text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Assume good faith
1) Wikipedia editors as a part of Civility are expected to assume good faith, simply to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Clearly applicable, see Fred Bauder 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * The diff provided by Fred Bauder shows Researcher's undoubtly good faith. --Neigel von Teighen 20:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Researcher99's claims of expertise
1) claims to have "researched Polygamy for years".

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Editor claims to be an "expert" although this claim does not appear to be externally verified. Kelly Martin 01:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * It is irrelevant, I think either Researcher's statement is true or not. The important thing is the behaivor in the article edition and the evidence shows us that he acted with very good faith. --Neigel von Teighen 20:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So that I not duplicate my response to this question about my proven topical expertise, please see the subsection, Researcher99's claims of expertise, in the larger post I made yesterday to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Proposed_decision. - Researcher 16:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

Researcher99's scope of editing
2) 's editing at Wikipedia has been almost exclusively limited to Polygamy, discussion pages related to that page, and user talk pages.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Obsessive editing of a single topic can indicate someone who is editing Wikipedia to forward an agenda, but can also just be an expert who is attempting to share his expertise. Kelly Martin 01:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should not go overboard. However in this case we have an aggressive POV editor with an agenda, Christian polygamy, I suspect Fred Bauder 14:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * Kelly Martin is correct that I am simply here at Wikipedia to share my expertise in this topic. That is what makes this so hard for me to find the best way to deal with this arbitration and lay out the evidence the best way.  (I am still trying to find the best way to do that.)  I am at Wikipedia only to provide content on the polygamy related topics, but I have not been allowed due to the other party's Wikipedia-process-expertise in gaming the system to "run right over me."  Before the abuses became constant against me, I was not making all that many edits anyway.  Once the nonstop abuses began, I have not been allowed to successfully edit almost anything without being "run over" and denied being able to.  The repeated suggestion by the other party that I am only a "Christian Polygamy" editor of POV is a false straw man, intended to mislead the arbitrators into prejudicial biases before we even get started here.  I ask all arbitrators for patience with me and to reserve judgement about me from the other party's allegations until I am able to find the best way to answer and present all the issues necessary to understand the whole picture.  Researcher 20:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This latest (20:24, 7 November 2005) post here by Nereocystis is another example of one of the most maddening things that Nereocystis does to me. To deceive other readers, who lack having/knowing the full context of the overall story understood, Nereocystis's  very slickly clever words of the post "sound" like an ok statement. Yet, not only does Nereocystis not really believe or "welcome" what those words "sound" like they say, the reality is that it is Nereocystis who actually is one who is unable to work for NPOV or to accommodate or work with a non anti-polygamist like me.  They never sought to work together at all.  While I had offered a number of resolution proposals for both of us, Nereocystis never once did such a thing.  Instead, they gamed the Wikipedia process to bring us to this point.  They have sprinkled numerous amounts of this kind of fake statement to "sound" like they are being reasonable, while they are the ones purposely abusing me via their Wikipedia system process expertise, such as with such fake posts like this.  So this latest post is an another example of the clever lies that Nereocystis tells in abusing me, and why understanding the whole context of this case is so important.  (For more background information, please see: Polygamy Dispute Background.)   - Researcher 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia there are people that mostly edit articles related to one single topic, so Researcher shouldn't be accused to push a POV agenda if no diff is provided. --Neigel von Teighen 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A Christian polygamist editor would be welcome to the polygamy article, if the editor is willing to work with others in developing an NPOV article. Nereocystis 20:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * Researcher99 says that the suggestion that he is a "Christian Polygamy" POV editor is a straw man argument and that it is "intended to mislead the arbitrators into prejudical biases." However the same argument could be made against Researcher99 who has repeatedly made the accusation of "anti-polygamy POV" on the part of other users.  For example, when I endorsed Nereocystis' RfC on Researcher99, he tried to discredit my endorsement by saying that it was invalid "Because they [sic] are clearly an anti-polygamist, with intent on pushing that propaganda POV." . When Researcher99 made this accusation on the RfC, he had never once tried to talk to me on the Talk:Polygamy page, or on my user page, about my edits or comments on that page.  I think that he believes, because of his so-called expertise on the topic, that he is not subject to the same rules as everyone else.  He throws around the term "anti-polygamist" left and right with no attempt to discuss it with other editors, but expects people to ignore/accept his POV on the basis of his so-called "expertise". --Kewp (t) 13:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And, in the case that Researcher were a pseudo-expert, is to abuse him a solution? --Neigel von Teighen 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. Where has Researcher99 been abused? I have seen no credible evidence to that effect, beyond Researcher99's rantings, and your seemingly unquestioning support of him.--Kewp (t) 11:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
3. has taken the position that those who differ regarding editing of polygamy form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics".

