text:
Talk:Beatrix Potter

Potter local history and film
Beatrix Potter was born in "The Boltons", a street in Kensington. Just round the corner, on Brompton Road is a plaque showing coloured portraits of Peter Rabbit and Jemima Puddleduck. In 2005 it was announced that Rene Zellweger and Ewan McGregor would be playing the parts of Beatrix and Warne in a film version of Beatrix Potter's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.122.47.146 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Self-contradiction?
''She also became secretly engaged to the publisher, Norman Warne... He died before the engagement'' Could somebody please clarify/correct this? --Calair 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

She was cremated at Carleton Cemetery (under her married name) in Blackpool, but strangely no memorial was erected for her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.178.45 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

BBC News
It's interesting how this BBC News page has very similiar phrasing to this article... the phrase which grabbed me was "She found consolation in her menagerie of pet animals including frogs, newts and even a bat." (The WP stuff came first - the dateline is 8/Dec). Tompw (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

SQUIGS GHOST - However, if you read the references you will find that the phrase "She found consolation in her menagerie of pet animals including frogs, newts and even a bat." was sourced from a BBC article some 5 years earlier. Please feel free to click on reference 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.221.176 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

rating this article / getting it up to GA status
Hi--Anybody else interested in cleaning up this article, evaluating it, and bringing it up to GA status? I'm going to dig into the process a little bit. Thoughts from other regular editors of this article? --lquilter 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

 * We've got a rating of B, which is a good start. I'm going to list the "B" criteria and specific notes as a list of things to do to improve the article.

Other thoughts about specific things to improve the article? --lquilter 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference formatting (from Talk/Beatrix Potter/comment) Rated as B-Class, although it needs better formatting (e.g. the citations - you can use Template:cite news or Template:cite web), better lead per WP:LEAD, and better citing per WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES.--Yannismarou 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * B-class criteria - I take it, from looking at the B criteria below, that we need to flesh out the various subsections.
 * B-class criteria:
 * Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.
 * Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.
 * Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.
 * In particular, I think the literary biography is lacking;
 * Potter's later career and work as a conservationist could stand some fleshing out.
 * And her mother's name is missing.

William Heelis
It states that William Heelis was a local to the Lakes District. Does this mean she had known him during her visits as a child, like the movie indicates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.129.203 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The film commentary indicates that this was a fictional device. To their knowledge, Potter did not meet Heelis during her childhood visits. Swango 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Algae & Fungi
The text says they are part of the 'same family'. Surely not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Yeti (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Publication of Peter Rabbit
According to the OED, "Peter Rabbit" was first published privately by Potter herself in 1900. This ought perhaps to be recorded in the article. Captainbeefart 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

engaged to ...?
An editor made a change to long-standing text describing Potter as engaged to her publisher; the editor changed it to say that Potter was engaged to her publisher's son. (diff) I've reverted for now but we should have a source and verify. --lquilter 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Beatri xPotter "heirloom" pottery.
I'm surprised to not see any mention of the Beatrix Potter ceramics, which, in the UK in the 1950's at least, were possibly as popular as her books. Every child was given a set of Beatrix Potter crockery at birth, which was highly prized.--Richardb43 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was this common, perhaps it can sustain its own article. Can you propose a line of text to include about this, and find a reference about it that describes that this pottery was very prevalent? I don't think we want to include all sorts of licensed products like this, but if it was very wide-spread then it seems reasonable to consider it. --Lquilter (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 * "Every child was given a set of Beatrix Potter crockery at birth". Utter rubbish.  From personal experience, my family members born in the 50s were not given this, and I know of many other people born then who also were not.86.137.139.82 (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Which might be why it has never been added to the article! In fact, I suspect the pottery Richard is thinking about is the bunnykins set, which is derivative but is not Beatrix Potter at all.  --Slp1 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bit irrelevant now, but the original editor was thinking of this stuff which all my kids had as babies. The china merchandising is mentioned in the Peter Rabbit article - I would think that covers it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Norman Warne's Death
Other sources, like bpotter.com, say the cause was "a virulent form of leukemia." Is there a reference to justify the anemia cause? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.188.144 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also read in a different source that he passed as a result of lymphoid leukemia. I haven't found anything regarding the anemia death, other than the Wikipedia article for the same illness. Lord1023 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

His article says he died of leukemia but Beatrix's article says anemia. 209.179.41.20 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
For some reason this page gets weird attacks of vandalism. Does anyone have any clues why? Is there a way this page can be at least partially locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.16 (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this should definitely should be locked. Because Google has links to a search with this page as the first result, random people are trying to vandalize it. --70.19.155.178 (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

House(s) as museums?
One of my elementary school teachers said Potter's house (one of them, anyway) is a museum that can be toured. Anyone know anything about this? The article mentioned nothing. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency about the bequest to the National Trust
There is an inconsistency between what the summary says about Beatrix Potter's bequest of her property to the National Trust and what the main article says. The summary says that she left all her property to William Heelis who then left it to the National Trust, The main article says that she left it to the National Trust in her will. Only one of these statements can be true. A possibility is that she left the properties to the National Trust with some sort of codicil that allowed William Heelis to live on and manage the properties until his death.

Supposed influence of Joel Chandler Harris
"Much of Potter's stories' vocabulary and artistic practice stemmed from Joel Chandler Harris's Uncle Remus stories."

Where is the evidence for this assertion? Apart from the fact that both wrote about animal characters including rabbits, and they clearly shared ancestors in Aesop and La Fontaine, there is little in common between the two writers. Harris delights in reproducing the rhythms of the spoken word, while Potter's style, though apparently simple, is literary and often achieves a classical balance in the sentences. Harris celebrates the folklore of the Southern USA of his time, while Potter portrays an idealised pre-industrial English landscape and presents a mix of traditional stories (eg town mouse/country mouse) and her own invented fables.

I have not edited this statement as there may be a reference somewhere to demonstrate that Potter was influenced by Harris - though I cannot remember any in the various works by Margaret Lane, the foremost expert on Potter - but the statement should be substantiated. In any case I do not believe one can fairly state that 'much of her vocabulary and artistic practice stemmed from' Harris's work. If anything, one could say that like Harris, she recycled material from La Fontaine and hence from Aesop.

