text:
Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 38

OK...
So I hope the agreement works. My two edits for the day are done: asserted notability in lead paragraph and touched up the disputed sentence. Marskell 12:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll use one of my 50-word daily talk posts and acknowledge your improvement; You messed up the link: remember, Marskell, when you delete {ref|Whatever.The.Heck}, you must also delete the corresponding {note|Whatever.The.Heck} , or else the numbering system will be off. Fixing this without "minor" edits will be hard, bu oh, well.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Now I know. And as G.I. Joe used to say, knowing is half the battle ;). Marskell 12:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 3 of 5. FuelWagon made four edits that were effectively one—the latter three removing links and a flag that had become redundant. Similarly, Gordon's correction of spacing isn't really a full edit so doesn't count. Thus, I figure you have one each left. Now, nobody can watch this minute-to-minute but let's stick to the spirit and note as I did at the top of this section what our two edits are. Marskell 14:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That was 2-of-5 below (the gordon rule), and I will use 3-0f-5 here to tentative support Wagon's version of the hospice detail; the motion doesn't use those exact words, so we'll have to accept his version for now; it's "acceptable," if not "superior."--GordonWattsDotCom 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, ~--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom <--~--GordonWattsDotCom 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Gordon Rule" on edit-count-itis
I see the discussion on the counting of edits; I will not complain about minor typo fixes to the same section; That will all count for one edit. I also support Marskell's suggestion that we try to stick to the spirit of things, and I suppose this is good: We might slip up as humans.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The GORDON RULE on edit-count-itis: If you make several edits to one paragraph (or even one whole section, including the notes to the references), that shall count as one edit in substance.

And, no, I don't intend to use this as an excuse to edit loads; I'm kind of tired right now, and even the angels have to sleep sometime. (I'm not claiming membership in that holy group, but anyhow...)--GordonWattsDotCom 15:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A thought regarding the compromise
I see that you all have hammered out an accord in my absence. Great job, that. However, I have a recommendation to make in the strongest possible terms: if you've agreed to make x number of edits in one day, then make no more than x number of edits per day. Period. The slippery slope that you're going to get into questioning the validity of each other's edits and saying that multiple edits only count as one because they were grammatical is going to be viewed as "gaming the system" as soon as something controverial pops up, as it invariably will. I can't emphasize enough how important I think this is.

Regardless, good job reaching enough of a compromise to unprotect the article. Remember to stay civil. I'll be watching this article and helping out Taxman and the rest of you as much as I can. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. When I proposed this and Gordon agreed FuelWagon wasn't fully in the loop so I was clarifying rather than questioning what he was up to. I suggested not marking any edit as minor to avoid gaming the system. I think this should followed. Marskell 17:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. You can't keep grouping edits and calling them all one. Edits are edits so plan them well--that was the whole point. The only thing I would add to Marskell's point is if the edit is minor, mark it as such, but it still counts as one of your two edits. - Taxman Talk 21:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * If I have to make a minor repair of a link, I think it shouldn't count as a 2nd edit, but I will tentatively agree so the "gaming of the system" factors are reduced; I'm responding here and below with Ed's comments; Are these replies 2-in-1 Ok for one edit? PS: I may not be available to edit everyday, but I am here in spirit. (Cleaning room & preparing for job search.) See below also.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Scorecard
"You can't tell the players without a scorecard".

I forget who's on which side on the major issues, so do me all a favor and weigh in. I'll make a table (which I recently got rather good at) summarizing this.

Was Terri's condition incurable?
 * Yes:
 * No:
 * Neutral/other:
 * I don't know; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No:
 * Neutral/other:
 * I don't know; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral/other:
 * I don't know; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This matters, because it has a bearing on the hospice thing and the custody issue. We care who gets custody, because if they think she's curable they'll put her into therapy and try to get her cured so she can relate to her loving family (okay, that should have been past tense). If she's not curable, let her go to a hospice and die slowly. Or even stop feeding her, and let her die already so she won't suffer. Or take her to Northern Europe and give her euthanasia.

The hospice thing seems to really depend on whether you think she was terminal. How dare they put her in a "home for the dying" if she's not really terminal? Or, if her conditional is terminal and untreatable, what's wrong with a hospice?

You see, the weakness of the article (although it's far and above one of the best treatments on-line anywhere) - I say, the weakness is that it does not explain the relationships between the key concepts.

I suggest we start with a chronology. This event happened, and this person did that, and some other person made a legal objection or gave a legal opinion. The whole dozen-year saga.

Then: analysis. The family's POV was this, and they argued that one thing led to another, and they wanted to try this and that. The husband (later, ex-husband) felt this way, but then he felt that way.

Public opinion was divided on the following issues... They biggest point of contention was (a) keep her alive or (b) let her die. Arguments for and against these two options.

You guys have been tap-dancing around these - or sometimes mud-wrestling over precise wordings. Just do the chronology and the analysis, then there won't be anything to fight over. Simply agree to disagree. Uncle Ed 21:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This grossly oversimplifies the problem of the article. First of all, there is almost no chronology that can be reported as simple fact and must be reported from various points of view. Was Terri curable can only be reported from teh various dozens of points of view. The only factual events that will be undisputed will be terri collapsed then, she was transferrd here, she was transferred there, she died. Most of the debate is over the subjective interpretation of the physical evidence. Terri collapsed. Was she strangled? Did she have bullimia? Michael ordered the feeding tube removed. Did he want to kill her off? Did he think that's what she would have wanted? Almost the entire history of dispute around this case revolves around the fact that we can't read someone else's mind and know with certainty what their subjective thoughts were. Terri's wishes are still disputed and must be reported from various points of view. The "relationship between the key concepts" can only be reported in terms of what the actual players said and did and then must be written in terms of fitting within an article and deciding whether something is notable or not. Anything else turns into "original research". Months ago, this article was little more than a reporting of some facts followed by huge swaths of editorializing on what those actions meant. Mostly using the language that the editors created. The article has made a lot of strides to reporting teh points fo views of teh people actually involved, rather than reporting the points of views of the various editors. FuelWagon 22:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with FW. While I appreciate Uncle Ed's intervention it just seems to be inviting controversy when half of my day (anyhow) was an attempt to get over spinning the wheels on talk and work on the article relatively harmoniously. I really have no desire to weigh in on "was Terri curable" and I suggest no one else weigh in either. This is 5-of-5 posts for me; I'm going to abide by my own attempt at mediation, stop editing, and make my two edits in good faith tomorrow. Marskell 22:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hospice&db=* says: "A program that provides palliative care and attends to the emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients at an inpatient facility or at the patient's home." -and- "a facility or program designed to provide a caring environment for supplying the physical and emotional needs of the terminally ill" --plus-- http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=hospice&action=Search+OMD says:

 * hospice
 * An institution that provides a centralised program of palliative and supportive services to dying persons and their families, in the form of physical, psychological, social, and spiritual care; such services are provided by an interdisciplinary team of professionals and volunteers who are available at home and in specialised inpatient settings.

