation and any debate surrounding its historiography, but if not then this article should not exist. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't help in clarifying whether the periodisation or classification of the Arab invasions, the varied Afghan invasions, the polity of the Delhi sultanate, the polities of the Deccan sultanates, the polity of the Mughal Empire, among others as a whole constituting a "Muslim conquests in India" exists in contemporary mainstream scholarship. If it does exist then that's alright although not obvious, the article would still need improvement and should include only those which are charecterised under this periodisation and any debate surrounding its historiography, but if not then this article should not exist. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Periodisation is a different issue altogether. Calling it the "Muslim period" misses the complexities of interrelationships and competitions that were present during it. But no scholar would disagree that the Muslims had the upper hand overall throughout that period. But, still, "periods" is not what this article is about. It is about events.
 * The more relevant question is whether they should be called "Muslim conquests", identifying the religion, as opposed to the ethnicities: "Umayyad conquests", "Turkic conquests", "Mughal conquests" etc. The medieval Hindu writing did in fact identify ethnicity rather than religion. There is some merit to that, at least from a political point of view. But it is not at all scientific to ignore the fact that there was a world-wide Muslim civilisation at play. Delhi attracted talent from all over the Muslim world, artists, poets, sculptors, noblemen, fighters and so on. They all came and became "Indians", just like loads of us today go to America and become "Americans". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that religion wasn't an important aspect of the various polities that existed during this period which played into how they interacted with their contemporary neighboring polities. An article along the lines of History of Islam in India would probably be more appropriate for the influence of Islam in India during the period.
 * The question I'm raising is whether these conquests should be grouped at all, on the basis of any kind of identity, religious or ethnic. I have not seen this done with respect to any other conquests if they were not undertaken by the same polity and doing so appears rather notional instead of scientific. "Muslim conquests" in particular in ever other case refers to invasions or conquests by the polity of the Arab caliphates. Since this article is not specific to any particular polity, this makes it a question of periodisation (e.g Migration Period) or that of a phenomenon (e.g Turkic migration, Spread of Islam in Indonesia). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The question I'm raising is whether these conquests should be grouped at all, on the basis of any kind of identity, religious or ethnic. I have not seen this done with respect to any other conquests if they were not undertaken by the same polity and doing so appears rather notional instead of scientific. "Muslim conquests" in particular in ever other case refers to invasions or conquests by the polity of the Arab caliphates. Since this article is not specific to any particular polity, this makes it a question of periodisation (e.g Migration Period) or that of a phenomenon (e.g Turkic migration, Spread of Islam in Indonesia). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This is fueling hate
Will Durant's point of view should be deleted because it is not based on any historical facts, it is only the opinion of a fanatic who hates Muslims. Are these conquests bloodier than two world wars?? Or even the conquests of Genghis Khan?? The invasion of white Christians to the new world and the extermination of 100 million people with war and epidemics?? This is nonsense stemming from a person writing a false history of his personal perceptions, perhaps Babur and Aurangzeb were using nuclear weapons against Hindus?? There are hundreds of people in India who are being killed because of thia false point of view coming from an American who thinks he knows everything. Yes Muslims killed 150 million Hindus for 500 years... they kill 300,000 every year .... 850 Hindus every day, I don't know how they had time to build the Taj Mahal because Shah Jahan had to kill half of his workers every day to satisfy the opinions of Will Durant the great historian Aah799 (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Copy Editing Tag and Lead Section
I came to this article through the copy editing tag. While I have made changes to the first few sections, a larger editing/rewrite is still needed, preferably by someone with greater knowledge to represent it accurately. There are frequently run on sentences so far.

In addition, the lead section is overly dense and specific. Most of this information, particularly the lists of names, could likely be condensed and/or described more comprehensively elsewhere in the article. My suggestion would be to combine several of the paragraphs and divide it more clearly into initial efforts, larger gains, and later defeats.

Plumeria03 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Early Arab presence
Some Arabs had settled in India as traders before the advent of Islam. The first Arab expeditions to India, were naval three raids, probably against pirates and not to conquer territory, took place between 636 and 643 CE, while an Arab army arrived in Sind through Makran in 644CE. According to Baladhuri, the expedition to Debal was a success, he does not mention the results of the other two except Arabs suffered no losses, while one source states Mughira was killed at Debal. Please site sources before erasing this sectionMaglorbd (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Khushalani's Chachnamah Retold
The end flap of Gobind Khushalani's 2006 book Chachnamah Retold describes him as a "litterateur" (in other words, not an academic, but an essayist or critic). The fact that the book is held by only five WorldCat libraries,[] and according to Google Scholar has been cited only four times, suggests historians do not regard it highly. The only review I found in a scholarly journal is scathing. This is a questionable source, not a reliable one. A better source is needed. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for changing of the page.
The page is highly miss leading. Firstly its grammatically not correct. What even is "hindu, sikh". Secondly it has no proper citations. The only citation you have used is of causalities and that citation is highly inrelianle because majority of the historians dont agree with this. It is quite very clear even as per Romila thappar that 60 million deaths is a highly exaggerated and false causality. Wikipedia is made by people like us. But the page is miss leading because it doesnt even covers the hindu reconquests. That's why we have decided to change the military box at any cost. We are using 5+ citations in the military box and all of Our sources are contemporary, Secondly grammar error are fixed thirdly you definetly need to mention the hindu reconquests. Indo12122 (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a proper ref for a lower figure? I don't think the "Hindu reconquests" belong in the infobox, which you made far too bloated. There's a case for saying "Muslim conquests" stopped after the Battle of Talikota in 1565, the last significant gain of territory. After that wars were mostly intra-Muslim, or resisting "reconquest". Johnbod (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod I've opened an ANI 3RR notice for @Indo12122's 3RR violations, and failure to follow WP:ONUS Noorullah (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I made no violation, You guys are the one spreading miss infos. If i am editing a page with reference to proper citations and contemporary sources then its not vandalism. You guys are hella bent over your own article. Firstly the page isn't yours, Secondly, Many editors have problem with this military box and this needs to be changed.
 * I am again listing all my reasons as in why this should be changed, don't ignore.
 * 1)- It is grammatically incorrect, in strength section you are using "hindu, sikh" what even is this. Write Hindu kings, Sikh kings.
 * 2)- It is miss-leading and already lacking in citations. It doesnt even use proper citations in the result sevtion
 * 3)- It doesn't cover the hindu reconquests. We do know for the fact that Marathas and sikhs had achieved supremacy in the indian subcontinent during the British east India company. Now what about mysorean kingdom, it wasnt even muslim. Only the last 2 kings were muslims.
 * 4)- Now the changes I made in the page covers the muslim conquests as well as the hindu reconquests
 * 5)- It isnt grammatically incorrect
 * 6)- I have used 5+ citations and most are contemporary and if not contemporary, then it is jadunath Sarkaar who is a reliable historian.
 * 7)- I removed the causality section because genocide of 60 million in medieval era is technically impossible. Literally impossible. Majority of the historians dont believe in this opinion.
 * And you said other editors are disagreeing however I dont see anyone having problem with my changes made in the military box except for that john guy and now you. I can say the same. That your Military box has something which other editors dont agree with (johran joshi and me). It works both ways.
 * What you are doing is a mislead. You must bring changes to your info military box. Indo12122 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All i see is you are being incredibly dishonest at this point. After battle of talikota as well there were many Hindu-Muslim conflicts. I mean for example. The jatts attacked delhi and returned to Bharatpur along with Lohiya Gate and Ashtadhatu gate which had been brought to Delhi, 461 years ago, by Alauddin Khalji after his Siege of Chittorgarh Fort in 1303.
 * They also melted the two silver doors of the famous Mughal monument Taj Mahal.
 * This is an example. Most afghan provinces were reconquered by the sikhs, the sikhs went as far as conquering Afghan capitals such as peshawar itself. (*Sikhs seized control over most of Punjab, Kashmir and lower part of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.)
 * In early 1771, Mahadji, a notable Maratha general, recaptured Delhi and installed Shah Alam II as the puppet ruler on the Mughal throne. In north India, the Marathas thus regained the territory and the prestige lost as result of the defeat at Panipath in 1761.
 * And hindu reconquests have been significant as well because the amount of re-consstruction of the temples stook place was good. Saying that the muslim rule was established till Britiish east India company is a hoax. By the time britishers had arrive. Indian subcontinent had Sikhs and Marathas as a super power, mysoreans too but no historian calls kingdom of mysore as even muslim. Only the last 2 rulers were muslims.
 * So yes if you are mentioning Muslim conquests, Then mention Hindu reconquests as well. And fix the grammar. Secondly you have no proof that 80 millions died in Hindu-Muslim conflicts. No one agrees with this. American historian Audrey Truschke and Indian historian Romila Thapar even claim that such views are unfounded or exaggerated.
 * My point is simple, if you are mentioning Muslim conquests, then Hindu reconquests must be mentioned too, several sultanates were ended by Hindus as well to reconquer their lost lands. Indo12122 (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I challenge anyone to refute this. the page contradict itself as well. The page shows how Marathas and Sikhs caused a decline to the Muslim rule but the info military box shows that muslim rule lasted till 1857.
 * This isn't even debatable. Better is to bring changes to the page and make wikipedia a better source of learning. Indo12122 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't even debatable. Better is to bring changes to the page and make wikipedia a better source of learning. Indo12122 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 * This version, from January 23 might be better - no infobox, and ending the pweriod (mostly) in the 16th-century. We should try to focus on the actual subject, which is Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. To say: "if you are mentioning Muslim conquests, then Hindu reconquests must be mentioned too" is obviously wrong - that is a different subject - they can be mentioned, as many are, but they are not part of the actual subject here. Extending the period to 1857 is I think a big mistake. We should not try to turn this article into an overall military history of centuries of Indian history. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that Mughal conquests don't constitute part of Muslim conquests? Sutyarashi (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the version of January 2023 is far better. Now. Yes indeed the subject is "Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent" but we clearly have to mention their draw backs and their losses too. As we know. The muslim conquests in India never consisted of permanent conquests as it were in Persia and Egypt. But the point is.
 * In strength you have clearly mentioned Shivaji and Ranjit Singh. So if you are mentioning them and Including them too then just writing "establishment of muslim rule '' is clearly wrong along with the fact that there is already the "Decline of the Muslim Rule" section which you have been contradicting it with the result section of the military information box. During Shivaji's time, the reconquests had already begun and ended by Ranjit Singh's time. Much of the Indian subcontinent was dominated again by the Indians.
 * And I appreciate your acknowledgement of admitting the fact that extending the period to 1857 is wrong too and placing it in the info military box is wrong as well. Jonharojjashi (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Title and tone of this article is very poor
This title is misleading and there is a general lack of neutrality and poor citations throughout this article. I was beginning to make edits but I am kind of unsure where to begin and wonder if this article even needs to be deleted. If you compare this article to, say, Hinduism in Southeast Asia, which also describes several empires that happen to have existed in a certain geographic area and spread a common religious tradition, it's very apparent the quality issues in this article. I'm wondering how best to address this. Nkrishnan94 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanentize the eschaton