It seems very likely that the success of Potter's books in the USA was due to many American readers being familiar with 'animal stories' from reading Uncle Remus, but that is a different matter. Zephirine (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I now think the source of this assertion may be John Goldthwaite's somewhat opinionated take on children's literature The Natural History of Make Believe. If anyone can provide the reference perhaps they would kindly do so? If not, I propose to edit the sentence.Zephirine (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for questioning this; I didn't add the material, but it looks like the source is possibly a book about Potter by Ruth K. MacDonald; see this google book snippet view for the original reference. --Slp1 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for the link - Macdonald seems to make a more moderate statement. I think the source was probably Goldthwaite who makes exaggerated claims for the influence of Uncle Remus. I've now found another reference to some illustrations Potter did for the Uncle Remus stories, so that proves she did know and like them. But the same book shows a number of other influences. I've re-worked the sentence to be a bit less of a sweeping statement, and put in the ref to the book I've read - should probably ref to the MacDonald book too? Zephirine (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More emphasis/new section on Potter as artist?
Should there be more on Potter the artist? She was a gifted painter and exceptional among children's writers at the time (as far as I know) in illustrating her own books and doing it so well. At present we have one sentence "Part of the popularity of her books was due to the quality of her illustrations" - should this be expanded?Zephirine (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any Connection Between Beatrix Potter and Harry Potter?
Since both Beatrix Potter and J. K. Rawling, author of the Harry Potter series, are from England, is it possible that Harry Potter was named in honor of Beatrix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.242.2 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and Josaiah Wedgewood the Potter also came from England, and there are 100,000 Potters in the English Phone Book, and...... In short, no.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC adaptation(s) of books
I just rented some BBC adaptation of the Peter Rabbit tales from the video shop. It seems that this is missing from the Wikipedia entry. I am not sure of the exact details (and I'm actually confused as to whether the books have been adapted twice as there seems to be a different set of DVD's available on amazon produced in 2008; the one's I rented seems to have been produced in the 1980's) but it would be great if this could be added to the entry. Thank you. PS: the BBC did a great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeleida (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like The Tale of Peter Rabbit. As far as I know, this is the only animated adaption of the tales. Likely, they have just been released in several different editions of DVDs. The mention of it in this article was removed back in December. I'm not sure why. Siawase (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Frederick Warne & Co.65.184.65.165 (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

References needed
I added the refimprove tag to the article as it needs more citations to reliable sources. The article is rated C class currently, and if it is to be improved to B or GA or FA, it will need more refs (in its current state it, the lack of reference would be a quick fail at both WP:GAN and WP:FAC).

The lead does not need refs, as it is a summary of the whole article, so the refs should be there (Plot in works of fiction is also assumed to be based on the work itself and does not need refs). My rule of thumb is that in the body of the article at least every paragraph needs a ref. If several sentences are based on one part of a source, then they do not need to each be referenced (they can all be Jones, pp. 24-32 or whatever after the last sentence in the set). However, if there are direct quotations in several sentences in a row, they should each be cited, and if several sentences in a row are each dependent on a different source (or part) then each should be cited. If a ref is followed by one or more uncited sentences, they need ref(s) too.

The Story of Miss Moppet is an article on one of Potter's works which is a FA here. It has 54 footnotes (this has 10 currently) which are cited about 71 times. Except for the lead and plot, every paragraph has a ref, and many have multiple refs as needed.

Looking at this article and its refs, there are two works by Lear, so the work needs to be indicated (by year). Internet refs need URL, publisher, date accessed, and if known, author, date created or updated, etc. All sources also have to be reliable - IMDb is often not seen a RS, and I am not sure what makes ref 10 (^ "Cottage Tales". Susan Wittig Albert. Retrieved 13 June 2010.) a reliable source.

Citations help readers find more information, allow claims to be checked, and also mean that copyvios and close paraphrasing can be detected more easily. Please see WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA. Hope this helps anyone interested in improving the article. Ruhrfisch ><> ° ° 01:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for this, Ruhrfisch. I do have [Lear, 2007] and I'll cite it over the next few evenings along the lines you suggest above. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Some biographical details from The Tale of the Pie and the Patty-Pan
Hello. I've taken the liberty of transferring some biographical details from the The Tale of the Pie and the Patty-Pan (over-detailed IMHO for that article). I am doing this not just for the benefit of this article, but also because I think that - in theory - Potter's biography should really be covered here and the "Pie and the Patty-Pan" article should focus more or less exclusively on that book and its creation, reception etc. I've already proposed on the talk page there that its "Background" section should therefore be more or less removed. Does anyone here have strong feelings about this? Alfietucker (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 * It's detailed for that page, but a lot of it is plagiarized. Unfortunately many of the Potter pages were plagiarized, so I'd suggest just deleting or trimming from there. Isn't most of that information already covered here? This page has been somewhat, but not completely, scrubbed. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

British English?
I'm surprised to see there are a number of American English spellings in this article (artifacts, favoring etc.) which is about a quintessentially British author. I believe that according to wp:ENGVAR it should use British English spellings throughout. Does anyone have any objections to me changing them and adding a British English template to this page? Richerman ''  (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 * No objection at all.VenomousConcept (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Richerman ''   (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Letters to children
Digital facsimiles of twelve of Beatrix Potter's letters to children mentioned in the article are now online at The Morgan Library & Museum:

http://www.themorgan.org/collections/works/potter/default.asp

Would someone consider adding the above to the external links section? Thanks Morganlibrary (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Nice, thanks for linking. I've added it to the article. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientist, yes
She was an accomplished botanist and mycologist, and may have been the very first scientist to propose that microbial cooperation gives a basis to extrapolate that life is based almost entirely on co-operation, that completion in life is quite rare, and only on the surface does it appear to be the other way around. (The source for that is somewhere in my 'puter.) Lewis Thomas, though not to my knowledge alluding to Potter's premise, went on to propose  that germ theory had run its course and needs to be replaced with information theory. —Pawyilee (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And this article is actually called Beatrix Potter, Scientist Richerman ''   (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter Society
What is known about this subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Passion for botany
I can well believe that Beatrix Potter had a passion for botany, but the article says that 'most Victorians' did. Surely that is overstating it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.246.121 (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

first name pronunciation
hi. re her first name, is it pronounced w/two syllables, or with one? ("bea-trix", or "bea-uh-trix"?) it would be helpful if the article included this. thanks. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead
Much of the lead needs relegation to section 1 Biography, and perhaps later sections, or the lead should simply be trimmed if all of that content is below. It is too long. Although her life was long and varied, it is too detailed.