 * Origin: L. Hospitium, hospitality, lodging, fr. Hospes, guest

 * Was Terri terminally ill? Probably not. Was she incurable? Well, we don't know (maybe she'd remain crippled/handicapped for the rest of her life -like many crippled citizens), but even people like Dr. Stephen Hawking, with "incurable diseases" should not be put to sleep -even if their illness is mental instead of a mere physical disability. I know it sounds harsh, but we are not savages -people will die soon enough, and furthermore, if they want to, they can generally kill themselves -or "will" themselves too ill to live -morbid, but true. Thou shalt not kill is still in effect, both here on earth (laws) and in Heaven; It was never repealled, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Memorial Edit
I have dropped one pic from the memorial section and also removed the wording of the headstone from the text. Detailing the words is IMHO a) redundant given a clearly legible pic, b) unencyclopedic (wiki not memorial), c) a touch unsettling. This isn't to disparage at all Gordon's work in gathering these pics or editing the section. Marskell 11:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Also:
 * 2-of-5 for today: I'm not offended by your edit here, Marskell; I think my version was pretty good, but you got the general message across; Increasing the image size was a good idea in your edit, but my edit has the advantage of having MORE non-Fair-Use photos in total, making the overall percentage of Fair Use photos smaller. The recent version looks OK, but my recent RfA and FA nominations have frazzled my brain, and I will have to leave you all to find the links relating to Patsw's concerns for now.--GordonWatts 06:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * (2 of 5) The agreement was partially broken yesterday and I was a little disappointed that it is already "cramping (Gordon's) style." I realize there is an issue with minors but let's follow Fernando Rizo's suggestion: 2 is 2 is 2. The whole point is to think before you edit; even if minors need to be done you should pause and decide what needs fixing and then do it all at once rather than repeatedly editing. Marskell 12:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It was reverted without explanation, so If my request to that editor to explain in talk goes unheaded, I'm going to revert. Unexplained reverts are useless. As to the agreement, Gordon didn't violate it, but FW clearly did. It was the first day or so, so I think we can cut a bit of slack, but after this I won't hesitate to block for 12-24 hours to enforce the agreement. That said, 2 article edits is too few, especially if we stick to a hard 1 revert per day. With that I think 5 edits a day would be reasonable, but still keep edits well thought out. For sake of clarity lets define a day for these purposes as a 24 hr calendar UTC day. You may want to set your preferences to a 0 UTC offset to make that easier. - Taxman Talk 12:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Post 1 of 5 today: Taxman's suggestions above are all wise; I agree with Marskell's conclusion that we should follow the edit limist STRICTLY, but underscore the fact we're all human.--GordonWatts 06:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit by Marskell because upon scanning recent changes, I noticed a massive removal of text and images along with an introduced spelling error, which appeared to be vandalism. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then please check the talk page and discuss there first. Ask before shooting gets us all farther. Thanks for explaining though. - Taxman Talk 19:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, considering how much vandalism I revert each day, that probably wouldn't work, however, I will endeavor to look closer at the diffs in the future. Nine times out of ten, content removal with the addition of spelling errors is blatant vandalism.  In this case, it wasn't, and I apologize for my mistake.  --Viriditas  | Talk 23:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it's five? I'll say OK but I suggest that it be completely absolute. If one of the editors in question makes a sixth edit, even if changing "a" to "an" they get blocked for 12 hours. Marskell 12:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it's 5, and it's absolute. I also don't think we need to wait for more agreement since we're expanding the agreement, not constricting it. 5 should allow for more flexibity in improving, but still force thought out edits. I also think we should allow each talk response to be 150-200 words, as 50 is too constricting to get a point accross or make a proposal. I will also stick to my stance that changing the meaning of a paragraph back to one's preferred version, even if not strictly a revert will count as one for the purposes of this agreement. I'm fully prepared to make the blocks and I'm sure others can step in if I'm not able to get to it. 12hrs first transgression, doubling each time thereafter. It's not that hard to stick to the agreement, so that should be reasonable. - Taxman Talk 19:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

We are not here to "debate" the issues surrounding Schiavo's death. Are we forgetting that? It seems Ed is. We're not here to canvass one another's opinions. Our opinions are worth nothing. Nothing! What we do is report the facts, sourced to reputable sources. We have to weigh the facts, yes, and not give undue weight to those that have no place here: that is where the conflict lies. Grace Note 23:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually I was hoping that if we each were "up front" about our respective POVs, we could more easily stop insisting that our own POV be regarded as "the only correct perspective". This has worked in other articles which I've mediated on.

 * I might actually have to jump in here as an editor. Or would you all like me back as a Mediator? Or should I just butt out?

 * Remember, our mutual goal is to create a balanced, unbiased article. Uncle Ed 01:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we have it handled for now. The article seems to have stabilized. if it ain't broke and all that... FuelWagon 02:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Ed, you talk a good game, that's true enough, but I don't think that our "biases" are being hidden! Your method seems to me a great deal too close to canvassing opinions with a view of making the article match them. I'm sure that isn't your intent but I don't think it helps to encourage some of the more volatile elements into thinking that if they can win a vote on the talkpage they can bias the article to their POV. Grace Note 02:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Trim
Four days, no problems, good stuff. I think the verbatim GAL report paragraphs should be summarized at about half the length. I can't think of another instance of cutting and pasting that much text. I'd do this but wanted to see if I'd be stepping on toes. Marskell 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the only way we seem to have resolved most of the disputes on this article was to quote the points of view of the people involved, rather than to let an editor say "such and such was true". The point of the quotations was to put in the point of view of teh guardian ad litem regarding various topics. The parts that are quoted state his point of view that: If you want to trim this, then you could turn teh verbatim quotes into paraphrasing with bits of quotes. He keeps referring to himself as "the GAL", and he's very thourough, but we probably don't need all the words that he uses. The above bullet list is definitely a lot shorter than the section in the article, so trimming is possible while still reporting the important bits. as long as teh above points are reported, it doesn't matter if we quote him verbatim or if we paraphrase most of it, and leave teh quotes for the parts that would be disputed, or parts that should probably defer to his words when he uses certain adjectives and otehr descriptors. The only other thing I was say is that if you completely paraphrase a paragraph, then it should be replaced with a page marker os that people can find where you got the information. the report is 40 pages long, I think, and trying to find something in there is a bit of work. Narrowing it down to a page helps a lot. Other than that, trim away. FuelWagon 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) he visited Terri and was unable to find any consistent response from Terri to show she was aware.
 * 2) he concludes that Terri was PVS with no likelyhood of improvement and that she could not take oral nutrition or hydration.
 * 3) He notes that Michael and the Schindler initially agreed on the PVS diagnosis, but notes that later, the Schindlers disputed the PVS diagnosis.
 * 4) He notes the Schindlers dispute they would keep Terri alive at all cost.
 * 5) He notes that there is nothing to substantiate any of the allegations that Michael was in it for the money or that he abused Terri.
 * 6) he concludes the trier of fact and evidence were firmly grounded in Florida law, which clearly and unequivocally allow for removal of artificial nutrition/hydration.
 * 7) he concludes the evidence regarding the diagnosis and the intent of teh parties to be clear and convincing.