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Rob Church Talk 00:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Immanentize the eschaton
Unsourced: Pjacobi 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Immanentize+the+eschaton%22++site%3Avatican.org ) => nothing found
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=eschaton+site%newadvent.org&btnG=Search (Catholic Encyclopaedia) => nothing found

 * Weak Keep the phrase is mentioned on Eric Voegelin as well as several web sites chowells 19:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, that would be an alleged third meaning. I'm mostly targetting the alleged first meaning, as I've found no sources for a connection to Roman Catholicism. Anyway, if the result will be keep, I'll take your comment as volunteering for cleanup. --Pjacobi 19:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand. You might want to make your reasons for nominating it clear in the AfD in the first place. I will certainly not be cleaning up the article if its kept. chowells 19:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Per category sorting and intro sentence, the article states that it is a concept in Roman Catholicism. My attempts to verify this failed (see above). The article further states, it is a concept in conservative propaganda. I doubt this, but I can't judge it, as this is a very broad topic. Anyway, if that would be the only meaning, the article is grossly inadequate. Now you additional state, it is a concept in Voegelin's gnosticism. Uuhh. But that certainly isn't in the article and therefore wouldn't be a reason to keep. --Pjacobi 20:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My impression was that you were suggesting that the entire phrase was a hoax or a neologism. My vote remains the same however. chowells 20:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep I have added a number of external links to the article, please consult them. They document Conservative use, evangelical Christian use, Discordian use, and Chaoist use. They also describe the phrase peing popularized in the 1950s by William F. Buckley after its use by Voegelin, and in that conncetion discuss (rtaher vaguely) a Catholic use. They also document its use in describing Gnostic views, but apparently only by non-Gnostics. This may derive from the Roman Catholic use. The use in formal Catholic theology is the only one not well documentd from these links. DES (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The article may need to be re-categorized, re-stubbed, and/or cleaned up, but none of those is a good reason to delete. DES (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources are now longer than the article. the wub  "?!"  20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If we agree on removing the connection to Roman Catholicism, I'd agree to speedily keep. In the long list of sources giben now, only some ".'.Frater Equilibrist.'." http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/ite.html claims the connection to catholicism. Now looking through the sources, it's seems to be mostly a Robert Anton Wilson concept. --Pjacobi 20:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep as notable concept in US conservative politics. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Worthy Keep for the connection to The Illuminatus! Trilogy alone, but obviously is a notable term beyond that book. 23skidoo 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but where is the illuminatus link? SchmuckyTheCat 22:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Note: I started the article, so I'm biased. It is a lot better now than it was though!) --Carl 01:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with much improvement needed. glocks out 23:04, 19 October 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.

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


text:
The Heaven Makers

The Heaven Makers (1968) is a science fiction novel by American writer Frank Herbert. It was originally serialized in Amazing Stories magazine in 1967.

Plot introduction
The Heaven Makers is set on contemporary Earth with one difference: that we are being watched and manipulated by aliens for their viewing pleasure. The plot focuses on several humans whose lives are changed by the aliens, and an alien observer investigating the morality of these changes.

Reception
David Pringle rated The Heaven Makers one star out of four. Pringle added "the sex in the book is all male wish-fulfillment; the politics and science are childish".

title: The Heaven Makers


text:
Talk:Supreme Court of Illinois

Dear sirs and dear madams
Dear sirs and dear madams, please join hands to complete this law and court stuff. mayny many many thankingin yoiu all. --MissingLinks 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm new
Sorry for my sloppy work. Please help me learn how to improve it. I want to help wikipedia, and this is my first time trying to edit stuff. --TheRealDanTheMan

Does someone want to clear up the discrepancy between this article (which says Freeman's term goes until 2012) and Freeman's wikipedia article, which says his term ended in 2000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.124.185 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Correcting name of the current chief justice
The current Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court is Rita B. Garman. She assumed this position on October 28, 2013. The table in the article lists Thomas Kilbride as the current chief justice, but this is no longer correct. I did not see how to edit the table. 24.246.86.5 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

District list
The list does not include the following counties: Please fix. --Numberguy6 (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Knox
 * Lee
 * Macoupin
 * Morgan
 * Scott
 * Warren

title: Talk:Supreme Court of Illinois


text:
User:Doannghiep

A lot things need to do with this page in the future. I hope I will keep in touch to tell to the people my ideas about Vietnam history. I wish I rewrite all of things that make misunderstandings of the past of Vietnam.

title: User:Doannghiep


text:
HMAS Manoora (L 52)

HMAS Manoora (L 52) was a Kanimbla-class landing platform amphibious ship operated by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Originally built for the United States Navy (USN) as the Newport-class tank landing ship USS Fairfax County (LST-1193), the ship was decommissioned in 1994 and sold to the RAN.

Although commissioned into Australian service in that year, the vessel was heavily modified from her original design, and did not begin operations until the end of the decade. During her Australian career, Manoora saw wartime service during the War in Afghanistan, and non-combat service in the Solomon Islands and East Timor. In 2001, the ship was involved in the Tampa affair, a diplomatic incident involving a Norwegian cargo ship and a group of asylum seekers.