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This finding is complicated somewhat by the activities of (and ) who while not involved in this case, were seen by Researcher99 as opponents. Fred Bauder 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * This is not a correct assessment of the position I have "taken." When scrolling down the page of the DIFF mentioned here, it shows that that May 16 evidence-piece was a follow-up to the previous evidence piece of May 7, The Ghostintheshell Situation.  As of May 16, I had been patiently waiting for any Admin to help as a result of the May 7 piece which had requested that the Wikipedia Guideline of restoring controversial articles to STATUS QUO be followed so that real TALK could then proceed.  But at that very same time, (as Ghostintheshell's history shows) just as Ghostintheshell stopped posting on May 11, Nereocystis had first "come back" to the polygamy article on the night before, May 10.  (Nereocystis had not posted as that username to the polygamy article since January until that time in May.)  Nereocystis was able to fully see the situation that the TALK page was under at that point, but ignored it and "ran right over me" anyway.  I was still patiently dealing with the situation with Ghostintheshell but   Nereocystis exploited that and just barged on ahead anyway.  Nereocystis took up where Ghostintheshell had left off, immediately attacking me and using the same exact same obfuscatory tactics and techniques as Ghostintheshell.   That is why I had pointed out how those two were being "sneaky vandals" in that May 16 piece as cited in the DIFF being mentioned here.  While I now believe they are both the same person, it is only Ghostintheshell and Nereocystis to who I had noted were "sneaky vandals."  Other people who appear to be open anti-polygamists without pretending to be "pro-polygamy," such as Kewp, are not viewed as "sneaky vandals" because their aggressive anti-polygamy appears open and they do not pretend to be "pro-polygamy."  There is nothing sneaky about it, even if it is a hostile POV.   A third classification of anti-polygamists are neither "sneaky vandals" nor outright hostile anti-polygamy activists.  Instead, they are simply willing to easily cast votes of opposition without ever really reading the evidence or getting that involved.  They're just biased toward anti-polygamy but not all that active about it.  There are important alert-signals that immediately point out when someone is being anti-polygamy.  Realizing that it would benefit the polygamy article to understand some of those alert signals, I tried to be helpdul by making another evidence-piece on May 27, "Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki."  That also provides DIFFs with both of Ghostintheshell's and Nereocystis's sneaky anti-polygamy acts while they were pretending to be "pro-polygamy."  So, it is honestly not correct to think that I consider every anti-polygamist as a "sneaky vandal," nor that I think "everyone" is.  On this Arbitration now,  Nereocystis has even gone so far as to flatter me as if I am somehow the owner of so many sites, in their never mentioned before agenda to sneakily try to get the sites removed by absurdly accusing me of link spam.  Trying to remove the most proven, media-credible sites, only further proves my point they are trying to accomplish "sneaky vandalism."  A person who says they "support the legalization of polygamy" does not turn around and then ridiculously call the most proven credible sites as "link spam."  Only an anti-polygamy agenda would do that, not  a "pro-polygamist."  That's why I had said that Nereocystis  is a "sneaky vandal."  They are clearly lying when they pretend to be "pro-polygamy" while trying to sneakily sabotage the polygamy article.  For these reasons, this is why I made this important clarification and ask that all arbitrators fully read through all the DIFFs in this post I have made right here.  Honestly, I only hope for a fair treatment and true NPOV, a true discussion after following Wikipedia Guidelines of starting from STATUS QUO in order to then TALK.  However, since this controversial topic is one that frequently involves a more-typically hysterical opposition of an uninformed super-majority in society, it has been very difficult to actually be able to be heard.  I hope that can change here in arbitration.  I am doing my best to properly communicate that and I hope I can effectively do so.  Please be patient with me.  I am trying.  Researcher 18:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate providing all those DIFFs, in their latest in this secton here, .  I am hopeful for the Arbitrators to read through every one, and to follow every DIFF provided in each one too.  There is no inconsistency in anything I have said.  I have only said that  is the sneaky vandal because they pretend to be "pro-polygamy" while they are provably an extremely active anti-polygamist, trying to sabotage the polygamy article with their hostile POV.  I have not called  a sneaky vandal because I believe their username has been open about being an anti-polygamist.  That is the difference.  In the end, I see them both as anti-polygamists, but only  falsely pretending that they "support the legalization of polygamy."  So, that then makes two anti-polygamists between them, but only one being a sneaky vandal about it.  As the DIFFs that 's post show, there is great reason for my wanting an investigation into whether they are sockpuppets.  Asking for an investigation is not the same thing as an accusation, though.  Even so, when I just recently learned about the sockpuppet concept for the first time last month,, I did notice a very interesting rule about it as I posted in that DIFF.   In that DIFF, I posted in part,
 * In Wikipedia's Arbitration Policy/Precedents, there is a section called, Sockpuppets (and related principles). While the other bulleted items in that section there were vey informative, I specifically found that the second and third bulleted items quite interesting.
 * "* For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."
 * "* 'Proxy' edits on behalf of a banned user, or that assist a user in violating an arbitration injunction, are not permitted."
 * Not only does that first item above appear as the second bulleted item in that section, but it also appears as the last sentence on the Sock puppet official policy page itself.
 * Because both and  have been posting as a unified anti-polygamous voice of attack against me in ways probably too odd to just be co-incidence, I have asked whether they might possibly be the same person.  Even if they are not the same person, I think they may very likely be in contact with each other personally anyway.  I have also asked for the possibility of their being the same person to be investigated, but that is not an attacking accusation.  After reading through all the DIFFs that  has just provided in their last post here, at, I also think that if such an investigation shows that they really are not the same person, then the above the quotes I discovered from the policy also indicate that Wikipedia policy may still require that they may need to be treated as a single person with sockpuppets anyway.  All I have done is ask.  Although  may not have intended it this way, I genuinely am thankful for their making it easier for me here by providing the DIFFs they provided.  I am working hard to make sure I can put together something in the right way here for the Arbitrators.  