 * First, exactly--if you can narrow it to seven bullet points then the article itself can be made shorter and more cogent. I do like the GAL report; my only real acquaintance with the issue before editing here was reading it (all of it! actually quite interesting) about five months ago now. It can be quoted well as a strict NPOV source. Anyhow, I'll chew over it again and see if your bullets can be appropriately incorporated without losing the flow (and of course accomodating any additional comments). Marskell 22:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, of course I'd agree to the 7 bullet points above if you cut and pasted them into the article... I wrote them. The question is whether anyone would dispute the paraphrasing I used. I don't, but someone else might. If you agree with the language I used, then that's two people, and should be enough that you could just try cutting and pasting it verbatim into the article. Then see if anyone disputes the language. FuelWagon 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Eating disorder rv
Early life quite clearly states she might have had an eating disorder. I made this change to keep the article self-consistent. Little evidence is inaccurate--circumstantial evidence yes (comments about odd eating habits and the sheer enormity of weight loss) and disputable medical evidence yes (potassium levels). The various news links from early life and initial medical crisis on the topic all state she had an eating disorder quite colourlessly. Marskell 12:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What's not in dispute is that years earlier she lost 60-80 pounds improving her general health. This is obvious from looking at photographs of her high school graduation.  She was maintaining her healthy weight at the time of her collapse.  The people who knew her best and ate with her the most (including Michael) denied that she had an eating disorder and specifically denied the so-called evidence given by one witness that she ran to the bathroom after every meal.  The evidence that she had an eating disorder always was very weak and since there was no characteristic scarring of the esophagas and stomach in the autopsy, it has since been ruled out.  Rather than being colorless, the agenda being pushed in those media accounts was that by not seeking help for her alleged eating disorder she was responsible for her own collapse. patsw 19:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you need to distinguish "evidence" in a medical sense from "evidence" in a more general sense, Marskell. You are inserting your change into a discussion of the autopsy, which found no evidence at all of an eating disorder and nothing much that was even suggestive of it. That there were rumours and a bit of this and that does not mean that anything was found at her autopsy! The evidence of the autopsy was conclusive and the examiner did make a conclusion. Suggesting otherwise is a plain error of fact. Please read the autopsy report before making the edit again. Grace Note 05:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

One small thing Grace: we have agreed to one revert per day, so edit rather than revert. I have changed "there is" to the "autopsy itself showed" so that it is clear.

Potassium levels half the normal range are not "weak evidence." Without potassium our heart does not beat and the main culprits in low potassium are water pills, laxative abuse or general malnutrition (to anticipate your objection—yes indeed, the report makes clear this could be a spurious result though I do believe "inconclusive" is still a fair word). This is not to say that it follows automatically there is an eating disorder. Eating disorders, like alcoholism, are the extreme edge of behavioural pattern that is present in a large number, even a majority, of people. We don't call dieting itself an eating disorder but people still need to be careful about how they diet. Marskell 08:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * AS I read it, Grace is taking a slight "Anti-Eating-Disorder" approach, and you are taking a more neutral approach; It is indeed inconclusive, as you say, but it is also true to say there is "little evidence" of an eating disorder. The two statements are similar shades of the nuance. I think the current version is OK, but you can add some professional opinions from doctors on the Internet if you can find them, quote them, and provide a link. Now, that "reference" system we're now using requires a "ref" in the text of the article and a "note" in the references section at the bottom. Got it? Good luck! PS: Ann, you did do a good job archiving, and even made a few "extra" sport for future archrivals. Cool .--GordonWatts 11:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * "Although it was widely speculated that Schiavo suffered from an eating disorder that caused a serious electrolyte disturbance, stopping her heart, the autoposy itself showed little evidence to support this claim." This would seem to be appropriate for the autopsy section. FuelWagon 15:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wagon, you were right after all: 4-3 not binding
"Rather than ask how to "enforce consensus" [1], the question should be what do you do with an editor who declares voting "open"...FuelWagon 18:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)"

 * "What if, say, another editor later added his vote, and claimed it was then 4-3, and enough editors kept voting?"

 * "Would the "concensus" change?" (Gordon's question)

 * "Isn't this covered under Wikipedia:No binding decisions? the iBook of the Revolution 03:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)"

 * "Wikipedia:No binding decisions?" Ah! That means my decision, vote, concensus, or whatever you want to call it, was not (permanantly) binding. I learn something new every day.--GordonWatts 12:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess you were right after all, Wagon -at least in the long run. (In the short run, my side won.) Now, you don't go getting a big-head or anything, OK?--GordonWatts 12:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No_binding_decisions

Wikipedia strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia. Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding.

It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing. New people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we didn't have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, whether they have been reached by poll or consensus. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back.

See also
 * Don't vote on everything
 * How to hold a consensus vote

--GordonWatts 12:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro change
I just cut about a third of the intro out. This is relatively dramatic but not unilateral. This point is specifically addressed in the current Featured Article vote and the general issue of length and too much minutae is the most consistent problem people are raising. Marskell 09:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Further, I have reduced the GAL entry by incorporating it rather than reproducing it verbatim. Nothing significant is lost. Marskell 09:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The good news is between us Gordon and I have knocked almost 10k off the article. However, you made 26 edits Gordon. I realize these were all an attempt to eliminate clutter and in your haste you were probably not thinking about the agreement to stick to five but part of the point was not to overwhelm others; 26 is nearly impossible to properly check (and also you are over-liberal in marking everything minor).
 * A few other things. I very much prefer "Schiavo" to "Terri." Last names are standard in any formal prose. Similarly, contractions are one way to eliminate clutter but I don't know if they are really appropriate. Marskell 17:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "The good news is between us Gordon and I have knocked almost 10k off the article" I reduced it from 84 to 79 Kb earlier, so maybe we each did 5 Kb, but I just whacked it down to 45 Kb, by a unilateral split; I did not change anything substantive except (maybe) using contractions and roman numerals (eg., "instead of "blah blah said Terri could not eat for two years blah blah" turns into "instead of "blah blah said Terri couldn't eat for 2 years blah blah"). This was my initial attempt to reduce size, and it did a little, but more than anything, it bought me time to do a bigger, but minor split, and the result should fix the last problem. It is a "Featured Article" in my book.--GordonWatts 18:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

agreement voided
Has the agreement to limit edits to 2 per day been rendered null and void? I find no explanation for Gordon's massive string of edits. He has marked them all as "minor", but the overall diff shows large sections of text has been removed. I can assume all in the name of finding the holy grail called featured article status. Also, the intro change has stripped out the court's point of view completely. The court found that Terri was PVS, with no chance of recovery, and that she would want life support discontinued. It was there before, and now its gone. FuelWagon 17:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