In late 2010, Manoora and sister ship HMAS Kanimbla (L 51) were placed in an 'operational pause' after several problems were identified with the ships. In early 2011, it was announced that repairing Manoora was cost-prohibitive, and she was decommissioned on 27 May 2011. The ship was sold for breaking in 2013.

Construction
The ship was constructed for the USN as a Newport-class tank landing ship by the National Steel & Shipbuilding Company at San Diego, California.

Transfer and conversion
In the early 1990s, the RAN initiated a procurement project to replace HMAS Jervis Bay (GT 203) with a dedicated training and helicopter support ship. Meeting the vague specifications of the project required a purpose-built vessel at an approximate cost of A$500 million. The high cost of the project led to its cancellation by the Minister for Defence in 1993, with the instructions to find a cheaper alternative. At around the same time, the USN began plans to decommission fifteen of their twenty Newport-class tank landing ships, including Fairfax County, and offering them for purchase by various countries.

In 1994, the RAN elected to purchase two Newports: Fairfax County and USS Saginaw (LST-1188) for the combined price of A$61 million (US$40 million), with the intention of converting each into a combined pocket helicopter carrier and amphibious warfare transport. Fairfax County was to travel to Australia with a USN crew before decommissioning and recommissioning as HMAS Manoora.

On 28 June 1994, when Saginaw was due to decommission and recommission as HMAS Kanimbla (L 51), it was announced that the United States Congress had decided not to release any of the fifteen Newports into foreign service as the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services was attempting to pressure US President Bill Clinton on the perceived running-down of the USN's amphibious warfare capability, while an unrelated Senator had expressed concern over human rights in Morocco (one of the other eight nations slated to acquire a ship). The sale to Australia was not approved until the start of August, with Fairfax County arriving in Sydney in September and handed over to the RAN on 27 September 1994. She was commissioned into the RAN on 25 November 1994.

After both ships had arrived in Australia and were commissioned, Kanimbla and Manoora spent two years docked at Fleet Base East before they were moved to Forgacs Shipyard, Newcastle in June 1996, where they underwent conversion from tank landing ships to amphibious warfare transports. The conversion required the main features of the Newport class, the bow doors, derrick, and tank ramp, to be removed. A hangar for three Sea King or four Blackhawk helicopters was added, while the aft helicopter deck was reinforced. Chinook helicopters are able to land and take off from the aft deck, but cannot be carried for prolonged periods. The deck forward of the superstructure was converted to carry two LCM-8 landing craft, which are launched and recovered by a single 70-ton crane. When the LCM-8s are deployed, the area functions as a third helicopter landing spot. Accommodation was provided for up to 450 soldiers, while improved medical facilities and an upgraded galley were also installed.

The refit was planned to last from 1995 to 1996, with Manoora upgraded first. However, extensive corrosion was discovered in both ships. The now controversial refit cost for the two ships increased A$400 million, with half of the funding taken from repair and refit allocations for other ships.

Operational history
In April 1999, while the modification was being completed, personnel from Manoora, Kanimbla, and Sydney bases assisted the New South Wales Department of Agriculture in containing an outbreak of Newcastle disease in Mangrove Mountain poultry farms. Manoora entered service in January 2000. Manoora and HMAS Tobruk (L 50) were deployed to the Solomon Islands in June 2000, to rescue civilians following a coup d'état. During September and October, Manoora was involved in security operations for the 2000 Summer Olympics. In November, she returned to the Solomon Islands to support the International Peace Monitoring Team following the signing of the Townsville Peace Agreement, remained in the region until late December, then returned for a second deployment between March and June 2001.

In late August 2001, Manoora became involved in the 'Tampa Affair', a political incident caused when the Australian government forbade the Norwegian cargo ship MV Tampa, carrying asylum seekers rescued from a damaged vessel in the Timor Sea, from entering Australian waters. The 438 asylum seekers were transferred from Tampa to Manoora, which then delivered them to detention centres on Nauru.

From 28 February to 24 June 2002, the ship operated in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Slipper, the Australian involvement in the War in Afghanistan. For most of the deployment, Manoora was assigned as the Khwar Abd Allah gatekeeper vessel, and was the primary source of boarding parties for ship inspections in the area, with 27 compliant and 4 forced boardings performed.

The ship returned to the Gulf in May 2003 under Operation Falconer, the Australian commitment to the invasion of Iraq, and spent a month in the region before sailing home with Australian personnel and equipment embarked. During the return voyage, the ship rescued eight Iraqi fishermen from the middle of the Gulf. During late June, Manoora provided medical assistance to the fishing vessel Golden Sun . In July 2003, Manoora sailed to the Solomon Islands with 300 personnel from 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment; the start of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. The ship remained in the region until late October, serving as a logistic and medical support base, and as a venue for meetings. In September, Manoora was used to recover an Iroquois helicopter of the Royal New Zealand Air Force downed off Guadalcanal.

Manoora undertook an extensive refit during April and May 2004.

During May 2006, the ship was deployed to East Timor under Operation Astute.

On the morning of 13 March 2009, Manoora was one of seventeen warships involved in a ceremonial fleet entry and fleet review in Sydney Harbour, the largest collection of RAN ships since the Australian Bicentenary in 1988. Manoora was one of the thirteen ships involved in the ceremonial entry through Sydney Heads, and anchored in the harbour for the review.

Following a review of the RAN battle honours system, completed in March 2010, Manoora was retroactively awarded the honour "Persian Gulf 2002", in addition to the six honours inherited from the previous ship of the name.

Decommissioning and fate
In late September 2010, Manoora and sister ship Kanimbla were brought to Fleet Base East for an 'operational pause' after several problems were identified with the ships. These included large quantities of ongoing corrosion, faults with the deck crane and alarm system, overhauls of the propulsion, power generators, and air-conditioning, and upgrades to the communication suite. The ships were to be confined to base until after the ships complete a dry-docking initially valued at A$17 million: as of October 2010, tenders for the work were yet to be released. The problems have been attributed to the ship's high operational tempo, delays in maintenance, and the age of the ships.

On 1 February 2011, the Minister for Defence announced that repairing Manoora would not be cost effective given that this would cost A$20 million, and not be complete until mid-2012. As the ship was scheduled to retire at the end of 2012, it was instead decided to decommission her during 2011 without returning her to service. Manoora was decommissioned at Fleet Base East on 27 May 2011. Personnel from Manoora were transferred to the former British Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship RFAUX Largs Bay (L3006) when she arrived in Australia in late 2011, and the Canberra-class landing helicopter dock amphibious assault ships when they entered service from 2014.

In June 2012, the federal government offered Manoora and Kanimbla to the Queensland state government for scuttling as dive wrecks off the Queensland coast. However, the government chose not to go ahead with this, as it would cost $4 million each to prepare them for scuttling, and could provoke similar reactions to the contested sinking of the frigate HMAS Adelaide (FFG 01). Instead, Manoora was to be broken up, with an estimated scrap metal value of $2.5 million. Because the two vessels were originally owned by the United States and were sold to Australia, their disposal had to receive US government approval and comply with International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Tendering for the disposal of the vessels began in June 2012, with the contract awarded to Southern Scrap Recycling on 20 May 2013. The two vessels were returned to the United States, and broken up in New Orleans.

title: HMAS Manoora (L 52)


text:
Mount Jukes

Mount Jukes may refer to:
 * Mount Jukes (Queensland)
 * Mount Jukes (Tasmania)

title: Mount Jukes


text:
Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy/proposal

Proposed: The community can grant administrators the permission to use the CheckUser interface solely for the purposes of tracing the source of persistent vandalism by showing consensus in favour with an WP:RfA-like vote. Any users granted the CheckUser right in this way may not use the checkuser privilege for anything other than tracing the source of persistent vandalism unless further policy on the matter allowing to use it for other purposes is created.

The CheckUser facility may also be used for investigating matters of interest to the Arbitration Committee at an arbitrator's request.

Rationale
As those of you regular to RC patrol may have noticed we have been visited by some vandalbots lately. Blocking these has either caused temporary blocks of dynamic or proxy IPs (which should be unblocked as soon as possible to avoid collateral damage), or of open proxies, which should be blocked indefinitely and would serve as good seeds for the open proxy blocker bot.