See also above (was grade B, 2007) and  (concerning 2011 grade C). --P64 (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Agree. Lead is way too long. WP:LEAD suggests maximum of 4 paragraph, this article presently has 8, albeit short, paragraphs.  It could be reduced to just two (total of maybe 6 or 7 sentences), the 1st paragraph and maybe another one that cover the following questions (not all of which is necessarily answered in the present article, not sure if the info is available?):
 * - what is she famous for? - her books, especially bunny ones.
 * - why? - attractive pictures which reveal Potter's earlier studies of her subjects.
 * - what is her legacy? has any notable people been inspired by them? - numerous reprints, in lots of different languages, and lots sold(?)
 * The rest of the info presently contained in the lead is interesting but superfluous and need only appear in the body. hope this is helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree, mostly. I have reduced the lead to 4 paras just by combining them, and trimmed the first para a little, moving to below. A bit more might be done, but Potter's life had many aspects which should be summarized in the lead. Most WP leads are much too short, & Coolabahapple's suggestion that a "total of maybe 6 or 7 sentences" is enough is just wrong. Read WP:LEAD. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , "Coolabahapple's suggestion that a "total of maybe 6 or 7 sentences" is enough is just wrong. Read WP:LEAD." Ouch, could you please show be in WP:LEAD where it talks about the number of sentences a lead should have? I see it does suggest the number of paragraphs for an article, WP:LEADLENGTH, an article length of 15,000 to 30,000 characters to have 2 or 3 paragraphs, and an article over 30,000 characters 4 paragraphs.  As this article is about 25,000 characters long (including spaces between words), my suggestion of 2 paragraphs falls within this guideline. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" - try doing that in a "total of maybe 6 or 7 sentences" here. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Consider the lead paragraph. Content of the very long lead sentence belongs, probably in more than one sentence. The seven following sentences may be relegated to the body of the article; that is, merged or deleted. Each of the single words "born", "family", "educated", and "early" alone is a red flag in relation to the lead section, not only the lead paragraph. --P64 (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, have taken up your challenge to reduce size of the lead. 1st by removing unecessary, including peacocky, words, removing statements that don't need the prominence of being in the lead, reorganising and combining some of the sentences.  sorry, just for the 1st couple of paragraphs so far, as work beckons. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I issued no such challenge! It is now only 3 paras and probably too short. Let's see what others have to say. Are you sure everything you have removed is covered below? Is it helpful to be told she was "an eager student"? Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi John, I tweaked a little and then restored a para from the lead as it was when I last worked on the page. I don't mind the longer leads, but P64 left a similar message on the talk page of Frances Hodgson Burnett (I wrote that lead when a young and unexperienced editor), a page that gets far less traffic than this, but my feeling is that we don't have to jump to rewrite leads. I prefer to have sources in front of me and tailor the lead to the body and I've long since returned sources for both that page and this to the library. Victoria (tk) 19:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, , , on reflection the article does look good with the 4 paras (with future expansion of the body, article will easily get over 30th characters?:)). Apologies re my initial responses, as a wikicat with wikikitten tendencies I sometimes(?) pounce on something and get carried away... ps. have done a couple more small edits to lead, hope they are ok... although location of mention of no. of books written still looks awkward? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is "Kitty-in-Boots" a "Tale"?
I'm not a Potter expert, but I notice that in the Beatrix Potter template The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots is listed as "Other books", while in Beatrix_Potter it's listed as the 24th "Tale". Any views? Pam D  22:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No strong opinions, no; I guessed that since it was not published in her lifetime and not published with her illustrations, it was probably safer not to call it a "canon" tale. I have absolutely no objection to it being listed with the other books on the template if that is what is preferred. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the source for linking them all together as "the tales"? Not all of them are called "the tale of..." and some of the "other"s are. Is this an established distinction? Btljs (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I also think Kitty-in-Boots should be in Other books. Like The Sly Old Cat, it was not illustrated by Potter. If we must keep it as "24 Tales", include The Fairy Caravan. Ms. Potter did write and illustrate that, although she only had it published in the United States. --Jocanfan (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Beatrix Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/35584

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Parents' discouragement?
The introductory section states that Potter's parents discouraged her intellectual development, but no source is given for this claim, and the section on Potter's early life and education seems if anything to contradict it. A TV documentary last night (ITV, 2 April 2016) also said explicitly that her parents actively encouraged her education. I'm not a Potter expert, but maybe someone who is could sort out this discrepancy.109.150.75.22 (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and you indeed have a fair point. I've reworded the lead accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Beatrix Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728105712/https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cumbria-author-beatrix-potter-link-to-prince-george-revealed-1.1149744 to http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cumbria-author-beatrix-potter-link-to-prince-george-revealed-1.1149744
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513210936/https://www.linnean.org/Resources/LinneanSociety/Documents/Publications/The-Linnaen/Lin%20Vol%2016_%20no%201_%20Jan%202000.pdf to http://www.linnean.org/Resources/LinneanSociety/Documents/Publications/The-Linnaen/Lin%20Vol%2016_%20no%201_%20Jan%202000.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Science Friday episode, contains public domain (?) images
I just listened The Scientific Tale of Author Beatrix Potter (17:11 minutes) and it is a very interesting introduction to Beatrix Potters' scientific illustrations. The web page has some samples that I believe are in the public domain. I could not find this kind of illustrations in Commons? If someone is interested...--QuimGil (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I found a nice gallery at http://armitt.com/armitt_website/beatrix-potter/ (but still I am not certain that those images are in the PD).--QuimGil (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beatrix Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/35584
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126154132/http://linnean.org/fileadmin/images/Beatrix_Potter/BPotter_fossils.pdf to http://www.linnean.org/fileadmin/images/Beatrix_Potter/BPotter_fossils.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505073415/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/prints_books/features/potter/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/prints_books/features/potter/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212025728/http://www.library.pitt.edu/libraries/is/enroom/illustrators/potter.htm to http://www.library.pitt.edu/libraries/is/enroom/illustrators/potter.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"North American English /ˈbiː.trɪks/"
Not necessarily. Kostaki mou (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Youtube videos as references
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that it is appropriate to have references that are youtube videos especially when it adds nothing to the article as in this case. I am referring here to references 75 and 76. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirab (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Duchess of Cambridge connection - trivial and irrelevant to the subject
The factoid about the Duchess of Cambridge being related seems to be over mentioned. One mention would be more than sufficient. Nice for the Duchess. Of no relevance to the subject. Any more than a single mention should be removed in my view. --Matilda talk 10:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No Problem as far as I see it. The Duchess is only mentioned twice - her ancestor is well- documented as being Potter's father's  mentor - and Potter herself had gifted her own drawings (reportedly auctioned  for a great deal of money)  to cousins of Kate's grt grandmother - Olive Middleton.203.132.68.1 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Illogical sentence