And how did we come to arrive at creating this Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case article? More bending over backwards to win featured article status? Shall we simply chop and hock the article and churn it until it gets featured article status? This is unbelievable. FuelWagon 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. These issues have been raised on the Feature Article page. Gordon should have sought consensus here before chopping what he did. We were, incrimentally, reducing things and there's no reason we couldn't have continued but he wants a Feature Article (which isn't going to happen on this vote). Two edits was raised to 5 by Taxman; Gordon feels it is not relevant as the previous edit war was over—I disagree. I very very strongly suggested he not mark these minor and try to reduce the overall volume. Marskell 18:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I made the intro change. It was redundant with the rest of the article and raised as an issue in the FA discussion; only comment since has been positive. Indeed I'd like to chop the intro in half again. Assert notability, summarize briefly, and then get down to business. Marskell 18:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well read Lead section again. That and some other guidelines call for about three full paragraphs. It should ideally summarize the whole article and topic well and explain why the topic is important. As for the rest of the article it needs to be properly summarized too with each topic covered appropriately in relation to it's importance. Moving out the detailed court coverage was good, but now some topics are out of balance and should be summarized similarly. The article fails to cover anything on impact or importance of the issue, at least in a clearly organized place. Gordon was out of line with his edits, and if people think it is worth blocking over because he broke the agreement, maybe we should. He wants a break anyway :). - Taxman Talk 18:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * "if people think it is worth blocking over" I'd say yes. I wouldn't have quibbled over it if they were really minor, but there is a huge swath of court history that was cut out of the article by his edits. A large amount of content was lost with the only benefit I can see of being making the article shorter. That plus he started a new article and made about 8 edits to that article alone. All of this, I'm sure in a frantic attempt to get FA status. I'm almost tempted to do a revert to just before this all started. FuelWagon 18:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well in order to uphold the agreement the major editors here agreed to I'll make the block. But only in the interest of being consistent. Gordon needs a break anyway. :) - Taxman Talk 15:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't support the new intro. The central issue is whether or not Terri was PVS, whether or not she had any chance of recovery, and whether or not she would have wanted to withdraw life support. This is key to the article. This is key to the whole story. It was also the topic of debate for two of the most important court battles around Terri. A lot of motions were filed, a lot of actions were attempted, but two cases that actually went all the way through and determined something were the one that found Terri had made reliable statements that she wouldn't want to be kept on life support, and the one where 5 doctors examined her and the courts ruled she was PVS with no hope of recovery. FuelWagon 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Gordon and his edits: I support a 24-hour block. He laid low and then hijacked the whole thing again. He needs to understand it isn't simply a matter of one revert war, but the degree to which he overwhelms this article and other people. Honestly, I support it.
 * The intro. I have read Lead Section and I stand by the change. I disagree about the "central issue." Aside from Schiavo's details, the only thing incumbent upon us to state in the intro is that the Florida Governor and eventually the U.S. congress became involved. It is this—not PVS or any individual court ruling—that makes Terri Schiavo notable and it is this that will remain salient over time. The debate over PVS is fascinating, but the fact that the legislature and executive very directly sought to circumvent and over-rule the judiciary is the "central issue."
 * That said! It doesn't have to be absolutely cursory. After: "Beginning in 1998 Schiavo’s husband Michael Schiavo and her parents Robert and Mary Schindler fought a series of court battles centering on Michael’s desire to remove the gastric feeding tube keeping Schiavo alive," I will add: "The court consistently agreed Schiavo was PVS and sided with Michael as to the legality of the feeding tube being removed." Fair? Marskell 22:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * "the only thing incumbent upon us to state in the intro is that the Florida Governor and eventually the U.S. congress became involved" What? That's like saying the only thing important about the Kennedy assassination is that there was an investigation afterwards. That doesn't make sense. Readers should get an overview of Terri, not some political grandstanding at the end. The central question about Terri was her medical condition, her chances for recovery, and whether she would have wanted life support withdrawn. While congress makes her notable, that doesn't mean that the intro should ignore Terri. FuelWagon 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon and his edits" – why not simply revert and then discuss it on the talk page. Generally, if we can avoid causing bad feeling, we should do so. The history of this talk page is full of examples of cases where blocks should have been given and weren't. I think it would be counterproductive to start blocking for something that isn't a violation of any Wikipedia policy, when so many extremely nasty attacks against Gordon on this talk page (and on others) were completely overlooked in May, June, and July. An edit with which you disagree can be simply undone. An edit which attacks and ridicules another editor can never be fully undone. (I don't want to provide a whole string of diffs, because it seems petty, but I can assure the editors who haven't been long on this page that Gordon has been subjected to attacks that go far beyond anything like violating an agreement about the number of edits, or cluttering a talk page with comments that weren't relevant.) Yes, I agree that he shouldn't have made so many edits, but it's a relatively harmless thing to do, and can be reverted. I see that he has just – apparently voluntarily – removed the links to his site. Gordon has had a rather hard time on Wikipedia lately. Give him a break, please. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * [this is talk posts 2 and 4 for today (my replacing of the template was #3), and #4 was a minor tweak to talk here] "Yes, I agree that he shouldn't have made so many edits" There was an overwhelming concensus to reduce article size, by whatever means necessary (in the Featured Article project page), and I further explain why I had forgotten the agreement here -right above the "Mr. Watts" post. "I see that he has just – apparently voluntarily – removed the links to his site." Correct, all but one. Additionally, Wagon has raised some other good points, but I have not been able to respond to them; I am overwhelmed with a backlog of other duties, and this is supposed to be my wiki-break. Give me a moment, and I will respond to his very good concerns. --GordonWatts 00:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition, I apologize for forgetting the 5 edits/ day agreement, but I had stopped editing (I had zero edits on some days -mainly from the 14th to the 19th) -and thus, I did not think I would be editing again. I misinterpreted Taxman's initial quote: here in the Revision as of 11:32, 13 September 2005 that "I'll agree to it, and 2 edits a day is probably too little if someone is actually improving, but we can expand that if the article is improving." Now, I also saw later where he said that five edits was the absolute maximum, but I had forgotten that -selective memory due to the fact that I thought that I would not ever need to edit the article again extensively (except for occasional typos) --so I forgot that. Sorry. I think that I never fully agreed to that, but I don't know. In any case, when the new situation developed (I was monkey-jumped with complaints of article length), then I reacted logically; I reduced the article size, and I did it little by little (by the inch, it's a cinch; My the mile, takes a while) --so I did not edit it all at once, because I didn't want to overload my poor brain, lol.
 * So, in short, the Featured Article consensus totally made me forget about any agreement here -since there were many more of them, and this page had become inactive -and the edit war over, some days with ZERO edits -so, you see, I did not try to "game the system."--GordonWatts 00:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wagon's concern re Copyrightvio template
Wagon asks this question here:

Revision as of 17:45, 23 September 2005 FuelWagon (Talk | contribs) the content of this article has been derived from all users who have contributed. why is GordonWatts called out specifically? Newer edit →

From this diff, one of the regulars on Jimbo's page told me of official policy when there are images used in an article. Indeed, Wikipedia emailed me back confirming this was legit:

Subject: Re: [Ticket#2005092010003755] To the Wikimedia PR department Date: 9/20/2005 12:12:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: permissions@wikimedia.org To: Gww1210@aol.com

Dear Gordon Watts,

Thank you. Your message has been archived and will be available by writing to this address should there be any questions.

Gww1210@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Wikipedia: Based on your request here, > _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_permission_ > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_permission), I am > giving you proof that some photographs used > in the _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_ > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo) article  really were taken by > me, and not snatched off of  > the Internet.

Therefore, I placed the template, to keep the wiki from having the daylights sued out of it.--GordonWatts 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sick of seeing your vanity stuff on and around this article Gordon. If someone sues wikipedia for copyright violations based on your photograph, they can easily be referred to the PR department or wherever there is a record that the photo is yours. Until then, I'm not having you advertise at the top of the talk page. People could sue for text violations as well, and we dont' have to put our names at the top of the talk page saying our text has been submitted by us. This is just more vanity stuff. FuelWagon 14:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 38


text:
File:Elrobl.jpg

Summary
www.elrob2006.org

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

title: File:Elrobl.jpg


text:
Talk:Owen Hart

Max Mini
Does anyone have any proof that Max Mini was supposed to be lowered to the ring with Owen? It has been said that the reason for the quick release rigging was for Owen to perform a prat fall into the ring. So if the plan was for Owen to fall (a relatively short distance), why would they have Owen (a 250 pound man) fall 10 feet (the reported height of the planned fall) onto a midget wrestler he was holding? But then again nothing about the event makes any sense.Ganley89416:10 11 September 2006 (EDT)

Ganley894 Hi there, To answer your question, Max Mini was never involved. Owen was 227 pounds not 250. I watched the Dark Side of the Ring documentary and his wife Martha said it was a sailing clipped used for mass that killed Owen by making him fall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingzwest (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Owen Hart WWE.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Owen Hart with Paul Billets.jpg

title: Talk:Owen Hart


text:
SoloTrek XFV

The SoloTrek XFV (Exo-skeletal Flying Vehicle) was a single-person VTOL aircraft. It was first flown in December 2001 by Millennium Jet Inc, a private company run by Michael Moshier. Millennium Jet subsequently changed its name to Trek Aerospace Inc. The SoloTrek pilot maintained a standing position and was propelled by two ducted fans located above and on either side of the user, leading some to class it as a type of backpack helicopter. It ran for around 2 hours on gasoline fuel. According to Michael Moshier, its inventor and designer, SoloTrek was capable of hovering for up to two hours, flying at 100 km/h and travelling more than 200 km.