Since the stewards are not willing to give users the checkuser privilege without policy on the matter (I cannot say I blame them), and there's an obvious urgent need for more people to do IP checks to combat vandalism, I am proposing the above checkuser policy for en:. There is probably also a need for more extensive CheckUser usage, but this is supposed to be a proposal we can all agree on quickly so that we can find people to handle at least these cases.

You can see how CheckUser works at meta:Help:CheckUser.

Comments
Comments go on talk, amendments or changes should be made here but remember to keep it short and something we can all agree on.

Straw poll
To assess support for this proposed policy a vote will be held. It will be considered accepted if it receives more than 80% support in the next five day period (ending 21:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)), provided it has received at least 40 votes. If it has not, it will be considered accepted if it has 80% support at the time it reaches 40 votes.

The straw poll is now closed (as of 18 Oct 2005, 20:27), having passed with a narrow 80.4%.

Contextual Note: There is not uniform acceptance among the persons voting here as to the validity of this straw poll as a method for reaching agreement on the policy being proposed. (note added by Courtland 17:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

Clarification: Even if accepted, this proposed policy would NOT give CheckUser access to all administrators.

Support

 * 1) --fvw *  21:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  Martin  22:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Shimgray | talk | 22:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) -Splash talk 22:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Tintin 22:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Radiant_ >|<  22:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Carbonite | Talk 22:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) GraemeL (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Hall Monitor 22:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Greg Asche (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 17:41, 13 October 2005 (CDT)
 * 12) ABCD✉ 22:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Carnildo 22:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Tito xd (?!?) 23:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) cohesion | talk 00:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) *drew 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) David Gerard 08:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Oh yes please.
 * 19) Cryptic (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) * BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC) After some thought I've decided to oppose.  I think we need to grant more trusted users with Checkuser permission, but I don't think  RfA style voting is the best way of selecting such users.  Popularity amongst administrators does not necesarily mean an administrator is necesarily trustworthy.  -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) --Doc (?) 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (we need to do this immediately, but a fuller policy with checks and ballances must also be developed ASAP)
 * 22) pgk( talk ) 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC) as per Doc, needs a full policy and audit
 * 23) Scimitar parley 21:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) I support this, but as others have said, a fuller policy is needed as asap on when adn how this use is sanctioned, adn some sort of publicly visible log should IMO be created that would at least list who is using the tool and how often. Ideally it would indicate what USER IDs hav been checked (but not which IPs to avoide privicy-vioating correlations). DES (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) the wub   "?!"  22:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) * Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 16:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27)  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  16:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) * As long as a log of such queries is made and a page is made (The one on meta is okay) which explicitly says when it is okay to use this power. I'll always vote to give myself more power. :) Broken S 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC) I'm going neutral. I think a log is necessary and the privacy policy should be revised before this is implememnted. Broken S 00:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Ryan Delaney talk 19:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Mgm|(talk) 22:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Yes, David and a few developers who spend more time on the software, don't scale. More people need to be given access to this tool to speed up the process of checking IDs. Having an accessible log of such activities is a good idea to enforce accountability. Who should be given access should be the subject of a more detailed proposal.
 * 32) Weak Support as long as we quickly set up a policy detailing checks and balances, and gain consensus on who would be entrusted with this feature without compromising users' privacy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) JAranda'' | watz sup 02:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) --Cel e stianpower hablamé 14:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Unbelievably strong support for this policy. Checkuser is a needed tool. Andre ( talk ) 17:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Access to be granted, but very sparingly. — Dan | Talk 01:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) What Rdsmith4 said. I find it odd that many of the oppose voters clearly haven't read the proposal, as it says nothing about giving it to all admins. Ambi 01:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Giving CheckUser to those who can utilize it is a no-brainer. - RoyBoy 800 01:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Absolutely. We need to shut down vandalbots and rampant abusive sock creators; as we grow it's only going to get worse. Antandrus  (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And what recent vandalbot hasn't been jumping IPs? Our obligation to be honest with our users about their level of privacy far outweighs dealing with minor nuisances. --Gmaxwell 15:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think those vandalbots are "minor" nuisances I don't think you do much RC patrol. For another, patterns of jumped IPs can be extremely significant, and a human can see them.  Geographical locations of IPs, for example, are an important bit of evidence.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, with a few caveats I consider obvious: the logs of who used the priviledge and when are available to at least all admins and the logs of what was checked are available to at least a few people, maybe all bcrats and arbcom members. Overall if we have an RFA style process, I'm sure the standards for this will be very high. - Taxman Talk 12:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't you vote neutral, as AFAICS nobody with the power to do so has shown any indication that they will actually make a log available? N (t/c) 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Sure. Ryan Norton T 18:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - this widens the base of users who have access to this information, and who are expected to make sense of it. From what I gather from reading David Gerard's various notes on it, the output of the Checkuser extension is not exactly easy to interpret. We could have administrators bringing up false positives and so forth, based on shoddy guesswork arising from not understanding the output correctly. In addition, we have a duty to protect privacy, and I don't feel the proposal is rationalised well enough; the scope of use is too broad, for one thing. I worry also that this creates another procedure not unlike requests for adminship which in turn could bring problems. Rob Church Talk 23:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because it is complicated doesn't mean we can't train those given this power on how to interpret it. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't need to. We've got plenty of technically competent admins to do the job. --fvw *  23:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone understands networks and IP numbers, it's not that hard to learn. I am also very happy to spend time teaching others how to do it - that would actually make the task scale! I could probably teach you in not too long, for instance - David Gerard 08:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as blatant flattery. Thanks. :-) Rob Church Talk 16:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * :-) Check m:Help:CheckUser - basic network competence, some clue as to the behaviour of trolls and great respect for the privacy policy is about all it takes. I'm adding to the "Hints and Tips" as I think of 'em - David Gerard 15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Courtland 23:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I have read through some of the discussion here and at the meta site and agree with User:Grace Note in the commentary under CheckUser
 * We're not only dealing with trolls here. We're dealing with people who hear about the size of Wikipedia and try to find a way to make our life impossible just because they feel like it. There's not much we can do against those external threats but block them. Tito xd (?!?) 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose admins getting checkuser capabilities. It should be limited to Stewards, or Stewards and a few respected Bureaucrats and Arbcomm members. No matter who gets the capability, there should be a log records ALL checkuser checks. Blank Verse  ∅  16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This proposal only says some people should be given access and suggests it might be done using an RFA type vote. It didn't say this should be given to all admins, just to more people in general. - Mgm|(talk) 22:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As it stands, this proposal lacks many of the details necessary to make a proper decision. It also has a very rushed feel to it, as if there has been an attempt to stack the support votes before there is greater publicity for the proposal. Blank Verse  ∅  10:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose with prejudice; poorly thought out proposal open to abuse. I would trust David Gerard and a number of highly regarded bcrats with this function, but that is all.  Erwin
 * 2) Oppose until an more thorough system of checks and balances can be established. I fully agree with the need for such an ability and would like to see repeat vandals possibly perma banned, yet am concerned on how we enforce the rule that admins will only use the tool when prescribed. A less vague set of standards which increase the checks and balances on Admins as to when and where the ability is to be incorporated would possibly change my vote to support.--MONGO 06:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * MONGO, the approval of this proposal means that a permanent policy will immediately be drafted and set for approval. Tito xd (?!?) 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) No way. Admins are supposed to be ordinary users. If they are given the ability to pry into personal information, this is totally unacceptable. Too much time is already wasted on witchhunting sockpuppets, which gives them more incentive to troll you in the first place. This and the plain fact that it would be abused, just as all other admin powers are, make me strongly oppose this proposal. Revert vandals, ignore insults, don't feed the trolls. Do those three things and this wouldn't even be a problem. It is without question the behaviour that is always the menace, not the person, so deal with the behaviour. Grace Note 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose we need to change the privacy policy before we even consider anything like this. The current privacy policy is already out of date with established practices. Users already do not have the privacy we imply they have. --Gmaxwell 00:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Admins should have the minimum possible privileges. Some of them are prone to thinking of themselves as special, but they should simply be seen as normal uses who do certain dull administrative tasks. CalJW 00:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose per Gmaxwell and BlankVerse. --Blackcap | talk 01:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I can hardly think people will understand the technicalities of Dynamic IP addressing. As an added extra the fast-slow change stuff. There are an *amazing* number of ISPs, to "learn" how fast or slow they change their IPs is downright impossible. --Msoos 15:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) [not an admin]