Having these DIFFS now provided for the arbitrators reduced some of that time for me, although there is so much more I am still compiling, in order to do it in the right way required. Researcher 20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The last version of the Anti-polygamy article, its TALK page, and the AfD, have been archived here. We are waiting for the official DIFFs to be restored for use here. I had first created the Anti-polygamy article on June 30, 2005. As the Anti-polygamy TALK page shows, only one day after I had created the Anti-polygamy article, Nereocystis made a 1 July 2005 17:16 post to its TALK page, saying it should be deleted.  They did that only one day after it was created.  In their 22:08, 7 November 2005 post in this section here, Nereocystis says, "Someone suggested deleting the anti-polygamy article."  That first person to suggest that was Nereocystis, only one day after I had created it.   Also, they had removed the link to the anti-polygamy article, calling NPOV as POV.  That absence of linking was used as the justification for the AfD when  the very suspcious Spatfield called for it.  Doing these things are not something that anyone who really "support(s) the legalization of polygamy" would ever do (as Nereocystis lied in saying they supposedly do).  These all show Nereocystis's act of sabotage, lie, and hostile anti-polygamy agenda and to abuse me directly. (For more information about anti-polygamists, please see: Polygamy Dispute Background.) - Researcher 00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * ADDITIONAL POST: Researcher 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC) - The post to this section here by Kewp on 07:24, 21 October 2005 falsely tries to distract their evident similarity with Nereocystis by pointing out to their overall histories.  That sleight of hand tries to hide the connection between key actions they have both taken in the polygamy related articles.  It is of course always possible that one being outwardly anti-polygamy (Kewp) and another pretending to be "pro-polygamy" but still being anti-polygamy (Nereocystis) would have the same hostile anti-polygamy agenda and POV together, even acting as possible sockpuppets in behavior on the polygamy related articles, if true.  For more specific context, here are four pairs of DIFFs which completely show the similarity of the hostile anti-polygamy activism of both Nereocystis and Kewp.
 * The "underage marriage" issue was pushed hard by Nereocystis's first polygamy edit on November 23, 2004 and by Kewp's first polygamy edit on August 22, 2005. They have made other posts pushing "underage marriage" propaganda.  More DIFFs from Nereocystis:, , , , .  More DIFFs from Kewp: ,
 * In addition to Nereocystis's numerous posts in their obsession with Tom Green (starting with Nereocystis's very first edit to the polygamy article), Kewp created the new Tom Green article on October 4, 2005. Nereocystis posted to it too.
 * Anti-polygamy links were sneaked in by Nereocystis here on May 19, and by Kewp here on August 21, 2005.  (This was just as what GhostintheShell did too on April 29, 2005.)
 * Both Nereocystis and Kewp told the same lie on two completely separate pages, both citing the identical DIFF (from my personal TALK page) as their supposed justification. Nereocystis, 20:25, 9 September 2005 on the polygamy TALK page and Kewp 07:07, 12 September 2005 on the RfC/Researcher TALK page both cited the same post from my TALK page, 19:14, 7 September 2005. However, after I had made that post they both cited, I had also made another later post at 20:05, 8 September 2005, outwardly declaring that I am seeking discussion with an AMA and am open to Mediation.  They both had tried to tell a lie that I supposedly "refused" to proceed to Mediation and they went to "run right over me," despite the fact that the DIFF they misrepresent to justify their lie was made after a post I had made on that same TALK page of mine proving otherwise.
 * As I explained in the This is About their attacking, abusing, and pushing a hostile Anti-polygamy POV section of my presented Evidence, three of the surest signs of an activist anti-polygamist are the following:
 * Focus on pushing the "underage marriage" issue.
 * Focus on the Tom Green case
 * Promoting anti-polygamy sites that are very limited in their scope
 * As the first three pairs of DIFFs above shows, Nereocystis and Kewp were identically obsessed with all three tell-tale signs of anti-polygamy agenda. As the fourth pair of DIFFs shows, they both told the same definite lie against me on two completely separate TALK pages, while citing the identical DIFF as their false justification.  Clearly, this is not about their deception to imply that they simply "differ" with me, or about the deception that I am somehow wrong to point out that they are both clearly hostile anti-polygamists.   As this post shows, despite their cleverness of trying to suggest that they do not have similar posting habits in general, both Nereocystis and Kewp absolutely do speak with the same voice and with the same posting agenda regarding their specific anti-polygamy POV and aggressive hostility against me. - Researcher 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather to discuss if Nereocystis = Kewp, I would really ask the ArbCom to find out if User:Nereocystis = . Please, I'm not accusing Nereocystis to use a sockpuppet, but only want to be sure so we don't make a false accusation (which I would never accept). --Neigel von Teighen 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not Spatfield. However, even if I were Spatfield, I don't think that would be relevant here. Someone suggested deleting the anti-polygamy article. There was a vote. If all of the voters were my sockpuppets, that would be a problem. Of course, I did try to take a high road by not voting on the anti-polygamy deletion. If the IP addresses of 2 users are different, that does not prove lack of sock-puppetry, since many people have access to more than 1 IP address. Nereocystis 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:
 * Researcher99 has repeatedly accused users "who differ regarding editing of polygamy form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics."   This is not just limited to the  incident.  Anyone who disagrees with him is accused of "ganging up" on him. In this diff, Researcher99 says "Nereocystis is ganging up with their anti-polygamist comrade Kewp."  Here ,  under the heading "Proof of Lies & Ganging Up against Researcher,"  Researcher99 says that he is being " being ganged up on" by Nereocystis and me, Kewp, in response to our separate posts about his post  comparing another user to a rapist and a terrorist.  In response to Researcher99's comment above  when he says that "it is only Ghostintheshell and Nereocystis to who I had noted were "sneaky vandals." Other people who appear to be open anti-polygamists without pretending to be "pro-polygamy," such as Kewp, are not viewed as "sneaky vandals" because their aggressive anti-polygamy appears open and they do not pretend to be "pro-polygamy." There is nothing sneaky about it" it is entirely disingenuous because Researcher99 has been saying for the last month that I was a sockpuppet of Nereocystis. On September 15, Researcher99 accuses me, Kewp, of being a sockpuppet of Nereocystis under the heading "Could it be that Nereocystis is Kewp?" in this diff .  He repeats this accusation here , here , here , and here  (This latest accusation on October 7). This suggests that Researcher99 often twists the facts to suit his current purposes, changing his story quite often to absolve himself of any wrongdoing. --Kewp (t) 08:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Nereocystis and I do not have similar editing habits. Our contributions show that our editing habits are quite different:  mine  and Nereocystis' . All the diffs show is that you have accused me and Nereocystis of being the same person and of "ganging up" against you, both baseless accusations.  --Kewp (t) 07:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