One such model is featured in the 2003 movie Agent Cody Banks, though it is shown to be 'flying' only by the use of special effects. Early renderings of the SoloTrek were produced by Marc Ericksen, a Silicon Valley commercial artist and illustrator. Michael Moshier had commissioned Mark Ericksen to produce these renderings to help the company raise funding for the aircraft's development. Subsequently, the company was successful in receiving over $5 million of development funding from DARPA.

SoloTrek remains an extremely unusual design; to apply the name 'jet pack' is incorrect; the pilot was strapped into the exoskeleton frame which took the weight of the machine whilst landed, though it performed the same aim. In numerous trials at Trek Aerospace's facilities in Sunnyvale, California, the machine "appeared to perform perfectly".

During early flights, for safety reasons, the SoloTrek was 'tethered' to a crane during test flights, to prevent uncontrolled ascent or travel. The tethers were designed to retract during lift-off to avoid being sucked into the exposed ducted fans at the top of the machine, but during a flight shortly after a rain shower in December 2002, the tether failed to retract and became tangled in the propeller blades, which disintegrated. Pilot and machine dropped to the ground. The pilot walked away unharmed. Unable to stick to the tight development schedule that its backers demanded, Trek Aerospace lost funding, forcing reorganization in 2003.

After reorganization, Trek Aerospace extensively redesigned the aircraft, creating the Springtail EFV. This machine first flew in October 2003, and went on to successfully complete its DARPA contract in 2005.

Trek Aerospace continues to develop ducted fan vehicles.

The original SoloTrek XFV is on display at the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos, California.

title: SoloTrek XFV


text:
Knut Tørum

Knut Kjartan Tørum (born 16 August 1971) is a Norwegian football coach. He's a former manager for Moss FK, leading the team to the Tippeliga play-off's in 2005. He's also a former assistant coach for Stabæk Fotball.

In August 2006, Tørum (at the time the club's assistant coach) took over as substitute head-coach for Rosenborg after Per Mathias Høgmo took a two-month sick leave. His take-over was very successful starting with eight league wins in a row (a club record) and earned Tørum the title coach of the month for August and October 2006. Rosenborg stated that Høgmo would return to his job as the club's head coach after the season, despite Tørums success. Tørum led Rosenborg in the last rounds of the league, and secured Rosenborg the gold medals. On 31 October, Per Matias Høgmo decided to retire as football-coach and quit his job in Rosenborg, and Tørum was offered the job as new head-coach in Rosenborg BK which he took. Tørum was awarded coach of the year for 2006.

He was not able to gain the same success in the 2007 domestic season, but Rosenborg managed to qualify for the UEFA Champions League where the club impressed in the group stage with a 1-1 draw away against Chelsea FC and beating Valencia CF 2-0 twice. He resigned the day after the latter match against Valencia.

Tørum was appointed as head-coach of IK Start in December 2008. He resigned this position 22 June 2011, hours before a cup match against Strømsgodset IF. After leaving his job at Start, Tørum and his family wanted to stay in Kristiansand, and in December 2011 he got a non-football job in Kristiansand. In January 2013, he was appointed as Tor Ole Skullerud's assistant coach of the Norwegian under-21 team.

He has his education from the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences.

Honours

 * Norway
 * Tippeligaen: 2006

 * Individual
 * Tippeligaen Coach of the Month: August 2006, October 2006
 * Kniksen Award Coach of the Year: 2006

title: Knut Tørum


text:
Hair washing

Hair washing is the cosmetic act of keeping hair clean by washing it. To remove sebum from hair, some apply a surfactant, usually shampoo (sometimes soap) to their hair and lather the surfactant with water. The surfactant is rinsed out with water along with the dirt that it bonds to.

Furthermore, there are dry shampoos; powders that remove sebum from hair by soaking it up prior to being combed out. People often use dry shampoo if they would like to postpone their hair wash or simply to save time.

Hair wash and dry shampoo keep the hair healthy, add volume to the hair, remove dirt and odors, and remove oils from the scalp.

Hairdressing
Most hairdressers in Canada, US and Europe and Latin America, offer a hair wash as a service before or after a haircut. This is usually done to make the hair more manageable for the hairdresser performing the haircut. After a haircut, it can remove loose strands of hair. It is also a relaxing practice, and many clients enjoy a hair wash as part of a haircut.

Hairdressers use specialized basins to perform a hair wash; these can be either forward or backward style. In the backward version (the more common), the client sits in a chair, and leans their head back into a sink, with the hairdresser standing behind them. In the forward version, the client leans forward over a sink, and the hairdresser stands over them to wash their hair.

In some parts of the world, such as China, it is not uncommon to see what is referred to as an 'upright' shampoo. In this style, the client sits in a chair, while a hairdresser applies shampoo to their hair and adds water. They then rinse off into a basin.

title: Hair washing


text:
Manilyn Reynes

Manilyn Reynes Jimenez (born Manilyn Villamor Reynes on April 27, 1972), professionally known as Manilyn Reynes, is a multi-awarded Filipina actress, singer and television presenter. Regarded as a Philippine pop culture icon, Reynes was dubbed as Star of the New Decade. She has achieved mainstream success across film, music and television. She has received accolades from the FAMAS Awards, Awit Awards, and Metro Manila Film Festival.

Personal life
Reynes married Aljon Jimenez in 1996.

title: Manilyn Reynes


text:
Talk:Frenulum of clitoris

Clear
The article needs to make this clear:

Does it surround only the clitoral glans (the external part), or does it surrround the ENTIRE clitoris (most of which is internal)? Gringo300 11:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * From the research i've done, it appears that the frenulum clitoridis only surrounds the clitoral glans. Gringo300 01:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm hearing contradictory reports on this subject. I'm just downright confused now. Gringo300 21:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cutaneous fold
I'm under the impression that this is what is termed a "cutaneous fold". If so, it needs to be mentioned in the article. And there needs to be an article on cutaneous folds. Gringo300 06:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frenulum of clitoris


text:
European Land-Robot Trial

The European Land-Robot Trial (ELROB) is a European event which demonstrates the abilities of modern robots.

The ELROB is not a competition, like the US DARPA Grand Challenge, but a pure demonstration of what European robotics is able to achieve today. The scenarios are designed to simulate real world missions, be it military or civilian ones. There are no artificial constraints set to this scenarios to ease the task for the robots like e.g. very visible road markings. This forces the participating teams and systems to fulfil high requirements set by the real world scenarios.

The first ELROB in 2006 was organized by the German Federal Armed Forces and took place on the infantry training area near Hammelburg, 15–18 May 2006. The goal of the first trial was to boost the development of unmanned ground vehicles that could be used in military missions on short notice. The ELROB is an annual event and alternates between a military and a civilian focus each year.