 * She did not believe in the theory of symbiosis proposed by Simon Schwendener, the German mycologist, as previously thought; rather she proposed a more independent process of reproduction

Symbiosis is not theory of reproduction - this sentence just makes no sense from a biological theory point of view. There is nothing in the article Simon Schwendener to give more insight.

also, what does "as previously thought" mean here ? 5.198.10.236 (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Her Xenophobia
Why do we shy away from calling her xenophobic by instead writing 'complaining' or 'critique' instead? when can the word 'Xenophobia' actually be used? because by the very nature of the definition, she falls right into it, are we trying to P.G. her article for the sake of keeping her looking presentable? she literally made horrible remarks on the Welsh people by undermining their mother-tongue. Hogyncymru (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Renée Zellweger
Is the picture of Ms. Zellweger rotated through 90 degrees for everyone or is it just me? And if the former, could someone who knows what they’re doing fix it? Ta… Mr Larrington (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Link to Kate Middleton
The link to Kate Middleton is interesting, but is it worthy of being included in the main page on Beatrix Potter? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beatrix Potter


text: File:Pneumococcus.jpg

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

title: File:Pneumococcus.jpg


text:
Boroughs of Canada

In Canada, a borough is a municipal subdivision of, and formerly a suburb politically associated with (but not part of), a city.

Ontario
In what is today Toronto, the former Metropolitan Toronto, an upper-tier regional municipality-type of municipal government, had five boroughs; East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, and York, surrounding a then-much-smaller City of Toronto, which was not a borough. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the boroughs were promoted to city status, with the exception of East York. At the time, East York was the only municipality in Canada designated as a borough. When the municipalities of Metro Toronto were amalgamated in 1998 to create the present city, East York lost this status. Today, there are no longer any boroughs in Ontario.

Quebec
In Quebec, the term borough is used as the formal translation into English of the French arrondissement, an administrative subdivision of a major city. There are many boroughs in Quebec. Most of the communities in Quebec now designated as boroughs were villes (cities or towns) prior to 2002.

title: Boroughs of Canada


text:
User:IZodiac

It's me, IZodiac from Tapland, creator of Addicted To Zodiac and the destroyer of worlds.

On my conquest to rule all of the known universe, I have created this beautiful page

title: User:IZodiac


text:
User:Phlip

Umm... I'm not entirely sure what I should be putting here. I probably won't be contributing much, short of the odd minor edit here or there...

If I spot anything glaring, I'll fix it, but short of that...

I am, however, a major contributor to the Homestar Runner wiki.

title: User:Phlip


text:
Sommar (radio program)

Sommar i P1 (Summer on P1) is one of the most popular shows on Swedish radio. It has been broadcast every summer since 29June 1959, originally as Sommar on P3 and since 1993 on P1.

About
Each 90-minute-long programme in the series – which is broadcast daily from Midsummer's day until the middle of August at 13:00 (a timeslot held since the first episode) and repeated in the late evening – is presented by a different host who talks about a topic of personal relevance and plays music of their own choosing.

Being invited to host the show has been compared to receiving a knighthood in Sweden, and it has become the custom for each year's presenters to be featured in a group photograph, each wearing a floral crown known as a midsommarkrans as a mark of the "honour" bestowed upon them.

The host has to speak Swedish (or, very occasionally, of another Scandinavian language). However, in 2014, intense international interest led to the production of an English-language edition presented by the YouTube celebrity PewDiePie (Felix Kjellberg). Subsequent hosts like Johan Rockström, Maher Zain, Ingrid Wall, Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich and Greta Thunberg have also hosted English-language editions of their programmes.

In the programme's early years the hosts – known as Sommarvärdar – were regular radio DJs who each presented several editions on a rotating basis, and the present format with a different guest presenter each day emerged during the 1970s.

The original concept for the show came from the then head of radio entertainment at Sveriges Radio, Tage Danielsson, and producer Jörgen Cederberg, who was also the first host. The programme's theme tune is Sommar, sommar, sommar, composed in 1951 by Sten Carlberg, with lyrics by Eric Sandström.

Hosts
The hosts range from celebrities to politicians, scientists, authors, athletes, and royalty. Several prime ministers of Sweden and other Nordic countries have been hosts on the show. High-profile celebrities such as the actresses Anita Ekberg and Liv Ullmann and the film director Ingmar Bergman have all hosted their own Sommar show. Other hosts from the film industry include Academy Award winners and nominees such as Malik Bendjelloul, Kay Pollak, Tomas Alfredson, and Paul N. J. Ottosson. And journalists like Magdi Abdelhadi.

Members of ABBA and modern music stars such as Robyn or Maja Ivarsson from The Sounds, as well as authors such as Astrid Lindgren, Håkan Nesser and Karl Ove Knausgård have been hosts of their own shows. Other hosts have included such industry leaders as IKEA-founder (and one of the wealthiest persons in the world) Ingvar Kamprad and Volvo CEO Pehr G. Gyllenhammar. Niklas Zennström and Daniel Ek of Skype and Spotify fame, respectively, have also hosted their own shows.

In June 2014, Sveriges Radio received over 70 formal complaints concerning an edition of Sommar presented by the poet and playwright Athena Farrokhzad claiming that she encouraged left-wing violence. One month later, an edition presented by record producer Christian Falk was the first to be aired posthumously, as he died from cancer two days earlier. Another posthumously broadcast episode was the one by composer Sven-David Sandström, the second time he hosted the show, on 12 July 2019. He had died on 10 June.

In other media
The show is broadcast on Swedish radio for a Swedish audience. However, in 2014, intense international interest led to the production of an English-language edition presented by YouTube celebrity PewDiePie (Felix Kjellberg).

In 2020, the English edition of Greta Thunberg's programme was also broadcast on BBC, and its script was published in TIME Magazine.

All of the shows are available for download from the Sommar website directly after broadcast. Since 2005, episodes of the show have also been available as podcasts, with more than 800 broadcast editions available from an archive covering the period from 1963 to the present.

At the annual press conference introducing each year's presenters the participants always appear wearing midsommarkrans floral head garlands. Since 2009, some of each year's presenters have also appeared in the Sveriges Television show Sommarpratarna.

title: Sommar (radio program)


text:
Royal Air Force Club

The Royal Air Force Club, or RAF Club in short-form, is a club located at 128 Piccadilly, London.