November 22, 2004 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=7831034
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

December 29, 2004 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=8917023
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

December 29, 2004 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=8930124
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

January 2, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9062689
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

January 3, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9087315
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

January 6, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9180822
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:
 * Sincerely, I don't know which is the ad hominem attack by Researcher from which writes Nereocystis. --Neigel von Teighen 21:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Researcher99's accusations of anti-polygamy rather than discussing the article are example of ad hominem attacks. Nereocystis 20:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

January 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9313495
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

January 13, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9334806
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

January 13, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9337581
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 10, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13529341
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 10, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13533775
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 10, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13537593
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13576046
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13576249
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13581007
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13615897
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13581124
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13581372
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13617991
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13641825
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13618140
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13618565
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13618596
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13674169
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13655501
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Sneaky vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolygamy&diff=13787188&oldid=13786169

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Ghostintheshell
, not involved in this case, edited Polygamy until May 10, 2005 and sometimes edited the article in a way which differed from Researcher99.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The cited edit seems to correct conflation of Mormon and Muslim practices, original research by Research99 Fred Bauder 14:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * After both were banned, Ghostintheshell, editing as the sockpuppet, attempted dialogue with Researcher99

 * Comment by parties:
 * When we both got banned, I had learned a new rule for the first time WP:3RR. My rv's had been trying to restore to STATUS QUO by the Guidelines to then TALK.   I learned a valuable lesson though.  So, I followed the rules and waited until the ban was lifted.  Obviously, Ghostintheshell was unwilling to follow the rules and created a new account anyway, .   The DIFF cited here is not the original DIFFs that started the edit war created by Ghostintheshell.  (Actually, twice, they had admitted that they would engage an edit war., ) During that situation, when I tried to accommodate and work with their edits in a WIN-WIN, they still refused, and only initiated the edit war.  To understand the chronology of events, I patiently laid out all the DIFFs when I made the May 7 edit piece, "The Ghostintheshell situation." .  Ghostintheshell was not knowledgeable enough to make any such correction accurately.  Ghostintheshell even made the absurd suggestion that there were not any Muslim polygamists in the West.  In that DIFF, please see the quote from me in the greyed area above that they are replying to. It shows how I was trying to gently accommodate them, but they would have none of it. Please also see my further proofs to them about Muslim polygamists in the West, , .  It should also be seen that, as I was preparing for a hopeful means of solution (even though Ghostintheshell would have none of it), an Admin Visorstuff confirmed that there really are Muslim polygamists in the Wets, just as I had been saying but as Ghostintheshell had been denying.   Honestly, Ghostintheshell used some of the most inflammatory and obfuscatory language while not really knowing that much about it.  When they broke the rules and created the TheRedandtheBlack account, they even admitted that they were "not particularly interested in any further research into polygamy."   It is issues like this that contribute to my belief that that whole matter with Ghostintheshell was a setup, to have me so attacked, tired, and pushed into an edit war I did not want, all as a preparation for Nereocystis who then took over with a new series of attacks against me.  Researcher 19:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

Researcher99's view of Ghostintheshell
Researcher99 wrote a detailed account regarding Ghostintheshell and the TheRedandtheBlack
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:
 * Reading that DIFF is totally essential to understanding what was going on when Nereocystis "returned" back to the polygamy article on May 10 and immediately started attacking me and subsequently proceeded on an editing rampage. Instead of being civil or working with me, they instead "smelled blood" from my exhaustion of the edit war I had never wanted, went on an editing rampage regardless of all that, and prevented me from making any further edits, fully rejecting my requests for the Wikipedia Guidelines to first restore to STATUS QUO so that TALK could begin.  I really need and ask all arbitrators to seriously read this cited DIFF and follow all its subsequent DIFFS too.  I am really not the bad person the attackers have falsely tried to imply about me with their excessive and even outrageous statements.  Researcher 19:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