European Robotics and the NATO Research Task Group "Military Applications for Multi-Robot Systems" came up with the idea for ELROB in the year 2004. European Robotics aims to bridge the gap between defence and security (D&S) users, industry and research in the field of ground robotics. The ELROB is a good opportunity to follow these goals.

Because ELROB is meant to be a European trial, only teams from Europe are allowed. But both teams of commercial and academic backgrounds are allowed.

Civilian ELROB
The civilian ELROB (short C-ELROB) takes place every two years alternating with the military version. It was initiated to allow teams, which are not interested in military missions or cooperation, to attend ELROB, too. Sadly, until today, there is no team that takes part only on the C-ELROB. On the other hand, of course, the defence companies are not that interested in the civilian ELROB. Therefore, the number of teams on C-ELROB is a bit lower than on M-ELROB and organisation is a bit less strict. Most teams do not see C-ELROB as competition or as demonstration, but as possibility to prove their own systems in a challenging field test and new surroundings. It is a great opportunity to learn new things about their robot systems and find new approaches.

ELROB is explicitly designed to shape the direction of R&D for the short and medium term and aims to fertilize the co-operation between research and SMEs.

From 2013 till 2015, instead of C-ELROB the newly created EURATHLON trial will take place, a robot competition supported by the European Commission in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

Scenarios
In general the scenarios should be mastered with maximum autonomy, although teleoperation is allowed. The location for the scenario is kept secret until short before the start of the trials and therefore the teams have no chance to generate a detailed map of the area (for example with laser range finders) ahead of their run. The location is described to the participants by GPS coordinates and aerial imagery.

Reconnaissance and Surveillance
The task in the "Reconnaissance and Surveillance" setting is to reach a given area and explore it. During the exploration special points of interest (normally marked) need to be detected and localized. The position of this points and a photograph should be given to the judges as results of the run. If possible, the robot should return to its starting position, when it finished exploring.

Autonomous Navigation
The aim of the "Autonomous Navigation" scenario is to follow a given route mostly autonomous. The route will be some kilometers in length. During the traversal of the route points of interest (usually marked) need to be found and localised. Again the position and a photograph of the points of interest need to be given to the judges as results of the run.

Camp Security
The "Camp Security" scenario requires the robots to guard a predefined area for the time of the scenario run. During the run (marked) intruders will be entering the area and need to be detected, tracked and pursued. An image of the intruder and its location while it was captured need to be given to the judges as result. Capturing means "drive near the intruder and stop", then the captured intruder will leave the area.

Transport Mule
The "Transport Mule" scenario simulates a shuttle service. The robot should install a shuttle service between two given points as autonomously as possible and shuttle between those points as often as possible during the time of its scenario run.

2007
C-ELROB 2007 took place in Monte Ceneri, Swiss (Canton Ticino), 13–16 August. The area of the trials was part of the truck test track of the Swiss army which meant very difficult ground for the vehicles.

With this ELROB the scenario "Autonomous Navigation" was integrated into ELROB for the first time. It was created on public demand to allow bigger vehicles to better show their abilities. Therefore, the track length of "Autonomous Navigation" was several kilometres. Additionally, there were three versions of the "Reconnaissance and Surveillance" setting. The first was in urban area which included intrusion of buildings. The second was placed in non urban area with higher requirements on the off-road mobility of the vehicles and the third one concentrated on the combination of UGVs and UAVs. All scenario run times were limited to 45 minutes.

The result of C-ELROB 2007 was, that there are some semi-autonomous assistance functions ready. Most vehicles managed to drive in difficult outdoor terrain, too. But some of the teams were surprised by reality and had severe problems with radio communication and battery power.

There were 14 participating teams in total. Nine of the teams came from Germany, two from Poland and one from Finland, Swiss and Portugal, respectively.

2009
The C-ELROB 2009 took place in Oulu, Finland, 15–17 June. The area of the trials was a former zoo and a part of a public forest near the University of Oulu.

The scenarios were very similar to the ones on the military ELROB 2008. This was due to public demand of the participants who requested more continuity in the scenarios to have the chance to catch up with the requirements of a scenario and not be confronted with different scenarios and requirements each year. Therefore, there were the "Reconnaissance and Surveillance", "Autonomous Navigation", "Camp Security" and "Transport Mule" scenarios. Additionally, all points of interest and the intruders in the "Camp Security" scenario were marked with ERICards, because computer vision was no focus of the trials. The run time of the scenarios was limited to 60 minutes.

ELROB 2009 was attended by ten teams. Seven teams came from Germany and one from France, Poland and Finland, each.

Military ELROB
The military ELROB (short M-ELROB) has a sharp focus on short-term realisable systems which are able to fulfil the requirements of common military tasks. Therefore, the scenarios simulate real world missions as close as possible which is reflected by the fact that members of the Bundeswehr are part of the organisation committee. The organisers do not place artificial constraints on the scenarios regardless of the abilities of the robots. One example was the very bad radio communication encountered during M-ELROB 2008, because most trials took place in the forest. M-ELROB is explicitly designed to assess current technology to solve real world problems at hand.

M-ELROB is a tool to bring together users, researchers and industry.

Scenarios
The scenarios of the M-ELROBs correspond to real military situations like Reconnaissance and Surveillance missions. In general the scenarios should be mastered with maximum autonomy, although teleoperation is allowed. The location for the scenario is kept secret until short before the start of the trials and therefore the teams have no chance to generate a detailed map of the area (for example with laser range finders) ahead of their run. The location is described to the participants by GPS coordinates and aerial imagery.

Reconnaissance and Surveillance
The task in the "Reconnaissance and Surveillance" setting is to reach a given area and explore it. During the exploration special points of interest (normally marked) need to be detected and localized. The position of this points and a photograph should be given to the judges as results of the run. If possible, the robot should return to its starting position, when it finished exploring.

Autonomous Navigation
The aim of the "Autonomous Navigation" scenario is to follow a given route mostly autonomous. The route will be some kilometers in length. During the traversal of the route points of interest (usually marked) need to be found and localised. Again the position and a photograph of the points of interest need to be given to the judges as results of the run.

Camp Security
The "Camp Security" scenario requires the robots to guard a predefined area for the time of the scenario run. During the run (marked) intruders will be entering the area and need to be detected, tracked and pursued. An image of the intruder and its location while it was captured need to be given to the judges as result. Capturing means "drive near the intruder and stop", then the captured intruder will leave the area.

Transport Convoy
The "Transport Convoy" mission requests at least two vehicles to be navigated, as fast as possible, to a target position which is several kilometres away. A payload of about 50 kg needs to be transported. At most one of the vehicles may be controlled by human, which may reduce the task for the robot to autonomously follow a vehicle. Of course two (or more) completely autonomously vehicles are better.

Transport Mule
The "Transport Mule" scenario simulates a shuttle service. The robot should install a shuttle service between two given points as autonomously as possible and shuttle between those points as often as possible during the time of its scenario run.

2006
The M-ELROB 2006 took place in Hammelburg on the training area of the infantry school of the German Forces, 15–18 May.

M-ELROB 2006 was the first ELROB and was utilized to paint a picture of the possibilities of modern robotics. The scenarios were concentrated on navigation. One was located in urban terrain which includes intrusion into buildings. The other scenario took place outdoors on a more challenging ground with mud and very steep slopes. Both scenarios fall into the category "Reconnaissance and Surveillance", although there were no points of interest that needed to be found. The time limit was 30 minutes.