Membership is open to those who hold, or have held, commissions in the RAF, PMRAFNS, Reserve Forces and Commonwealth and friendly foreign air forces. The Chair of the Board of Trustees is The Hon. Air Vice-Marshal David Murray.

History
The Royal Flying Corps Club, the forerunner of the Royal Air Force Club, opened at 13 Bruton Street in 1917. It became the Royal Air Force Club in 1918 shortly after the first Lord Cowdray donated funds to obtain a permanent building which would house the Club. The buildings, still in use today, were acquired by the middle of 1919 (the Piccadilly frontage was originally the Ladies Lyceum Club, while the rear half, facing Old Park Lane, was stables). Between 1919 and 1921 extensive reconstruction took place supervised by architect Maurice Webb and largely financed by Lord Cowdray. On 2 January 1922 the Club was fully opened to Members although it was not officially opened by the Duke of York until 24 February 1922. On 14 March 1922 the Club was visited by King George V and Queen Mary. This association with the Royal Family continues to this day, Queen Elizabeth II being the Club's Patron from 1952-2022.

As of 2017, a year's membership subscription costs half of one day's wages for serving (from £42.50), or former serving (retired) RAF officers (£155.00). For non-RAF personnel, affiliate membership starts at £170 plus joining fee. Non-RAF personnel who are eligible to apply for membership include those in the aerospace industry who are Fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society (FRAeS).

title: Royal Air Force Club


text:
User talk:Palleway

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! *drew 16:09, 15 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

title: User talk:Palleway


text:
User:Bertrand Meyer

Bertrand Meyer (from ETH Zurich and Eiffel Software in California).

title: User:Bertrand Meyer


text:
Velagoundampatti

Velagoundampatti is a Town panchayat in Namakkal taluk of Namakkal district, Tamil Nadu, India

private buses

 * Erode  -   Namakkal(HARIKRISHNA)

Post office
637212 is the pin code number of Velagoundampatti S.O post office in Namakkal district, Tamil Nadu, India as codified by Indiapost.

Railway station
The nearest railway station to Velagoundampatti is Namakkal railway station. which is 16 km distance from here. Nearest Railway junctions are Erode railway station stands nearby of 47 km distance and the next Salem Junction railway station of 63 km from here

Airport
The nearest International Airport is Tiruchirappalli International Airport which is on 110 km Distance and second Coimbatore International Airport with 135 km distance. And The nearest Domestic airport is Salem Airport 70 km from here

River
The nearest river for Velagoundampatti is paramathi velur kaveri river which is 22 km distance from here.

title: Velagoundampatti


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude

Full text of request:

Involved parties

 * Summary

Rangerdude is harassing editors who disagree with his POV.

User talk:Rangerdude 19:59, August 23, 2005
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

On June 10, I received a request from mediator user:MacGyverMagic to enter mediation on "Houston Chronicle". I acknowledged my interest in mediation, and on June 14 I saw a mediation page had been set up so I tried to participate. Rangerdude refused.

Rangerdude and I filed cross-complaints on June 15, including and Requests for comment/Rangerdude. We subsequently agreed to mediation and the RfC was withdrawn.

We both agreed to a mediator, Andrevan. Mediation never proceeded because we couldn't agree on how to proceed, despite the mediator's repeated inquiries (Rangerdude said that I might stalk him via email, and I said that I did not want a public mediation). Rangerdude referred in some places to "mediation against" me, possibly indicating bad faith in the dispute resolution process.

Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw was posted by Rangerdude on July 25, 2005 and closed by him on July 30, 2005.

Statement by Willmcw
Harassment of editors Rangerdude is harassing and bullying editors who disagree with him or his edits. His goal seems to be either to end our involvement as editors or to punish us for disagreeing with him.

Cberlet Rangerdude brought an RfC against Cberlet and myself on account of our edit work on Ludwig von Mises Institute. The RfC charged us with "lack of civility, disruption, POV pushing, personal attacks on other editors, disregard of WP policies, disregard of talk page and consensus-building efforts, bad faith edits and assumptions". Only four editors (two of them LvMI associates) certified or endorsed Rangerdude's statement, while 14 endorsed Cberlet's statement and a total of ten editors posted separate views, most of which were against Rangerdude and some which received wide support. On the basis of that outcome, it appears that the community strongly rejected Rangerdude's view.

Rangerdude then heavily and contentiously edited Chip Berlet's biography and sought to have Berlet's published research deemed too extreme to use as a source for Wikipedia articles. At the same time he actively edited and created articles about one of Berlet's real-life adversaries, David Horowitz, with a positive POV.

FuelWagon FuelWagon was one of the more vocal editors in the RfC, despite having had no prior involvement with either of us. He wrote a clearly-worded and boldy-formatted comment saying that the problem lay more with Rangerdude than with Cberlet or me. Rangerdude first reformatted his comment then effectively tried to add FuelWagon to the RfC. Shortly after the close of that RfC Rangerdude filed a separate RfC against FuelWagon. Requests for comment/FuelWagon. The charges include having a "belligerent" tone in RfCs and filing a "false 3RR warning against another user". The RfC against FuelWagon received no endorsements or co-certifications. An opposing view received four endorsements within the initial 48-hour period.

SlimVirgin Rangerdude has also harassed SlimVirgin, who had had no editing interactions with him prior to commenting on the Cberlet/Willmcw RfC, and whose crime seems to have been speaking positively about us. In a number of edits he attacked her by name and he has made attacks on "wiki-cliques" that seem directed at SlimVirgin and other editors. He apparently opposed Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk simply because SlimVirgin was the nominator.

Willmcw Rangerdude has been attacking me as a "stalker" since June, 2005. He uses the de-listed RfC as an "attack file" with an ever-growing list of charges. I responded initially, but have not replied to every new addition. Rangerdude has copied and extended that file (minus my responses and other discussion) at User:Rangerdude/sandbox1/Evidence of willmcws wiki-stalking. He brandishes the charge as an attack in talk pages and edit summaries.              (Recent instances:   ) He seeks out other editors to warn them about my supposedly-abusive behavior, encourages them to bring dispute actions, and repeats the charges as a reason for editors to disregard my opinion.

Katefan0 Rangerdude bullies Katefan0 in their editing disagreements, such as in Talk:Jim Robinson and Votes for deletion/Jim Robinson.