Other/Neutral

 * 1) Will support if and only if a full checkuser log (i.e., including everything but IP address) is visible to all users and IPs, and a policy is implemented imposing desysopping and a long ban for inappropriate use of checkuser powers. I see no reason why either of these conditions would be harmful, aside from the time taken to code the first if it does not already exist. However, unless these precautions are taken, people should not be given powers with potential off-Wiki consequences based only on on-Wiki trust.  N (t/c) 00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on talk, people already have the power to find a logged-in user's IP. This would merely add permission to do so and a method of going back in time a little. --fvw *  00:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, they should not be given those things without caution, and ideally the current ability shouldn't be there. Also, the Javascript method is logged - not easy to find, but logged nonetheless. And it can be gotten around by disabling Javascript (which anyone really serious about online privacy will hopefully do (although this should not be taken to say that those who don't know how to do not deserve privacy)). And the permission part is just as worrisome as the technical ability. N (t/c) 00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Even assuming javascript is disabled, you can still modify the mediawiki plain html variables; unless you turn off CSS, embedded media, images, and frames too you're pretty much chanceless against an admin who wants your IP. Even if it was noticed, I think with a little effort you could even make it look like an honest mistake to someone who assumes good faith, if you registered the appropriate typo of wikipedia.org.
 * As for the permission, why do you think we need to protect the privacy of persistant vandals like the vandalbot or willy on wheels? If you're afraid it would be used against others and you have a stricter definition of who can be checked to propose I'm all for it. --fvw *  00:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care about Willy's privacy, but the problem is that checkuser ability can self-evidently be used against anyone. It also takes no technical skill (unlike the Javascript method), and unless the log is made public (which was my main condition for supporting) its use is hidden. That's my biggest problem - I'd be fine with giving checkuser to a fairly broad range of people if its usage were transparent.
 * Besides, if getting the IP is so easy already, why have this policy? ;-) N (t/c) 00:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Partially because not only technical access is needed but also permission to do so, and partially because as the accounts are probably bot-run they won't run javascript, and using a more brute-force method would be necessary (like including off-site CSS). This would reveal the IPs of all users reading wikipedia at that time, not just the vandals. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but once you're approved you have that technical access until it's revoked. So there needs to be a codified punishment for misuse, as well as a public log of all uses. N (t/c) 00:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to expand anyone's privileges I'd be fine with requiring everyone who gets this priv to demonstrate that they're able to find someone's IP without it beforehand if you want :) --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * :) N (t/c) 00:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nick has a point. If we implement it, we can make Special:Checklog or something like that, where CheckUser queries would be stored (much like the Block log and others). Tito xd (?!?) 00:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it, I'd just rather not have this policy depend on that technical issue being resolved as in my experience it takes absolutely ages, and I'd like to get this through quickly. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If the point is only to deal with the current vandalbot attack, then there's no need to make it this general. Why not just have a vote on "should users X, Y, and Z get checkuser", where X, Y, and Z are extremely trusted long-term users (preferably already bureaucrats)? It'd go through faster (because there would be no need for separate approval of the policy and of each user), and I would be willing to support users that I strongly trusted even if there were no log feature or formal revocation procedure. N (t/c) 00:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but basicly I want access to checkuser myself and I didn't want to propose policy to give myself extra permissions, at least not directly :-) --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said before, that's to iron out once we get the permanent policy for vote. Tito xd (?!?) 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Such a log might itself give away far more information than the privacy policy allows. "Oh, Bob checked User:Querulous at 5:46pm, and IP 111.222.333.444 at 5:47pm. Bet they're the same, or related." - David Gerard 08:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it should only log checks on usernames, as abusive checks are much more likely to be of that form. N (t/c) 13:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The log could display data as simple as the CheckUser user (not the username being checked) and a timestamp. This would allow evertyone to see how much certain users are accessing CheckUser. Users with CheckUser access would be able to see the full logs and make sure that the function wasn't being abused. Wider access to CheckUser means better oversight. Carbonite | Talk 13:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carbonite on this. The CheckUser log could say 15:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC): Titoxd accessed the IP database or something. Then, we can ask people why they did so. Tito xd (?!?) 15:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Including the ability to leave an "edit summary" here - as with blocking, for example - might be helpful, and forestall a lot of oversight questioning. Shimgray | talk | 18:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It should be noted that those signed up for the Toolserver and request for database access will have the same power to check a user's info by querying the database directly.  I think. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Eeeeek!!! Please check if this is the case! - David Gerard 13:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not currently the case. Right now the toolserver db isn't linked to the live databases at all. Once the link is established it will be via a special tool, not via replication, so we can filter what is provided. However, it is likely that some applications developed on the toolserver will require information that we would otherwise filter. Amusingly, users with toolserver access seeing the data would be in greater conformance with the privacy policy than what this proposal is proposing, since toolserver users could be seen as an extended community of developers. --Gmaxwell 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * i should note that this will never be the case. the only Wikimedia information which will be available via Toolserver is data which already exists in the public database dumps.  the server is entirely separate from the normal cluster and there is no kind of mutual access for any users.  kate.
 * 1) Something should be added to the policy about disclosure of the information. We could simply say "disclosure that X=Y is ok, but no disclosure of IPs is allowed", but too often it's obvious that "1.2.3.4=X" because he forgot to log in one time or another. Taw 17:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this accomplishes much, for example, if Y admited to being anon 1.2.3.4 earlier, than X=Y tells you X=1.2.3.4. Furthermore, for we've been telling people for some time if they want to edit without people using the spectrum of their edits to tie their pseudonym to a person to split their editing into multiple users by subject area. Allowing people to carelessly disclose such information will break peoples expected privacy. Also, just because two users have edited from the same IP doesn't mean they are the same user. In such cases the output of a sockcheck would do much to reveal the identy of the suspected sock to anyone else who has edited from the same IP.  Finally, the sockcheck tool only gives x=y, not x=1.2.3.4, already. :) --Gmaxwell 15:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support iff privacy policy is updated. Pakaran 01:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Post closure
Comments and votes made after the closure of the straw poll.

Support (post closure)

 * 1) Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 01:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutralitytalk 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) ClockworkSoul 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose (post closure)

 * 1) Oppose, just because I think there's always a developer on hand to ask, and that should only happen when there's a lot of evidence. So for now I'll have to concur with Gmaxwell. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I want to see more than a beauty contest for this kind of power. --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, this needs to be kept in the hands of very few people; say by special appointment only. Make it too easy and trolls in disguise will get their hands on it. — Davenbelle 11:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) After some thought I've decided to change my vote to oppose. I think we need to grant more trusted users with Checkuser permission, but I don't think  RfA style voting is the best way of selecting such users.  Popularity amongst administrators does not necesarily mean an administrator is necesarily trustworthy.  -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, secondarily because I agree that this power with potential off-Wiki consequences cannot be granted by a popularity contest, and primarily because it seems nobody is interested in implementing a publically visible log of checkuser usage. N (t/c) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - too many loopholes and unanswered questions at the moment I think. --HappyCamper 01:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Not convinced there are enough safeguards in place. --Maru (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose — sorry, but after the "fiasco" (as described on the mailing list), I'm convinced we're rushing too fast into deep waters. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose due to it being used for possible abuse methods, and also I see this proving more harm than useful. Zach (Sound Off) 02:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose not enough safegards. While it may be sensible to give more people this power those people should be chosen by the foundation (not by a by a popularity contest) and they should have a legal duty to protect privacy. Andreww 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Kwanyama dialect

Untitled
Please join efforts to make big article. --MissingLinks 14:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Mlewan 09:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)I'm all for merging the this page with Kuanyama. It's just a matter of spelling after all. Whoever makes the actual merge, please, make sure that there is a redirect from the deleted article entry to the merged one. I created Kuanyama only as I couldn't find Kwanyama. Both words should exist and point ot the same entry. I don't think there is any reason to wait with a merger, as Kuanyama is so recent. Just go ahead. And make sure that the Ndonga and Ovambo articles point correctly to the merged article.