The result of M-ELROB 2006 was disillusioning. Most of the teams had to fight hardware failures and all were remote controlled via WLAN. All in all 18 teams were participating, eleven German teams, three from the UK, two from Swiss and one from Portugal and France, each.

2008
Again, the M-ELROB 2008 took place in Hammelburg on the training area of the infantry school of the German Forces from 30 June till 3 July. But it took place on a different part of the training area which was more challenging and hindered radio communication because of the dense forest.

The scenarios were much more manifold than in 2006 and 2007. There were "Reconnaissance and Surveillance", "Autonomous Navigation", "Transport Convoy", "Transport Mule" and "Camp Security". This scenarios required very diverse abilities from the robot systems. Additionally one special session of the "Reconnaissance and Surveillance" scenario took place at night time, so vision systems were unusable. The run time limit was 60 minutes for a scenario run.

The results of ELROB 2008 showed that remote controlled UGVs are more or less ready for deployment, but the radio communication places severe constraints on the usability of such systems. With semi autonomous assistance functions, like e.g. waypoint navigation, the robot system is much more useful while encountering bad radio communication.

M-ELROB 2008 was attended by 17 teams. Eleven from Germany, two from the UK and one from Italy, the Netherlands, France and Finland, respectively.

2010
The military ELROB 2010 took place from June 17 to 20 2010 on the army training area near Hammelburg in Germany.

2012
The military ELROB 2012 took place from September 24 to 28 2012 on the training area of the Swiss Army near Thun in Switzerland.

title: European Land-Robot Trial


text:
Yekutiel Adam

Yekutiel "Kuti" Adam (יקותיאל "קותי" אדם; November 3, 1927 – June 10, 1982) was an Israeli general and former Deputy Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces.

Childhood and marriage
He was born in Tel Aviv to Yehuda and Elisheva Adam (formerly Adamov). He was named after his grandfather, Yekutiel Ravayev, who was killed in combat defending Petah Tikva from Arabs in 1916. His family were Mountain Jews from the Caucasus region.

In March, 1950, Adam married and built a house in Tel Aviv.

Career and education
At the age of 15, Yekutiel joined the Haganah. At 20, he became a commander.

On May 1, 1948, he was one of the commanders who captured the Arab village of Salame in the south of Tel Aviv. He later joined an elite Haganah unit that conducted raids into enemy territory.

At that time, he became an officer in the IDF, with the rank of lieutenant. Adam rose quickly through the ranks. In 1952, he became a captain in the Givati Brigade. He went on to command the Be'er Sheva bloc as a lieutenant colonel.

He went on to study in the war academy in France in 1964-66 and returned to assume the rank of colonel. In the Six-Day War, he served under Ariel Sharon, proving his worth. Following the war, he became commander of the Golani Brigade. The Golani Brigade was responsible for keeping the peace in the north during the War of Attrition. During this time, Adam was promoted to brigadier general and served as the vice commander of the IDF's Northern Command until the end of the Yom Kippur War.

In 1974, Adam was moved to the Sinai, where he became a major general and eventually went on to head the Southern Command.

He was the commander of the Operation Entebbe, the 1976 raid at Entebbe airport in Uganda.

In 1978, he went to the United States to study and returned to become the Deputy Chief of Staff, under Rafael Eitan, and head of the Directorate of Operations.

In 1982, Adam went to the United States again to study, this time in Berkeley. He came back to Israel after Prime Minister Menachem Begin announced Adam's appointment as head of the Mossad, in replacement of Yitzhak Hofi.

Death
He was killed in the 1982 Lebanon War before he could take up his post. On June 10 of that year, the fourth day of the war, Adam and a group of Israeli officers were commanding operations from an appropriated villa in Dawha near the town of Damour some 12 kilometers south of Beirut. When the area was shelled by enemy mortars, Adam and two other officers descended to the basement to take cover. A Palestinian fighter, who was hiding there, opened fire killing Adam and fatally wounding Col. Chaim Sela. Yekutiel Adam was deputy Chief of Staff and thus the highest ranking IDF officer ever to be killed in battle. The identity of Adam's killer was never clarified. Some sources identify him as a Palestinian minor. An IDF medic who served in an Israeli military prison during the war witnessed an officer point to a 15-year-old boy among a group of prisoners and said: "You see this boy? He murdered the late Yekutiel Adam".

Yekutiel Adam was buried in Kiryat Shaul cemetery, Tel Aviv.

Family and legacy
His son Udi Adam has followed in his father's footsteps becoming a Major General in the Israel Defense Forces and later was appointed chief of Northern Command.

A street was named after him in Ashkelon, and a main road in North Jerusalem. The Israeli Institute of Technology has named the Adam Yekutiel soil-machine laboratory after him. The IDF base called Adam Facility (Mitkan Adam), home to the Israeli Counter Terror School and other training facilities for Sayarot, shooting and sniping is named after Yekutiel Adam.

title: Yekutiel Adam


text:
ComNets

ComNets (Communication Networks), a chair of RWTH Aachen University, is a former university department in Germany working on Mobile Communications. Head of ComNets was Bernhard Walke. Research projects are mainly funded by third parties like national and European boards and communication industries. The research activities of about 40 fully employed research assistants are focused on design and further development as well as quantitative performance analysis of mobile communication systems like GPRS, TETRA, EDGE, UMTS, Next Generation, Dedicated Short Range Communication Systems, Hybrid Systems, Ad hoc and Multi-hop WLAN, HiperLAN/2, HiperMAN, mobile Satellite and High-Altitude Platforms. Stochastic simulation based on emulated protocol stacks and traffic theory are the main analysis methods. Essential results of ComNets' work have been incorporated into the standards ETSI-GPRS, CEN-DSRC, ETSI/HiperLAN/2, IEEE 802.11 e/h/s.

title: ComNets


text:
The Fox

The Fox may refer to:

Film

 * The Fox (1921 film), a silent Western starring Harry Carey
 * The Fox (1967 film), a Canadian drama directed by Mark Rydell

Albums

 * The Fox (Elton John album), 1981
 * The Fox (Harold Land album), 1960
 * The Fox (Urbie Green album), 1976
 * The Fox, a 1985 album by José Fors
 * The Fox, soundtrack album by Lalo Schifrin, 1968

Songs

 * "The Fox", an art song by Peter Warlock to a poem by Bruce Blunt, 1930
 * "The Fox" (folk song), a 15th-century folk song popular in modern bluegrass
 * "The Fox", a song from Steeleye Span's 1989 album Tempted and Tried
 * "The Fox", a song from Sleater-Kinney's 2005 album The Woods
 * "The Fox (What Does the Fox Say?)", a 2013 song and viral video made by the Norwegian duo Ylvis

People

 * Eric Carr (1950–1991), American musician
 * Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis (1922–1986), American jazz saxophonist
 * Malcolm Fairley (born 1952), British criminal
 * Sakae Oba (1914–1992), Japanese holdout on the island of Saipan, surrendered in December 1945
 * James F. Phillips (1930–2001), American environmental activist and schoolteacher
 * Fred Snowden (1936–1994), American collegiate basketball coach

Novels

 * The Fox (Forsyth novel), a 2018 novel by Frederick Forsyth
 * The Fox (novella), a 1922 novella by D. H. Lawrence
 * The Fox (Smith novel), a 2007 novel by Sherwood Smith

Others

 * T.H.E. Fox, an online comic of the 1980s and 1990s by Joe Ekaitis
 * The Fox (magazine), a 1970s conceptual art magazine
 * Volpone, a 1606 play by Ben Jonson, subtitled The Fox