Other issues From his earliest edits Rangerdude has been a POV warrior with a strongly pro/neo-confederate bias.      He both shows bad faith and fails to assume good faith in others. He has followed my edits with an apparent intent to harass, in ways that mimic his own definition of wikistalking.

Statement by Katefan0
Rangerdude has made unfounded and potentially damaging personal attacks against me and has attacked other editors, has bullied and harassed editors who disagreed with him, disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, and aggressively inserted biased information throughout Wikipedia, while bludgeoning and smearing good faith editors who disagree with him. I have engaged Rangerdude in extensive dialogues on talk pages, largely to no effect. I opened an RfC over our main disputed article, Houston Chronicle, which received no replies. I then requested mediation, which formally opened on June 10. However, the mediator has been absent since that time and the dispute remains stalemated. Rangerdude continues to bully editors on Stalking, through RfC’s and on other articles.

Personal attacks and harrassment

Rangerdude made a serious (and potentially libelous) attack against my personal and professional integrity. When I protested, Rangerdude’s response was to escalate. He has also targeted other editors who have disagreed with his conduct or biased edits:, , edit summary, , , among others.

Rangerdude often bullies and intimidates people who disagree with his positions (particularly during RfCs and other instances in which a vote or poll is taken) by commenting on their votes or comments, sometimes extensively, with the intent of discrediting (and thereby discounting) their opinions. ,, , , , ,.

He has purposefully misrepresented my position in a debate to further his own position my original posting here. Misrepresentations:, ,. Despite my admonitions to the contrary,, he continued harass me about my own opinions , ,.

He does not truly seek to resolve conflicts, seemingly preferring to argue his opponents into submission or deflect blame (here suggesting I alone am creating an impasse ), often reverting up to his limit under 3RR and haranguing dissenters on related talk pages. Reversions:, , ,. Talk:.

Dismissing or manipulating consensus

Rangerdude rarely accepts consensus unless it furthers his position or he is forced to yield. (Here he harangues Tony Sidaway, the VfD closer on Jim Robinson ). Or, he interprets consensus to suit his needs: Here, a consensus of two editors is enough when it furthers his position, but when it does not, a consensus of two (myself and Johntex) isn't enough; moreover, he harasses Johntex in an attempt to discredit his opinions:  ,.

He has manipulated policies to circumvent or defy consensus: (here he adds a  tag to the VfD vote on Jim Robinson ), and later on the redirect created as a result of the VfD vote ),.

He has violated WP:POINT when consensus has not gone his way. When Jim Robinson was properly VfD’d, and then failed to be undeleted through VfU, Rangerdude began voting keep on several other articles up for VfU at the same time. ,, ,. He has not voted on VfU since.

Bias

Rangerdude seems primarily interested in editing articles into which he can insert conservative viewpoints both positive (Ludwig von Mises Institute) and negative (Sheila Jackson Lee). This would not be a problem, except that Rangerdude doesn’t seem to care about ensuring that articles he works on are balanced; he regularly inserts so much conservative criticism into articles that it makes them biased, then washes his hands of the article. After these additions, , , the article referenced contained three short paragraphs of bio information on a multi-term member of the U.S. Congress, and more than a page of cheap shots:. Rangerdude left it up to others (primarily, me) to insert bio information that would serve as a balance to his additions. He later created what basically amounts to a hatchet page on her husband and, similarly, on a liberal university professor. When challenged on these edits and the directive on balance in WP:NPOV, Rangerdude’s response is to say, essentially, that he doesn’t have time to make it balanced (while continuing to work on other articles almost daily). ,, , , , , ,.

Additionally, he often justifies his biased edits with dubious sources which he deems reliable, including partisan blogs, partisan student-published tabloids, organizations with misleading mandates such as this one (which is criticized here) and unverifiable radio broadcasts, which he insists be retained when challenged. He has also been known to delete or oppose criticism of conservative figures (here scrubbing information critical of Tom DeLay (and edit warring in the process)):, , , , ). Other biased edits: , ,.

Statement by Johntex
Rangerdude has harassed Wikipedia editors, including myself. He has violated Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV,   WP:CIV, WP:DEL, and also Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:POINT.

Much of his harassing behavior is an attempt to inject his POV into article, such as in the example I illustrate below, where he harasses me by maliciously listing for VfD an article I created.

POV-pushing

User:Rangerdude has shown a history of POV-pushing on Houston Chronicle. His edits attempt to include as much negative information about the paper as possible. He even admits he does not feel responsible for making balanced edits, as in this exchange:
 * It is not enough to add information that unbalances an article and then wash your hands of it by saying "you can add other things if you wish…” User:Katefan0
 * Since edits here are made on a voluntary basis, it is more than enough..” User:Rangerdude

In his attempts to create a biased article, he displays a willingness to cite any source that agrees with his POV, regardless of how un-noteworthy or biased the source. He also tries to create Wikipedia articles about these sources in an effort to bolster their apparent credibility in his arguments.

Introducing spurious sources

Rangerdude created an article on Texas_Media_Watch (TMW) because he wanted to quote TMW in POV arguments he wished to make on Houston Chronicle. I looked into TMW and found evidence that it was simply a one-person “organization” pushing the agenda of Sherry Sylvester and that the “organization” had not even been active since her departure. TMW did not qualify as a reputable source to be quoting at Houston Chronicle, and she/they certainly did not meet the notability standard for her/its own article. Thus at I listed TMW for VfD. The result of the VfD discussion was "Delete":

Harassment of editor

After I listed TMW for deletion, Rangerdude took a sudden interest in an article I created on college football player Dusty Mangum and listed that page for VfD. I believe he did this in an attempt to intimidate me and anyone else who might dare consider listing one of his non-notable articles for VfD. Looking at Rangerdude’s last 3 months of edits: He has made no other edits to topics relating to college football, The University of Texas at Austin, or similar topics that would lead one to believe he was interested in Dusty Mangum for any other reason than to harass me. He has nominated no other article for VfD. He rarely even votes on VfD at all.

Among this discussion on the Dusty Mangum VfD was this statement:
 * Comment. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -Willmcw 07:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

To which Rangerdude made this unsigned reply:
 * Comment. Don%27t_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point

Thus, Rangerdude ‘’’admitted’’’ that he violated WP:POINT by listing Dusty Mangum on VfD solely because I had created the article. This is also a violation of WP:DEL which states that users should sign their posts of VfD pages. The VfD result on Dusty Mangum was "Keep"

According to Rangerdude's own postings, he has shown himself to be harassing me. He is causing serious detriment to the project.