It is done. Cattus 19:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Kwanyama wiki
The interwiki link was deleted today with the following comment:

"according to User:Kate on the mailing lists, the wikipedia in this name is closed, so no interwiki link there needed."

I know it was one of the least updated wikis ever, but which mailing list are we talking about? Mlewan 04:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kwanyama language template
If you are a native speaker of Kwanyama then you can help translate this template into your own language:

Edit

--Amazonien (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?
Why the language family goes down leaning to the right as the language more complex? 182.253.54.123 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kwanyama dialect


text:
Order of Nakhimov

The Order of Nakhimov (орден Нахимова) is a military decoration of the Russian Federation named in honour of Russian admiral Pavel Nakhimov (1802–1855) and bestowed to naval officers for outstanding military leadership. The order was established during World War II by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of March 3, 1944. Following the 1991 dissolution of the USSR, the Order of Nakhimov was retained unchanged by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation № 2424-1 of March 2, 1992 but it was not awarded in this form. The all encompassing Decree of the President of the Russian Federation № 1099 of September 7, 2010 that modernised and reorganised the entire Russian awards system away from its Soviet past amended the Order of Nakhimov to its present form, a ribbon mounted single class Order.

Soviet statute
From its establishment in 1944 until September 2010, the Order of Nakhimov was awarded in two classes to officers of the Navy for outstanding achievements in the development, implementation and prosecution of naval operations resulting in the successful repelling of an opponent's offensive or for active fleet operations that caused considerable damage to the enemy while conserving fleet assets.

The Order of Nakhimov 1st class was awarded to naval officers for:
 * cleverly planned and well executed operations coordinated with all naval forces in defensive positions, which led to the destruction and harassment of numerically superior enemy naval forces;
 * excellent management, bold and decisive leadership of individual actions of units and formations of the fleet engaged in naval battle or from coastal positions that led to the destruction of major enemy units, or caused it to fail to perform its tasks, while maintaining the combat readiness of its units or installations;
 * a well planned and successfully prosecuted anti amphibious operation which resulted in the enemy suffering great losses, lowering their combat effectiveness to the point of having to abandon the landing;
 * successful conduct of combat operations to ensure operation of the fleet at sea, their communication and defence of bases and coastlines;
 * well-organized and prosecuted naval operations protecting the flank of the Red Army's active operations and naval assaults of enemy held coastlines;

The Order of Nakhimov 2nd class was awarded to naval officers for:
 * skilled and courageous action and personal leadership in the defence of lines of communication, bases and coastlines, which led to the destruction of large enemy forces successfully repelling the attack;
 * well-organized and successfully conducted de mining operations off the enemy coast, which ensured fleet operations and led to the destruction of important enemy naval assets;
 * well-organized and successfully conducted mine laying operations in enemy waters and near its coastlines, which assisted in the active operation of the fleet;
 * displaying personal courage in the successful execution of combat missions which led to the destruction of enemy naval assets;
 * outstanding leadership of subordinates in battle that led to victory over a numerically superior enemy while maintaining combat effectiveness of naval assets;
 * skilful support of operations which resulted in a major military victory.

The Order of Nakhimov 1st class was worn on the right side of the chest and when in the presence of other Orders of the USSR, located immediately after the Order of Kutuzov 1st class. The Order 2nd class was also worn on the right side and located immediately after the Order of Kutuzov 2nd class.

Soviet and pre September 2010 award description
The Order of Nakhimov 1st class was of multi part construction consisting of a gold five pointed star displaying radiant rays, the bottom arm pointing straight down, a silver five pointed star with each arm ending in a naval sea anchor, its upper arm pointing straight up with the rays of the gold star protruding between its arms, a central gold medallion covered with dark enamel and the gold left profile relief image of the bust of admiral Nakhimov over two laurel branches at the center of the medallion, above the admiral's head along the medallion's upper circumference, the inscription in gilt letters "ADMIRAL NAKHIMOV" (АДМИРАЛ НАХИМОВ). The hammer and sickle bisected the laurel branches on the central medallion. Five triangular red rubies were affixed to the silver star, one on each arm pointing out from the central medallion's outer edge. On the reverse of the silver star, a threaded screw and a 33 mm in diameter nut arrangement for attachment to clothing. The maker's (mint) mark was located at the upper part of the gold star's reverse, the award serial number was hand etched in the lower part. The Order of Nakhimov 2nd class was of two part construction and made entirely of silver with red enamel in lieu of rubies.

The only noticeable difference between the Soviet and early Russian Federation variants was the abrogation of the hammer and sickle from the latter.

Soviet recipients (partial list)

The Order first class was awarded 82 times, including twice to naval units, such as the 1st torpedo-boat brigade of Sevastopol and the 1st Red Banner torpedo-boat brigade of the Baltic Fleet. The Order second class was awarded 469 times, including twice to naval units.

The individuals listed below were awarded the Soviet variant of the Order of Nakhimov 1st class:

The individuals listed below were awarded the Soviet variant of the Order of Nakhimov 2nd class:
 * Admiral Nikolay Mikhaylovich Kharlamov
 * Rear Admiral Ivan Isidorovich Nosenko
 * Admiral Stepan Grigorievich Kucherov
 * Admiral Filipp Sergeyevich Oktyabrskiy
 * Admiral Arseniy Grigoriyevich Golovko
 * Admiral Vladimir Filippovich Tributs
 * Admiral of the Fleet Ivan Matveyevich Kapitanets
 * Rear Admiral Ivan Dmitrievich Papanin
 * Admiral Yuri Aleksandrovich Panteleyev
 * Admiral Nikolai Nikolaevich Amel'ko (both classes)
 * Coastguard Colonel General Ivan Vasil'evich Rogov
 * Rear Admiral Aleksandr Petrovich Aleksandrov
 * Vice Admiral Aleksandr Grigor'evich Orlov
 * Admiral of the Fleet Simon Fyodorovich Zhavoronkov
 * Admiral Vitaliy Alexeevich Fokin
 * Vice Admiral Ilya Danilovich Kulishov
 * Vice-Admiral Nikolai Mikhailovich Kulakov
 * Vice-Admiral Yuri Fedorovich Rall
 * Vice-Admiral Georgy Andreyevich Stepanov

 * Admiral Vladimir Afanasyevich Kasatonov
 * Admiral of the Fleet Nikolai Dmitriyevich Sergeyev
 * Vice Admiral Grigori Ivanovich Shchedrin
 * Captain 1st grade Yaroslav Konstantinovich Iosseliani
 * Captain 3rd grade Yuri Konstantinovich Khlebnikov
 * Captain of naval aviation Dmitry Mitrofanovich Tatarenko
 * Vice Admiral Mikhail Petrovich Avgustinovich
 * Major of naval aviation Aleksandr Ermolaevich Gurgenidze
 * Rear Admiral Sergei Dmitrievich Zyuzin
 * Rear Admiral Maksim Petrovich Skriganov
 * Lieutenant Colonel of naval aviation Nikolai Alekseevich Musatov
 * Captain Lieutenant Athanasios Ivanovich Ivannikov
 * Rear Admiral Konstantin Konstantinovich Rodionov
 * Fleet Admiral Vladimir Afanas'evich Kasatonov
 * Captain 1st grade Nicholai Georgievich Tanskii

Statute of the modern award
The Order of Nakhimov is awarded to officers of the Navy for:
 * success in planning and conducting naval operations of combat formations (troops of naval infantry), which resulted in successfully repelling an enemy offensive by inflicting heavy losses;
 * having skilfully organized and conducted the operations of naval combat formations (troops) in cooperation with other services of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which resulted in the defeat of numerically superior enemy forces;
 * having skilfully organized and conducted a counterattack which resulted in the defeat of an enemy amphibious assault;
 * success in leadership of landings, for the successful execution of combat missions, displaying personal courage leading to the defeat of units of the enemy fleet, for destroying enemy shore facilities, for the disruption of enemy communications.