How Polygamists Find More Spouses

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is what ignited the edit war Fred Bauder 17:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * I recognize it is a conflictive edit, but I don't see what is wrong with it. POV? I didn't find anything, from what I read. --Neigel von Teighen 21:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the most egregious example of Researcher99's pro-Christian polygamy POV, though there were other editing wars on polygamy before this. Nereocystis 22:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC). Unfortunately, Researcher99 was unwilling to discuss alternative wording to the Christian polygamy part of the edit. The war here took place on the talk page. I edited paragraphs of this section unrelated to Christian polygamy, which seemed less objectionable to Researcher99; though he may correct me on how much he objected to my changes. Nereocystis 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The reply here [made on 22:30, 7 November 2005) by Nereocystis is another example of their hostile anti-polygamy agenda. As explained in the Polygamy Dispute Background, they manufacture the "Christian polygamy POV" straw man distraction because it threatens their anti-polygamy agenda, not because of me or the post. They also use it to distract this discussion away from their abuse they did to me.  Researcher 23:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * After I have just looked even more deeply into this matter than before, I more than ever do not believe it is fully accurate to think that this DIFF initiated an "edit war."  Instead, it was a target for attack.  Here is what happened.  After Admin Visorstuff gave me specific recommendations to apply in their TALK post on 21:09, 28 January 2005, I carefully took the next five weeks to follow their guidance.  On 21:23, 7 March 2005, I posted the result of my work, this cited DIFF.  It appears that my work was apparently good enough that  this Notable Citation from Berkeley Journal of International Law was added 06:37, 19 April 2005, when the current version of the polygamy article was this 12:30, 31 March 2005 version.  I commented about it in a later TALK post, on 10:25, 28 April 2005.  About two weeks after I had posted that work, Ghostintheshell created their account.  As Ghostintheshell's complete posting history shows, their first post was on 06:14, 24 March 2005.  Their next few posts were on the Talk:Islam page.  They tried to push a POV that was not well-received there by the Muslim editors there.  Ghostintheshell was unreasonably hostile to both Christianity and to anything that addresses the issues of fundamentalist Muslim doctrinal issues of concern to the West. This can been seen by reading the conversation there, ending with Ghostintheshell's inflammatory last post there at Talk:Islam.  No one had anything more to say to Ghostintheshell after that last inflammatory Talk:Islam post.  It was obvious that Ghostintheshell does not really know as much about the Muslim issues as they were trying to advance.  However, Ghostintheshell never engaged in an edit war there at Talk:Islam.  However, once Ghostintheshell had established their account as supposedly "Muslim-biased" (or supposedly knowing about religions) with those initial posts, Ghostintheshell made their first edit to the polygamy article, on 13:01, 27 April 2005.  Ghostintheshell made a very bigoted POV edit.  A careful analysis of what Ghostintheshell deleted in that post is very revealing.  The specific softly-worded NPOV contents they deleted on the polygamy article would not likely have been accepted on the Islam article either, as this reply and this reply to Ghostintheshell on Talk:Islam show.  Not just that, but Ghostintheshell even made a Talk:polygamy post where they proved they did not know much about Muslim polygamy at all.  Ghostintheshell absurdly proclaimed that Muslim polygamy in the West is non-existent.  In their posts to both Talk:polygamy and Talk:Islam, Ghostintheshell also proved that they are hostile to anything Christian. Ghostintheshell also used very inflammatory language on both TALK pages.   So, when I tried to accomodate their inputs on the polygamy article or tried to reach out to them on the Talk:polygamy page, Ghostintheshell refused any accomodation and ignited their own self-declared edit war against me.  Later, as their third from last post ever, Ghostintheshell used the announcement method on the Talk:Islam page, trying to enlist help on the polygamy article where they had been battling their edit war against me.  (The announcement method is a Wikipedia process expert technique that was later used many different times by Nereocystis as a tactic against me.)  In that announcement method post on 19:15, 10 May 2005, Ghostintheshell admitted they do not know Muslim polygamy, polygamy, and that they are not even Muslim.  As Ghostintheshell had already lost acceptance as a legitimate Muslim editor, due to their past inflammatory posts on that Talk:Islam page, Ghostintheshell got no Muslim assistance from the attempted announcement method.  By seeing these facts, it is important to take a look again at that first edit that they they had made to the polygamy article.  The specific parts that  Ghostintheshell deleted in that first edit were very gentle and clearly NPOV.  Ghostintheshell's inflammatory and asburd claims that the section's content was "POV" were not correct at all.  As well, Ghostintheshell had been acting very bigoted and as a supposedly "offended Muslim" by the section's content when they later admitted that were not even Muslim at all.  This all demonstrates that my carefully-written section, "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" was not really what ignited any edit war.  Instead, it was only the target of a hostile attack.  Ghostintheshell's behavior, their surprisingly skillful use of Wikipedia (no newbie there), their lack of accurate topic knowledge, and their very short duration of posting history, all fulfill many of the items listed in the official policy section, Characteristics of sock puppets.  (That's why we have requested an investigation into that.)  The real issue was not my "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" post.   The false premise was only the straw man created in order to make the attack against the article, to immediately be followed by Nereocystis's "return" (to the polygamy article), making even more hostile series of attacks. - Researcher 19:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * ADDITIONAL POST: Researcher 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC) - The latest reply here (20:52, 8 November 2005) by Nereocystis is the admission that they picked up the attack from where Ghostintheshell left off.  It is always necessary to remember that it was only three hours after Ghostintheshell had posted, using the announcement method over on the Talk:Islam page and only one day before Ghostintheshell made their very last post on May 11, 2005,, that Nereocystis then made their very first post "back" on the Talk:polygamy page.  As  Ghostintheshell left, Nereocystis picked up right from where Ghostintheshell left off, as Nereocystis aggressively and very quickly barged forward to attack and overwhelm the polygamy article's situation.  It was clear.  I had called for STATUS QUO. That means a full stop, go back to STATUS QUO, and then start from there.  When a situation is in preparation for restoring to STATUS QUO, there is no legitimacy for creating or dealing with a myriad of newly manufactured "additional issues."  Any additional issues are discussed after the restoration of STATUS QUO, not before.  But Nereocystis ignored that and "ran right over me."  They rejected the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO, and just started overwhelming the article with numerous attack edits, and prevented my ability to let us start at STATUS QUO. So, they have always known that I was busy calling for the STATUS QUO in order to then TALK, instead of dealing with all their deliberately overwhelming number of attacks.  They know that also applies to their "other edits" they made to the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" section.  They know I opposed their "other edits."   They know that they had so consumed my time in abuses that I did not have time to address every little attack.  They also know that I had figured out that they made those "other edits" to the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" section with a specific targeted intent.  Picking up from Ghostintheshell's attack on the "Muslim" subsection, Nereocystis initially attacked the "Mormon" subsection.  The hostile edits they made were done so as to deliberately leave the "Christian Polygamy" remainder appear as a standout. With those preparatory attacks complete, they could then use that "standout" appearance as their justification to then come back and attack the "Christian Polygamy" subsection (because that was their anti-polygamists' intended target from the beginning).   On July 20 2005, Nereocystis even  declared that the Christian polygamy subsection was their intended target.   Within an hour after Nereocystis's  July 20 2005 admission, I also commented on how that section was so destroyed by "sneaky vandalisms" (those "other edits") that the "Christian polygamy" section was therefore having an appearance different than it would without the incremental sneaky-attack edits. Directly breaking their word to let another editor decide what they would do, Nereocystis then proved it much later that day by the aggressive action of adding the ridiculous NPOV tag in the Christian Polygamy subsection anyway.  There is no mistake here. Nereocystis has known and even admitted that they had overwhelmed the situation.  As proof, when the two of us were later discussing my Aug. 5, 2005, WIN-WIN proposal, Nereocystis  admitted on August 15, 2005, that they had created too many issues all at once, and that I could not address every "other issue" because of that.  They also know that I was always willing to TALK about content once we got the STATUS QUO restored as according to Wikipedia Guidelines, but their abuse prevents that.  So, when Nereocystis just made this latest reply here (20:52, 8 November 2005), they are consciously not telling the truth again. - Researcher 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:


text:
User talk:Moralis

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2024
--evrik (talk) May 22, 2024

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

title: User talk:Moralis


text:
User talk:Diabllo

Also known as Kurt, Double L, diablowho64, and D

Formerlly a hacker and working as Main administrator at Elite Forumz (eFz, link not provided for security reasons), he is a user you may find at three locations. GunBound, Softnyx.net, and GBGL-HQ.com.

He is also rank 17 in the world on GunBound, and is a very skilled Nak user.

Further, and darker things lie deep in his past, yes, even worse then hacking.. They have yet to be known by the public.

Vandalism
Please, do NOT add nonsense to articles. This is regarded as vandalism, and if repeated, it might result in a ban from Wikipedia. If you want to experiment, use the sandbox instead. bjelleklang 03:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User pages.
If you want to create a page about yourself, please do not do it in the main namespace. Do it here, in the user namespace. Thanks. Tom Lillis 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Diabllo


text:
× Sophrolaeliocattleya

× Sophrolaeliocattleya (from Sophronitis, Laelia and Cattleya, its parent genera) is a nothogenus of artificial intergeneric orchid hybrids. It is abbreviated as Slc. in the horticultural trade. As of 2008, × Sophrolaeliocattleya is defunct, with the genus Sophronitis having been merged into Cattleya.

Anatomy, morphology and habit
× Sophrolaeliocattleya often shows the influence of its Sophronitis parent strongly; its flowers tend to range through yellow-orange to red, they tend to be smaller, and the general habit of the plant tends to be comparatively compact, all characteristics shared with Sophronitis.