Statement by Rangerdude
Given the timing of this dispute and the editors involved in it, I can only respond by noting that it appears to be a frivolous retaliatory move by User:Willmcw against me for filing a request for arbitration against him and User:SlimVirgin following an extensive pattern of harassment and belligerency by both of these editors towards myself. It should also be noted that this is not the first time that Willmcw has made retaliatory complaints against other users who have reported him for violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Willmcw filed a similar frivolous retaliatory RfC against me in June 2005 only hours after I posted my initial complaint report against him on the incident noticeboard for wikistalking. His purpose in both cases should accordingly be viewed as a disruptive and bad faith attempt to deflect investigation into his own repeated bad behavior and policy violations by way of initiating a competing complaint against his accusers.

As I detailed and documented at length in my arbitration case against Willmcw and in a list of evidence assembled for that case and its related RfCs, Willmcw has engaged in a continuous pattern of harassment and wiki-stalking against myself since shortly after I arrived on wikipedia. In my experience with Willmcw I have found him to be an extremely vocal POV pusher who actively promotes a liberal/leftist viewpoint in his edits and who uses his editing privileges on Wikipedia to engage in political activism on a number of pet causes, among them: pro-illegal immigration, political correctness, environmentalism, and politically motivated attacks on conservatism, libertarianism, the U.S. Republican Party, and figures, groups, organizations, and publications affiliated with each.

Recent examples of POV pushing by Willmcw:
 * Use of POV weasel words - Willmcw adds/restores the scare-term "controversial" to the opening sentence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian philsopher who is of the opposite political viewpoint of his own. Willmcw removes the same scare-term "controversial" out of the opening sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal organization that he agrees with.
 * Use of POV qualifiers - Willmcw adds the term "neo-confederate," a pejorative, as a descriptive qualifier of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LVMI), a libertarian think tank he disagrees with. Willmcw removes the word "leftist" as a descriptive qualifier of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from the same sentence, calling it a "POV term". Willmcw removes "leftist" from SPLC and reinserts "neo-confederate" before LVMI (thus keeping the pejorative on the group he dislikes and removing it from the group he likes) after I pointed out the inconsistency and noted that NPOV dictates the article should contain both, to balance each other out, or neither.

Willmcw has a bad habit of harassing other editors who differ with this viewpoint both on political and non-political articles alike. He has done this to me since we first encountered each other and I have seen him treat other editors who come from conservative or libertarian viewpoints similiarly. His stalking of me includes his following me to over 40 different articles on such diverse subject matters as United States trade law, astronomy, libertarian philosophy, the American Civil War, historians, think tanks, newspaper and radio outlets, and academic biographies. As I described in detail here, many of these cases of following were for the explicit purpose of disrupting and harassing my edits including staging challenges against settled and documented factual material and generally trolling for reasons to delete, disrupt, or even make minor unnecessary alterations to my contributions on wikipedia for no other reason than the fact that I am the one who made them. As Willmcw noted, this did indeed lead to me filing an RfC against him and another user over POV pushing and belligerency on the Ludwig von Mises Institute article (located here). What he fails to inform you of are the reasons behind this RfC, which included a blatantly inappropriate attempt by Willmcw to disrupt this article's content with quotations from David Duke, the notorious Ku Klux Klan activist. Other inappropriate behavior by Willmcw on this article included attempts to disguise edits in which he removed content as "adding citations" and censoring out sourced material that differed from his political POV. It should also be noted that several other editors involved in that article concurred that this behavior was inappropriate and others who read the RfC subsequently helped with extensive work on the LVMI article to remove the biased and inappropriate material Willmcw was pushing there at the time.

That Willmcw, who has intentionally targetted and harassed my edits over the better part of a year to degrees that would drive many other editors to leave wikipedia in frustration and disgust (and indeed, Willmcw has done just that to dozens of other editors), would turn around and accuse me of the same is the height of absurdity and suggestive that he engages in psychological projection as a defense mechanism when scrutinized over his actions. A quick review of his bizarre accusations towards me of "pro-neo-confederate POV pushing" found above demonstrate just how deep seated his agenda of harassment is as it includes diffs that were not even authored by me! (for example: ) In the same "examples" he seems to even take issue with me for such routine (1) pointing out inappropriate behavior and namecalling by other editors by linking them to the appropriate policy, (2) removing POV and pejorative terminology from articles, (3) using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures to resolve a difference with another editor (normally him or one of his allies), which are my right to use, and (4) adding new content to articles! As usual with Willmcw, the real disputes he has with these actions are the fact that the edits I made differ with his political POV pushing and the fact that I am the one who made them (excepting, of course, the cases where he's attempted to attribute somebody else's anon IP edit to me!)/ Elaborating on his assertion, Willmcw accuses me of "harassing" other editors including Katefan0, SlimVirgin, and Cberlet as if to imply that I've somehow wronged each of them independent of my disputes with him. This is an absurdity in its own right, for what Willmcw fails to reveal is that each of these named editors has a strange habit of popping up right in the middle of virtually every article where I've posted a complaint or grievance with Willmcw's own behavior to either defend him in disregard of the facts, assist him in revert wars that target my edits, and generally disrupt anything I'm working on with the seeming aim of driving me off wikipedia articles (an aim that SlimVirgin has openly espoused, as documented in my RfAr against her and Willmcw below ). Examples of where this happened include Houston Chronicle, Chip Berlet, Thomas Woods, Requests_for_comment/Cberlet_%26_Willmcw, talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, and multiple others. As documented here and in my RfAr below, Willmcw and SlimVirgin have also coordinated attacks on my user page and coordinated revert wars with each other to harass my edits, coordinated hits aimed at voting down any RfC I post, and even coordinated attempts to alter my RfC posts in a way that casts their position in a favorable light or removes specific questions that I've requested comment on. To put it mildly, for this exact same group of editors - esp. Willmcw, SlimVirgin, and Katefan0 - to show up over and over and over again at virtually any article where I've disputed the edits or behavior of one of their own is anything but coincidental. In fact out of the hundreds of thousands of editors on wikipedia, untold thousands of whom I've edited along side and gotten along with, this small group of politically and personally aligned editors who constantly conduct themselves to support each other in disputes and insulate each other from culpability when one or more breaks the rules are the only editors on wikipedia who I regularly have much of any disagreement with.