It may also be awarded to military units that participated in successful naval operations and to foreign citizens, soldiers of allied forces from among the officers who took part alongside soldiers of the Russian Federation in organizing and conducting successful joint operations of allied troops (forces).

The Order of Nakhimov is worn on the left side of the chest and when in the presence of other Orders and medals of the Russian Federation, is located immediately after the Order of Kutuzov.

Description of the modern award
The badge of the Order Nakhimov is a 40 mm wide blue enamelled silver cross pattée with a narrow raised edge superimposed over a four pointed star, the ruby enamelled rays of which protrude between the arms of the cross and end in the shape of naval sea anchors. In the center of the obverse, a blue enamelled silver bordered medallion bearing the left profile bust of Admiral Nakhimov over laurel branches. Along the medallion’s circumference over the image of the bust, the relief silver inscription “Admiral Nakhimov” («Aдмирал Нахимов»). The medallion is surrounded by a silver chain.

The Order Nakhimov is suspended to a standard Russian pentagonal mount by a ring through the suspension loop. The mount is covered by an overlapping 24 mm wide orange silk moiré ribbon with 1 mm wide black edge stripes and a 4 mm wide central black stripe.

title: Order of Nakhimov


text:
Johan Lange

Johan Martin Christian Lange (20 March 1818 – 3 April 1898) was a prominent Danish botanist.

He held the post of Librarian at the Botanical library of the University of Copenhagen from 1851 to 1858. He was Director of the Botanical Garden there from 1856 to 1876, the Reader of botany at the Danish Technical University from 1857 to 1862, and Reader of Botany at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University from 1858 to 1893, achieving full professor standing in 1892. He began editing the Flora Danica in 1858, and was its last editor. Together with Japetus Steenstrup, Johan Lange was the publisher of Flora Danica fasc. 44 (1858). Thereafter, he edited alone fasc. 45-51 (1861–83) and Supplement vols 2-3 (1865–74), in total 600 plates. After having finished the publication of Flora Danica, he issued Nomenclator Floræ Danicæ in 1887 - a volume indexing all planches in Flora Danica alphabetically, systematically and chronologically.

He travelled throughout Europe, completing extensive studies on the flora of Denmark, Greenland and other European countries, especially Spain. (Willkomm & Lange, Prodromus Florae Hispanicae, 1861–80).

He expanded on the classification developed by Linnaeus, writing Plantenavne og navngivningsregler (Plant-names and rules for name-giving) which was influential in developing the Code of Botanical Nomenclature, the system in use today.

Charles Darwin borrowed a book written by Lange, which he failed to return in a timely manner as mentioned by Darwin in his correspondence.

He is honoured in the naming of a fungal genus in 1891, Willkommlangea (jointly with Heinrich Moritz Willkomm (1821-1895), who was a German academic and botanist).

Partial list of publications

 * Icones plantarum sponte nascentium in regnis Daniae et Norvegiae, in ducatibus Slesvici et Holsatiae et in comitatibus Oldenburgi et Delmenhorstiae: (Pictures of the plants growing wild in the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, in the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, and in the principalities of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst)
 * Conspectus florae groenlandicae: Grønlands mosser (Muscineae) (Overview of the mosses of Greenland)
 * Conspectus florae groenlandicae: 1. Fanerogamer og karsporeplanter (Overview of the vascular plants of Greenland)
 * Conspectus florae groenlandicae: Tillæg til fanerogamerne og karsporeplanterne (Overview of the plants of Greenland, Supplement to vascular plants)
 * Flora Danica
 * Conspectus florae groenlandicae: 1. Fanerogamer og karsporeplanter (Overview of the vascular plants of Greenland)
 * Conspectus florae groenlandicae: Tillæg til fanerogamerne og karsporeplanterne (Overview of the plants of Greenland, Supplement to vascular plants)
 * Flora Danica
 * Flora Danica

title: Johan Lange


text:
User talk:Ronald Collinson

Hi Ron, Neil here (your predecessor).

We were wondering (David Jones and myself), whether debating has carried on, and, if so, how it's doing, as we can't seem to email your school address. Hope all is going well. Neil
 * Thanks for asking. It is, of course, continuing. As a matter of fact, Josh's extremely cynical but very effective marketing strategy ('Senior debating makes you look clever on your UCAS form'), combined with my highly noticeable posters (a cream background, with a maroon title and a nice big picture – they look rather like letters from school, and so appear important), have given us a membership of around forty.

 * The first meeting went rather badly, as some fools wrote their names on the attendance sheet in a rather offensive way, but this ended up being beneficial. The President has been empowered to close the meeting early should the debate become too rowdy (this power, I am happy to say, has not yet had to be employed). This has led to greater discipline and more interesting debates. The next four meetings went fantasticly well.

 * The sixth debate, next week, will be, "This House believes that the Conservative Party is a dying party." Josh, of course, is opposing, and I shall prepare a speech to deliver from the floor.

 * I'm not sure why you can't contact me on my school account. My main email address is ronaldwalterdavidcollinson@yahoo.co.uk (imaginative, no?)

 * Until then – good luck! Ronald Collinson 00:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ron! You're alive! And good to see you're on Wiki too! :) David 14:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

PS I've sent you an email or two. If they don't reach you (at your Yahoo! mailbox) tell me here. David 15:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Name pages
Hi, thanks for your good-faith addition to Hilary. Hillary Benn is already listed on the page about the name, Hilary (name). Hilary is a disambiguation page, i.e. a list of pages that people might intend to search for or link to with the single word Hilary/Hillary. It should therefore only list individuals if they are widely known by that name alone (cf. Elvis or Shakespeare). I hope this is helpful! Drop me a line any time if you'd like advice about contributing here, and I hope you enjoy it. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam Swift
Hi Ronald. Thank you for your addition of a biography  to  the Wikipdia. Under new policies, biographies of living persons must  be heavily  sourced, preferably  with  inline references for the cited claims. Swift is an important  British  acazdemic; if you  can, please add references as quickly  as possible to  avoid the article being  deleted. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Political realism
Hi, once you finish the Realism in political philosophy article, please help fix the links to Political realism per WP:FIXDABLINKS. This tool makes the job a lot easier (just focus on the ones under the "Political realism" redirect). Thanks! -- Ja Ga  talk 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've reverted your change for now. Feel free to put it back after you create the article (and hopefully clear up the dablinks). Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 05:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics in lists of politicians
Hi Ronald Collinson. Since you've edited one or more of List of current members of the British Privy Council, British Government frontbench and Official Opposition frontbench in the last six months, I'd like to invite you to a discussion about the use of honorifics in those lists. The discussion is happening here, and I look forward to a helpful and robust discussion. DBD 21:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ronald Collinson


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro-Brazilian

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Denelson83 07:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Afro-Brazilian
Was a redirect to Afro-Latin American and should remain so. Not notable concept, no evidence that people in Brazil refer to themselves and/or blacks with this term SqueakBox 14:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very valid wikipedia entry. "Afro-Brazilian" appears to be widely accepted and significant cultural concept for Brazil, especially in politics, music, dance, religion. "Afro-Brazilian" brings up over 315,000 hits on google and over 400 hits on Amazon.com. Many of these hits are non-trivial. Examples: there has been an Afro-Brazilian art exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum - see this link ; there are academic works using the term such as one on the role of Afro-Brazilians in Brazilian political history - link: ; there are workshops on Afro-Brazilian dance such as this one at Stanford University link: ; there are serious discussions and news reports on Afro-Brazilian religion: links:  Bwithh 15:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: disputes about page content, such as whether an article should be a redirect, do not belong on AFD. Speedy keep as wrong-forum nomination and move discussion to article's talk page. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether you can quote policy to back up your claim that this is not a valid Vfd, though I doubt it, but I am sure that there is no such thing as speedy keep, SqueakBox 16:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep is in fact a legitimate term (it generally indicates an invalid AFD that should be prematurely ended). However, issues of redirects frequently end up here, so let's settle it rather than moving the debate elsewhere.  — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as the afro brazilian people are so great in number of citzens and have a culture that difer from the spanish speaking countries of latin america. I think afro brazilians should have they own article and not make just a part of the afro latin america article. Of course the african brazilians make part of afro latin americans, and should make part of that article, but just a stub, and let a more complex text on his own article. I dont think is a good idea to delete the african brazlian article. and i think the article will be very improved and expanded. user:mateuszica 12 October 2005
 * Keep. Nearly 300,000 hits for Afro-Brazilian including references to religion Condomble, literature and culture see . Our article claims that there are up to 60 million people in Brazil who fall into this category. While this could do with a little cleanup and the provision of references, this article is in reasonable shape and in my view has Featured Article potential. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, not even the nominator wanted it deleted. btw, I don't think that it it should be redirected. --Apyule 06:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep not red. I learned about this term when Olga de Alaketu died, and it seems widespread in Brazil. Xoloz 14:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, afro-brasileiro (Afro-Brazilian) is a common word used by blacks in Brazil when they don't want to be called negros. PMLF 00:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I am now satisfied that this article should be kept. As I am not an admin I don't want to close it, but can an admin please do so, SqueakBox 16:54, 14 October 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: User talk:70.119.162.119