Etymology and taxonomic history
This nothogeneric epithet is derived by putting together the component genera: Sophronitis (combining form sophro-), Laelia (combining form laelio-) and Cattleya; it is capitalized and is not italicized because it is a nothogeneric epithet. By 1999, the component genera had been rather stable (with the exception of the discovery of new species) for many decades.

In 2000, many (if not most) of the species of Laelia which had been used in producing Slc. hybrids were moved into the genus Sophronitis. As a result, many greges which had been in × Sophrolaeliocattleya were moved into the nothogenus × Sophrocattleya, abbreviated Sc.

In 2008, the genus Sophronitis was merged into Cattleya, making the nothogenera × Sophrolaeliocattleya and × Sophrocattleya defunct. At the same time, several species of Cattleya which had been widely used in hybridization were moved into the new genus Guarianthe. As a result, greges which were once classified in × Sophrolaeliocattleya are now found in several genera and nothogenera:

Importance to humans
× Sophrolaeliocattleya and other Sophronitis hybrids are commonly crossed to produce a desirable orange or red bloom not generally present in Cattleya hybrids not involving Sophronitis, and the compact shape is well suited for artificial light gardens.

title: × Sophrolaeliocattleya


text:
User talk:Rahul meg

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Image licencing
Hi! An image: Image:SouthMumbai-BirdView.jpg uploaded by you is marked as PD (public domain). If you are the photographer, please explicitly mention this on the image page. Else, mention the permissions (email transcripts) granted for use on wikipedia. Remember, if the author forbids derivative & commercial use of the image, it cannot be used in wikipedia. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Misc airoli01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Misc airoli01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Naac.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Naac.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Kelly hi! 00:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Laxmi niwas palace entrance.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Laxmi niwas palace entrance.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:SouthMumbai-BirdView.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SouthMumbai-BirdView.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mahindra Navistar.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mahindra Navistar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:SV400589.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:SV400589.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rahul meg


text: User talk:82.33.202.13

title: User talk:82.33.202.13


text:
User talk:Jacrisp

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

title: User talk:Jacrisp


text: Category:Stevie Nicks albums

title: Category:Stevie Nicks albums


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Obsessional point of view
1) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes problematic.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) - added the "if it becomes problematic" phrase at the end; obsessional editing of a certain article is not per se cause for banning until and unless it has negative side effects.
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Raul. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy
2) What Wikipedia is not provides that Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda or advocacy.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Assume good faith
3) Wikipedia editors as a part of Civility are expected to assume good faith, simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Researcher99's claims of expertise
1) claims to have "researched Polygamy for years".

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Researcher99's scope of editing
2) 's editing at Wikipedia has been almost exclusively limited to Polygamy, discussion pages related to that page, and user talk pages.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Opponents
3) has taken the position that those who differ regarding editing of polygamy form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics" . See Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Workshop, especially comments by others.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Researcher99 banned from editing polygamy-related articles
1) Researcher99 is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to polygamy

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Enforcement by ban
1) Should edit any article which relates to Polygamy they may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After the 5th ban, the limit on the length of a ban shall increase to one year.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Motion to close
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

 * Everything has passed. →Raul654 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. James F. (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 02:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, close. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Close. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Spudman

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

title: User talk:Spudman


text:
User talk:Jumana~enwiki

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jumana~enwiki


text:
User talk:Anwaralameddin

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ceorge_Cantor_anwar_alam_eddin_mathematical_sky_triangle_1234567890001245697.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:Ceorge_Cantor_anwar_alam_eddin_mathematical_sky_triangle_1234567890001245697.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ceorge Cantor anwar alam eddin mathematical sky triangle 1234567890001245697.GIF listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Ceorge Cantor anwar alam eddin mathematical sky triangle 1234567890001245697.GIF, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Sherool (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"algebra"?
I'm surprised that anyone who link to algebra and expect it to link to an article about the concept of an algebra over a field or the like (as you did in comeasuring). Michael Hardy (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anwaralameddin


text:
User talk:Bucali~enwiki

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bucali~enwiki


text:
Bronzing

Bronzing is a process by which a bronze-like surface is applied to other materials (metallic or non-metallic). Some bronzing processes are merely simulated finishes (patinas) applied to existing metal surfaces, or coatings of powdered metal that give the appearance of a solid metal surface. In other cases, an actual layer of heavy copper is electroplated onto an object to produce a bronze-like surface. This electroplating is the method traditionally used for "bronzing" of baby shoes, but to electroplate a non-conductive item like a baby shoe, a conductive material must first be applied, then the copper plating is done.

title: Bronzing


text:
User talk:Hartigan~enwiki

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Trevor45342.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Trevor45342.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hartigan~enwiki


text:
Meiracyllium

Meiracyllium, abbreviated as Mrclm in horticultural trade, is a genus of orchids and the sole genus of the subtribe Meiracyllinae. The genus was erected by Heinrich Gustav Reichenbach. It is native to Mexico and Central America.

Species
At present (June 2014), two species are recognized:

title: Meiracyllium


text:
Textulariida

The Textulariida are an order of foraminifera that produce agglutinated shells or tests. An agglutinated test is one made of foreign particles glued together with an organic or calcareous cement to form an external shell on the outside of the organism. Commonly, the order had been made up of all species of Foraminifera with these types of shells, but genetic studies indicate these organisms do not form an evolutionary group, and several superfamilies in the order have been moved to the order Allogromiida. The remaining forms are sometimes divided into three orders: the Trochamminida and Lituolida, which have organic cement, and the Textulariida sensu stricto, which use a calcareous cement. All three orders or superfamilies are known as fossils from the Cambrian onwards.

title: Textulariida


text:
John Keay

John Stanley Melville Keay FRGS (born 1941) is a British historian, journalist, radio presenter and lecturer specialising in popular histories of India, the Far East and China, often with a particular focus on their colonisation and exploration by Europeans. In particular, he is widely seen as a pre-eminent historian of British India. He is known both for stylistic flair and meticulous research into archival primary sources, including centuries-old unpublished sources.