Pubs

 * The Fox Goes Free, pub in Charlton, West Sussex, England, formerly The Fox
 * The Fox Inn, Hanwell, pub in London, England
 * The Fox, York, pub in Yorkshire, England

Other uses

 * The Fox: NGV Contemporary, a new art gallery, part of the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, Australia

title: The Fox


text:
User talk:Pebblewash

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Lectonar 11:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Manilyn Reynes
Please don't remove the "cleanup" template until the article is in good shape. At the moment it's still badly formatted, and the English is very poor. If you leave the template there, someone (me, if I get time) will do the required work. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've done the work (some polishing is still needed). Aside from the English, you'll see what I did. There's still a bit of a problem, in that Image:Once More album.gif is in the wrong format (we use JPEGs for photos); could you upload it again as a JPEG?  If you let me know, I can delete the old GIF file. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:ManilynReynes01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ManilynReynes01.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

Image copyright problem with Image:100th.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:100th.PNG. 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. 05:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Once More album.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Once More album.gif. 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 09:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Once More album.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Once More album.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Pebblewash! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Manilyn Reynes -

Proposed deletion of The 100th Bride (TV series)

The article The 100th Bride (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Not notable. Fails WP:GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pebblewash


text:
User:Oystergumbo

Hiya. I'm a thirty-something Canadian wage-slave that loves hockey, bicycles, politics, the internet, and about a million other things that happen to strike my fancy at the moment. I enjoy (!) researching topics in an effort to get as close to the absolute truth as possible.

title: User:Oystergumbo


text:
Monforte de Lemos

Monforte de Lemos is a town and municipality in northwestern Spain, in the province of Lugo, Galicia. It covers an area of 200 km2 and lies 62 km from Lugo. As of 2017 it had a population of 18,783.

Location
Monforte de Lemos is located in a valley between the rivers Miño and Sil. The river Cabe, a tributary of Sil, runs through the city. It is the core of the region known as Terra de Lemos and capital of the area known as Ribeira Sacra or Terras de Lemos.

Symbols
The coat of arms of Monforte de Lemos was approved after the mandatory report of the Heraldic Council of Galicia, the autonomous government, under Decree 166/2002 of April 25, 2002. The process sparked some initial controversy by contemplating the withdrawal of the Tau of Gules, a heraldic device associated, among others, to the Order of St. Anthony and St. Anton. It was traditionally used as an emblem of the town, finally being emblazoned, in response to this feature together with its historical strength and its relationship with the House of Lemos, as follows:

"Of Silver, a mountain of gold, added to the tower of the same, accompanied in the center of the head of a Tau of Gules and six azure bezants, on the flanks. At the ring, royal crown closed"

Paleolithic to the Romans
The area around the town has been inhabited since long before the Roman occupation, as testified by excavations of sites dating to the Bronze Age. The history of Monforte de Lemos goes back to the Paleolithic, and its first known inhabitants were the Oestrimnios. This period was called the "castrexa" or the culture of the forts, typical of the Celtic tribes. The tribe that populated Monforte was known as the Lemavi tribe, and the first written references to them date from the Roman historians Pliny the Elder and Strabo, between 600 and 900 BC. The Lemavi were centered on the hill of San Vicente. The word "Lemos," which also gives name to the region, known as Terra de Lemos, would be a voice of Celtic origin meaning "moist, fertile soil" and seems to connect with the root Galician word of "lama" or in English "mud." It is believed that during pre-history, Monforte, now a valley, was a large lagoon, and evidence of this is found in the hard red clay by digging a few feet into the floor of the city. Likewise, its river, el Cabe, was already known for its ferrous properties and much appreciated at the time of tempering swords of Celtic warriors, who came from all corners to take comfort with its excellent properties. The settlement of the Lemavis was the Castro Dactonium, whose actual location has long been disputed, although early medieval sources point to its likely location on San Vicente do Pino, the main town which was the origin of today's Monforte. "Dactonium, quod dicitur pinus" (Dactonio, which they call Pine), one of the documents states which supports this version. The theory has been recently reinforced by the discovery of remains of Castraña houses on the slopes of the mountains.

From the Romans, whose track has been demonstrated in the city, comes the word "Monforte", from the Latin "Mons-Fortis". Subsequently, the Suevi and the Visigoths left their own footprints. In the Swabian era, the lands of Lemos belonged largely to the Condado Pallarense (related to the place of Pallares in the civil parish of Baamorto).

Middle Ages to the Enlightenment
It is believed the town was destroyed in the 8th century by the Muslim invaders.

In the 12th century, the Count of Galicia granted the city to Fruela Díaz, of the House of Lemos, who had the town rebuilt over the ruins. Monforte thenceforth flourished as an agricultural market.

During the Middle Ages, a Benedictine community established on the Monastery of San Vicente del Pino. Numerous monasteries were built around the city in that period, in the zone known as Ribeira Sacra ("Sacred Shore"), including the area between the shores of the Sil and Miño rivers, where they also run through canyons.

Both the capital tower and the fortified city's walls were demolished during the Irmandiño revolt in the second half of 15th century. The rebels repressed by the Count of Lemos, the lord of the land, who  made them work to rebuild the castle.

In 1883 the town was reached by a railroad, which helped Monforte to take place as a trade and communication center, due to its position as Galicia's entrance by train.

During the Spanish Civil War, the republican mayor, Juan Tizón, escaped to Portugal, after trying to reorganize the resistance. His predecessor, major Rosendo Vila Fernandez, was killed by the rebels.

In the next decades the rail  station  was partially dismantled,  the communication center was moved to the city of Ourense, the train factories were removed, causing a period of   economic depression. Tourism business is one of the currently expanding activities in Monforte.

Main sights
Nosa Señora da Antiga's School, a monumental school and church in Herrerian style, is known as the "Galician Escorial". The square in front of it was known as Campo da Compañía ("The Society Square") when the building was occupied by the Society of Jesus, which managed the school until their expulsion order from Spain, after which the Piarists took it over. Inside the school's church is an altarpiece built by Francisco de Moure and finished by his son. Over the altarpiece is an empty piece of wood from which the Society of Jesus' symbol was erased, in order to clean every fingerprint they left on Spain. The school also houses a collection of pictures by artists such as El Greco and Andrea del Sarto. The monumental stair, featuring an apparent lack of physical support, is made from one marble piece, and supported on air by a game of strengths. The praying statue of Cardinal Rodrigo The Castro is placed over his grave, inside the church, and in front of an image of Nosa Señora da Antiga; recent works have found that the grave of Cardinal Rodrigo's mother is hidden behind the picture.

A railroad museum has been created in the old train factory for the purpose of maintaining and displaying old locomotives and rail cars (including an operating steam-driven locomotive).

Other important sights are:

 * Medieval castle
 * San Vicente do Pino's Church (14th-16th centuries)
 * Santa Maria's Church (17th century)
 * Santa Clara's Church (16th century)
 * Medieval city walls
 * Old bridge (16th century)
 * County palace
 * San Antonio's Square
 * Virgen's Square, in the medieval town, dedicated to the saint patron of the city, Our Lady of Montserrat
 * Spain's Square, downtown

Demography
From:INE Archiv

Notable people

 * Pedro Fernandez De Castro, Seventh count of Lemos
 * Cardinal Rodrigo de Castro
 * Pedro Antonio Fernández de Castro, 10th Count of Lemos

title: Monforte de Lemos