title: User talk:70.119.162.119


text: Talk:Pinewood derby

title: Talk:Pinewood derby


text:
Talk:Book collecting

Merge proposal
According to dictionaries bibliophilia is the most technical term for book collecting. The bibliophila article right now is no more than an unreferenced dictionary definition as far as I can tell. It should either be redirected here or this article should be moved over there.

Which title should actually house the article?

 * Oppose merge: The two terms, while closely related, are not synonymous. Not all bibliophiles are book collectors, and while one might assume that all book collectors are bibiliophiles, that's not necessarily true either. There are some who engage in collecting for reasons not always strictly bibliophilic--for research; because of love of a particular topic that encompasses, but is not limited to, books; in order to appear cultured; or for investment. I think the two topics should remain separate.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The View of a Book Collector
I have only just started collecting books and i now have quite a few (my aim is to build a small library of books with at least one for every mood i'm in) the reason is this, i find old books have a wonderful charm about them, their good quality print, their fantastic binding and that lovely smell, i dislike new books due to the poor quality production techniques (IE. cheap binding,awful glossy pages)

Expand history section
I cleaned up this artcile, and there is little info about modern book collecting. Would someone add it? Steve 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I cleaned up this article on 30 March, 2007, mostly by wikifying and making some structural changes. This article suffers from poor grammar POV issues, so anybody that is knowledgable on the subject please correct this.--'oac' (old american century) | Talk 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
A quick look suggests that the later portions of this article were copied directly from the Book-Collecting article in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at the Online Encyclopedia site: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/BLA_BOS/BOOKCASE.html. -- Mukrkrgsj 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 11th is out of copyright, so what does it matter? Twospoonfuls 11:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why the article includes the 1911 template, and you'll find the following statement at the bottom of the article: "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  12:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I submit that it's no longer necessary or appropriate to base this contemporary, online reference work, on the century-old perspectives of English scholars. Copying another's work is plagiarism, even if the work is not protected by copyright; and it should be obvious that we editors are not making much of a contribution, if we merely copy from other websites. There is also the question of whether the EB pages were copied from a source that claims to have copyrighted its particular version; see Versions of this public domain work claiming copyright, in this article: Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition

I plan to edit this article a bit, including deleting the rest of the copied EB text. Please join me in improving it. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely: Rebuild this article from the bottom up. It badly needs it. The EB11 material (and some of the rest, as well) is mostly tedious and unhelpful. I think, though, that your view of plagiarism is a bit black-and-white. The issues raised by the creation, ownership, and use of intellectual property are a lot more complicated and interesting than "If someone else wrote it, and we use it, then it's stealing". -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't, in fact, equate plagiarism with theft of intellectual property; but you're quite right, that "The issues raised by the creation, ownership, and use of intellectual property are ... complicated and interesting".

question
it was reccomended to me that I ask this question here as you might be able to give be a better answer. So I am. HS7 19:54, 28 April 2760 (UTC)
 * You might try www.abebooks.com Twospoonfuls 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * or www.abebooks.co.uk Johnbod 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Further reading needs cleanup
Someone familiar with this topic should "tighten up" the Further reading list, as many of the titles seem unnecessary to me. In particular, the thing that sent me to this talk page was the advertising-like sentence that starts, "Follow husband and wife team..." - dcljr (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese
Did the Chinese actually create books or something more like scrolls, lose pieces of written paper? If they did not create actual books then mention of the Chinese art of book collection is wrong. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern pastime
The section "History of Anglo-European book collecting" consisted entirely of original research. "A glance through what must be regarded as..." and "demonstrates nothing more..." is pure OR. "Even though rich Romans and Greeks collected papyri, these where almost exclusively scrolls". So books in the form of scrolls are not books? The following sentence was even more ludicrous: "the famous historian Jacques Auguste de Thou brought together the best books of their day, and put them into handsome leather jackets, for use and study, not as collectibles". So book a book collector is only a book collector if he does not read his books? The entire premise that book collecting is a modern pastime and that earlier book collectors just showed "a love of literature" was false so I have deleted the section as it has been fact and POV tagged since December 2007. The rest of the article probably still has traces of this kind of OR and could really use some citations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Prominent book collectors
The section Prominent book collectors is currently a list, but it has a tag for conversion to prose. It seems to me that the list is the right format, and the tag should be removed. Do other editors agree? if so, feel free to remove the tag.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 * It looks right to me but it's a rather extensive list that could be narrowed down. Some of the people in the list have no sources in their main articles that specify that they were an avid Book Collector. DrkBlueXG (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Book collecting. 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/20061016092333/http://www.alcuinsociety.com/index.html to http://www.alcuinsociety.com/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070526183001/http://www.aba.org.uk:80/bulletin/termsof.htm to http://www.aba.org.uk/bulletin/termsof.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Book collecting. 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/20100726183901/http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/small/collections/barrett/index.html to http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/small/collections/barrett/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aba.org.uk/bulletin/termsof.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Tautology?
The phrase "Book collecting is the collecting of books" isn't really a serviceable definition, because it's absolutely circular. Atomic putty? Rien! 13:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Book collecting


text:
Argenton

Argenton may refer to:
 * Places
 * Argenton, New South Wales, a suburb in the City of Lake Macquarie in New South Wales, Australia
 * Argenton, Lot-et-Garonne, a French commune in the Lot-et-Garonne department
 * Argenton-les-Vallées, a French commune in the Deux-Sèvres department
 * Argenton-l'Église, a French commune in the Deux-Sèvres department
 * Argenton-Château, a former commune of the Deux-Sèvres department, now part of Argenton-les-Vallées
 * Argenton-Notre-Dame, a French commune in the Mayenne department
 * Argenton-sur-Creuse, a French commune in the Indre department
 * Argenton (river), a river in western France

 * Surname
 * Alessandro Argenton (born 1937), Italian equestrian
 * Anésio Argenton (1931–2011), Brazilian cyclist

title: Argenton


text:
User:לערי ריינהארט/tests/bugzilla:00337

&rlm;
a&rlm;b generates:

ab

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E2%80%8F&action=edit

Note: In the statusbar of Firefox you will see only http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit - you will not see %E2%80%8F.

the page is now deleted
16:53, 12 October 2005 Ahoerstemeier deleted "" (content was: 'http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337#c19' (and the only contributor was 'Gangleri'))
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allpages&from=%E2%80%8F
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ahoerstemeier&page=

notes:
 * in the log page title is "" ; it should be %E2%80%8F
 * see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/%E2%80%8F

&lrm;
a&lrm;b generates:

ab

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E2%80%8E&action=edit

&#8234; &#8235; &#8236; &#8237; &#8238;
generates:
 * &a
 * &b
 * &c
 * &d
 * &e

 * &a
 * &b
 * &c
 * &d
 * &e

combinations
generates:
 * &f
 * &g

 * &f
 * &g

User:&rlm;
generates:
 * User:&rlm;
 * Special:Contributions/&rlm;

 * User:
 * Special:Contributions/

title: User:לערי ריינהארט/tests/bugzilla:00337