The author of some twenty-five books, he also writes regularly for a number of prominent publications in Britain and Asia. He began his career with The Economist. He has received several major honours including the Sir Percy Sykes Memorial Medal. In 2019, he received an honorary doctorate, presented by Princess Anne, from the University of the Highlands and Islands in Scotland.

The Economist has called him "a gifted non-academic historian", the Yorkshire Post has called him "one of our most outstanding historians", The Independent has called his writing "exquisite" and The Guardian has described his historical analysis as "forensic" and his writing as "restrained yet powerful". He is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. Keay lives in both Edinburgh and in Argyll in the West Highlands of Scotland and travels widely.

Life and career
John Keay was born on 18 September 1941 in Barnstaple, Devon, England, to parents of Scottish origin. His father Stanley Walter Keay (1902–72) was a master mariner and his mother Florence Jessie née Keeping (1905–92) was a housewife. He studied at Ampleforth College in Yorkshire before going on to read Modern History at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he earned high honours. Among his teachers at Oxford were the historian A. J. P. Taylor and the future playwright Alan Bennett. In 1965 he visited India for the first time. He went to Kashmir for a fortnight's trout-fishing and liked it so much that he returned the following year, this time for six months.

It was during his second stay in Kashmir that Keay decided upon writing as a career. From India, he sent unsolicited articles to many British magazines and newspapers and eventually joined the staff of The Economist (1965–71) and returned to India often as its political correspondent. He also started contributing stories to BBC Radio.

In 1971 he gave up his correspondent's job to write his first book, Into India, which was published in 1973. Keay followed it with two volumes about the European exploration of the Western Himalayas in the 19th century: When Men and Mountains Meet (1977) and The Gilgit Game (1979). These two books were later combined into a single-volume paperback by John Murray. Alexander Gardner (1785–1877), the American adventurer and mercenary employed by the Sikh Empire, who is featured in Keay's 1977 and 1979 books, is the sole focus of his book, The Tartan Turban: In Search of Alexander Gardner, released in 2017.

In the 1980s he worked for BBC Radio as a writer and presenter, and made several documentary series for BBC Radio 3. He also made programmes for BBC Radio 4. During this time he wrote India Discovered, the story of how British colonialists came to find out about the great artefacts of Indian culture and architecture.

Awards and recognition
John Keay's major books have all received strong positive reviews in leading publications in the UK, US, Asia and elsewhere. The professional recognition he has received has included the following:
 * Fellow (FRGS), Royal Geographical Society, UK.
 * Sir Percy Sykes Memorial Medal of the Royal Society for Asian Affairs, UK (2009).
 * Honorary Doctorate from the University of the Highlands and Islands, Scotland (2019).
 * Fellow, Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (2013–14).
 * Fellow, University of Dundee, Scotland (2010–12).

Family
His late first wife Julia Keay, née Atkins (1946–2011), was also a successful writer and historian. She was the daughter of the politician Humphrey Atkins. The historian Anna Keay (born 1974) is the daughter and second child of John and Julia Keay. John Keay also has three other children with Julia Keay: Alexander (born 1973), Nell (born 1977) and Samuel (born 1979). The architectural historian Simon Thurley is his son-in-law. In 2014 Keay married Amanda Douglas. Keay had an uncle who was an Indian Civil Service officer in British India.

title: John Keay


text:
User talk:Insomniduck

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Insomniduck


text:
User:Chocolatier

'''Disclaimer: No guarantee is given that this page will be accurate and up-to-date. In fact, I guarantee it will go without updates often.'''

 I am indebted to anyone who may have helped me while editing this wiki, with my formatting, grammer, style etc.

My name is Loran Davis and I am from the fantastically beautiful island of Newfoundland, which is part of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador (Labrador has its own page on wikipedia, check it out!).

Wikipedia can be complex and confusing, but I guess that goes with the territory when you're doing something of this scope - the world itself is complicated - and I think it all helps to lend an objectivity to the encyclopedia. It prevents people from becoming caught up in things that obscure the overall context - something about being able to see the forest for the trees.

Probably my most embarrassing "contribution" to this project was when I was a baby user (well I'm not entirely with the program even yet!) and I tried to create an article on a website my brother had created which was unfortunately not notable enough for Wikipedia; that's obvious to me now.

Miscellaneous
This user has the attention span of a flea. This user couldn't finish a book if he tried, but he loves them. Nothing like walking into an old library and smelling that old paper scent wafting up from the carpet.

More to come, so stay tuned, or clicked, or whatever! ;-)

LINKS

 * Mary Davis' Web Homestead **update**My Mom's NEW Site! I love her very much!

 * Internet Archive

 * Free audio books from librivox

 * Free electronic books

title: User:Chocolatier


text: Category:Reggae record labels

title: Category:Reggae record labels


text:
User talk:Northend101

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

title: User talk:Northend101


text:
Currency pair

A currency pair is the quotation of the relative value of a currency unit against the unit of another currency in the foreign exchange market. The currency that is used as the reference is called the counter currency, quote currency, or currency and the currency that is quoted in relation is called the base currency or transaction currency.

Currency pairs are generally written by concatenating the ISO currency codes (ISO 4217) of the base currency and the counter currency, and then separating the two codes with a slash. Alternatively the slash may be omitted, or replaced by either a dot or a dash. A widely traded currency pair is the relation of the euro against the US dollar, designated as EUR/USD. The quotation EUR/USD 1.2500 means that one euro is exchanged for 1.2500 US dollars. Here, EUR is the base currency and USD is the quote currency (counter currency). This means that 1 Euro can be exchangeable to 1.25 US Dollars.

The most traded currency pairs in the world are called the Majors. They involve the currencies euro, US dollar, Japanese yen, pound sterling, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, and the Swiss franc.

Syntax and quotation
Currency quotations use the abbreviations for currencies that are prescribed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in standard ISO 4217. The major currencies and their designation in the foreign exchange market are the US dollar (USD), Euro (EUR), Japanese yen (JPY), British pound (GBP), Australian dollar (AUD), Canadian dollar (CAD), and the Swiss franc (CHF).

As mentioned previously, the quotation EUR/USD 1.2500 (or EURUSD 1.2500) means that one euro is exchanged for 1.2500 US dollars. If the quote changes from EUR/USD 1.2500 (or EURUSD 1.2500) to 1.2510, the euro has increased in relative value by 10 pips (Percentage in point), because either the dollar buying strength has weakened or the euro has strengthened, or both. On the other hand, if the EUR/USD (or EURUSD) quote changes from 1.2500 to 1.2490 the euro has become relatively weaker than the dollar.

Base currency
The rules for formulating standard currency pair notations result from accepted priorities attributed to each currency.

From its inception in 1999 and as stipulated by the European Central Bank, the euro has first precedence as a base currency. Therefore, all currency pairs involving it should use it as their base, listed first. For example, the US dollar and euro exchange rate is identified as EUR/USD.

Although there is no standards-setting body or ruling organization, the established priority ranking of the major currencies is: Historically, this was established by a ranking according to the relative values of the currencies with respect to each other, but the introduction of the euro and other market factors have broken the original price rankings. For example, while historically Japanese yen would rank above Mexican peso, the quoting convention for these is now MXNJPY, i.e. Mexican peso has higher priority than Japanese yen.
 * 1) euro
 * 2) pound sterling
 * 3) Australian dollar
 * 4) United States dollar
 * 5) Canadian dollar
 * 6) Swiss franc
 * 7) Japanese yen

Other currencies (the Minors) are generally quoted against USD. Quotes against major currencies other than USD are referred to as currency crosses, or simply crosses. The most common crosses are EUR, JPY, and GBP crosses, but may be a major currency crossed with any other currency. The rates are almost universally derived, however, by taking the first currency's rate against the USD and multiplying/dividing by the second currency's rate against the USD.

Sometimes the term base currency may also refer to the functional currency of a bank or company, usually their domestic currency. For example, a British bank may use GBP as a base currency for accounting, because all profits and losses are converted to sterling. If a EUR/USD position is closed out with a profit in USD by a British bank, then the rate-to-base will be expressed as a GBP/USD rate. This ambiguity leads many market participants to use the expressions currency 1 (CCY1) and currency 2 (CCY2), where one unit of CCY1 equals the quoted number of units of CCY2.

The Majors
The most traded pairs of currencies in the world are called the Majors. They constitute the largest share of the foreign exchange market, about 85%, and therefore they exhibit high market liquidity.

The Majors are: EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/USD, AUD/USD, USD/CHF and USD/CAD.

Nicknames
In everyday foreign exchange market trading and news reporting, the currency pairs are often referred to by nicknames rather than their symbolic nomenclature. These are often reminiscent of national or geographic connotations. The GBP/USD pairing is known by traders as cable (also the cable), which has its origins from the time when a communications cable under the Atlantic Ocean synchronized the GBP/USD quote between the London and New York markets. GBP is also referred to by traders as quid. The following nicknames are common: "Swissy" or "Euro-Swissy" for EUR/CHF, Fiber for EUR/USD, Chunnel for EUR/GBP, Loonie and The Funds for USD/CAD, Aussie for AUD/USD, Gopher for USD/JPY, Guppy for GBP/JPY, Yuppy for EUR/JPY pairing. New innovations include Barney for USD/RUB and Betty for EUR/RUB after the fictional characters the Rubbles in The Flintstones. Nicknames vary between the trading centers in New York, London, and Tokyo.

Care should be taken with the use of Betty for EUR/RUB as, in London markets, Betty is used as Cockney Rhyming slang for cable (as in: Betty Grable = cable = GBP/USD).

Exotic pairs
Alongside forex major and minor pairs are the combination of pairs known as "exotic pairs". These pairs involve a major currency - like USD, EUR, GBP, or the JPY - alongside a thinly-traded currency that holds minimal trading volume within the foreign exchange market. Such pairs include EUR/TKY, USD/SGD, USD/HKD, and GBP/SEK, to name a few. Since trading volume is less present within these pairs, there is a lack of market depth, leading to wider spreads. As a result, these pairs become high risk to trade; hence, the term "exotic pairs". The high level of risk, unique trading opportunity, and increased volatility behind exotic pairs pushes most retail traders the opposite way; however, when traded by experienced traders within season, the trading of exotic pairs offers the potential for high returns. The high volatility of these pairs is due to the pairing of a strong major currency with a more developing and unstable currency.

Cross pairs
The currency pairs that do not involve USD are called cross currency pairs, such as GBP/JPY. Pairs that involve the euro are often called euro crosses, such as EUR/GBP.

Trading
Currencies are traded in fixed contract sizes, specifically called lot sizes, or multiples thereof. The standard lot size is 100,000 units. Many retail trading firms also offer 10,000-unit (mini lot) trading accounts and a few even 1,000-unit (micro lot).

The officially quoted rate is a spot price. In a trading market however, currencies are offered for sale at an offering price (the ask price), and traders looking to buy a position seek to do so at their bid price, which is always lower than the asking price. This price differential is known as the spread. For example, if the quotation of EUR/USD is 1.3607/1.3609, then the spread is US$0.0002, or 2 pips. In general, markets with high liquidity exhibit smaller spreads than less frequently traded markets.

The spread offered to a retail customer with an account at a brokerage firm, rather than a large international forex market maker, is larger and varies between brokerages. Brokerages typically increase the spread they receive from their market providers as compensation for their service to the end customer, rather than charge a transaction fee. A bureau de change usually has spreads that are even larger.

 * Example: consider EUR/USD currency pair traded at a quotation of 1.33

In the above case, someone buying 1 euro will have to pay US$1.33; conversely one selling 1 euro will receive US$1.33 (assuming no FX spread). Forex traders buy EUR/USD pair if they believe that the euro would increase in value relative to the US dollar, buying EUR/USD pair; this way is called going long on the pair; conversely, would sell EUR/USD pair, called going short on the pair, if they believe the value of the euro will go down relative to the US dollar. A pair is depicted only one way and never reversed for the purpose of a trade, but a buy or sell function is used at initiation of a trade. Buy a pair if bullish on the first position as compared to the second of the pair; conversely, sell if bearish on the first as compared to the second.

title: Currency pair


text:
User talk:Terryterry22

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

title: User talk:Terryterry22


text:
User talk:Hungsu88

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

title: User talk:Hungsu88