I find it unusual that User:Katefan0 and User:Johntex would choose to join this arbitration request based almost entirely upon an ongoing editing dispute at the Houston Chronicle article. As the matters involving the Houston Chronicle article are currently the subject of a still-pending mediation case on that article, I consider it inappropriate and premature that they would seek to join Willmcw's arbitration case as other dispute resolution mechanisms on that article have NOT yet been exhausted, and as far as I am aware all parties to that dispute had previously agreed to mediation including Katefan0, who described her position there at length. The dispute on this particular article is political in nature and entails difference in content regarding opinion. While Katefan0 accuses of "POV pushing" on this article, she fails to disclose that she is guilty of the very same offense in her own right and perhaps even more so. Examples include deleting = sources that she deems to be critical of the Houston Chronicle ; Adding passages from far-left wing sources containing unrelated political attack information on sources used in the article ; Making ad hominem attacks on conservative sources, such as the Houston Review and Texas Media Watch, to portray them as politicized or unreliable  while simultaneously adding and promoting politicized left wing sources like the Austin Chronicle.; adding original research on indirectly related subject matter for the purpose of attacking U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. Katefan0 has also pushed a pro-Chronicle POV by multiple reversions and extreme stubbornness exhibited on the talk page in which she has sought to remove the word "criminal complaint" from a description of a legal motion the newspaper filed (Katefan0 quote- "I will resist any attempts to use "criminal" as an adjective for the complaint") despite the fact that Texas law and even the newspaper itself described it as a criminal complaint. When the statute itself was directly cited in the article text to show that the complaint was classified as criminal under state law Katefan0 also deleted the reference. It should be noted on the Houston Chronicle article that Katefan0 has repeatedly volunteered that she is a former employee of the Houston Chronicle and cited that employment as a basis for her desired edits and in discussions about those edits. While she has been accusing everybody else who says anything critical about the Houston Chronicle of being "biased" or "POV" since the moment she arrived at this article, Katefan0 seems to exhibit a strong personal POV of her own toward this paper as a former employee and many of her edits have been aimed at removing, watering down, or spinning any criticism that's been made of the paper by another source or media outlet.

I also suspect that this move by Katefan0 may be in part retaliatory dating back to an unrelated disagreement we had many months ago on the Jim Robinson article. From that time until the present Katefan0 has been occassionally following my edits to such articles as the Houston Chronicle, Sheila Jackson Lee, various VfD's and RfA's, RfC's I have initiated on other unrelated matters (including the earlier stages of the dispute with Willmcw) and most recently Stalking - typically for the purpose of opposing whatever position I am advocating or voting against whatever way I vote, seemingly for no other reason than for my involvement. This particular editor also has very strong political opinions on many articles and frequently confuses differences of opinion with "personal attacks" on herself. Thus, opposing her opinion on article content, article subject matter, a wikipedia administrative matter, or even a vote is, in her mind, "personal attacks" or "bullying." This description has been applied by her to dozens of links to our past disputes in her case above, yet virtually every one of them is a content dispute where she has mistaken differences on wording or opinion for a personal affront to herself.

Katefan0 also seems unaware of or unwilling to abide by NPOV_tutorial, which states of articles that have viewpoint imbalance on sourced material that they "should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda." This provision also specifically says that "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Yet as her complaint above evidences, Katefan0 has both used a temporary imbalance in articles such as the Houston Chronicle as a reason to justify her subtraction of critical material, no matter how sourced it is, and as a basis to attack me personally with allegations of pushing propaganda. When I suggested many times that she should add to the article instead of subtracting from it as this guideline instructs Katefan0 responded in hostility toward me personally, shunned this suggestion, and now even cites the fact that I made it in her RfAr complaint against me! If adding to the article is not the remedy for balancing it then why does the guideline say that it is and why should I be held at fault for simply informing her of the same thing that the guideline says to do?

I am at loss for an explanation of what could have induced JohnTex to seek this case beyond the fact that he was on Katefan0's side of the Houston Chronicle dispute (and was personally recruited by her to participate there). Beyond that, I have not even had substantial interaction with JohnTex on wikipedia since early June! As I have no current disputes with JohnTex and rarely if ever even encounter him on wikipedia, and as his case her pertains entirely to subjects involving an article that is currently still in mediation, I see little purpose that his arbitration request could accomplish and consider it little more than a bad faith attempt to assist Willmcw and/or Katefan0 in pressing what ultimately comes down to a frivolous complaint that was intiated without any doubt for retaliatory reasons. I do find it curious that he would choose to make WP:POINT allegations against me for a VfD at the time of the Houston Chronicle dispute given that he himself was simultaneously VfD'ing new pages I created for WP:POINT reasons and consider it outright bizarre that he would try to make a case upon the fact that I forgot to sign a single message post out of dozens in my exchanges with him. Such behavior on his part could rightly be described as a nitpicking personal vendetta and appears to offer very little if anything of relevance wikipedia's quality, content, or even genuine editing disputes. It should be noted that Johntex seems to be similarly unaware of NPOV_tutorial, hence his support for Katefan0's attempts to subtract legitimate sourced information from articles.

As a concluding note - should this case proceed involving the allegations made here, I will similarly be asking the arbitrators to examine evidence of severe POV pushing on the part of Willmcw and Katefan0 as well as the disruptive retaliatory behavior entailed in filing this case, which constitute WP:POINT abuses, in the case of all three editors. Rangerdude 03:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party (Willmcw RFA v Rangerdude): FuelWagon
I already posted my comment about Rangerdude's RFC against Cberlet and Willmcw in this diff. It is my statement as a third party in the Rangerdude RFA against Wilmcw and SlimVirgin bookmarked here. That comment applies to this RFA as well. FuelWagon 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement made by third party User:Zeq
Summary: I am new to wikipedia but i would like to stay and contribute. My minimal interaction with slim has the influence that caused me to consider if, as an new user, I would continue to contribute to Wikipedia. So far I have decided to stay  despite her actions and personal attacks .

 * 1) My first interaction with her was on the contentious issue of the Israeli west bank barrier. Slim have "floated" or "landed out of the blue" once in a while in the middle of heated discussion edits and did one simple thing: Reverted well sourced edits.
 * 2) It was not long when I understood that such a discouraging acts are targeted at edits which do not fit her political POV. To be clear: I understand very much that an editor or an admin protecting pages from vandalism have got used to revert pages that have been vandalized, but to act in this manner in the middle of discussions on issues that require real, deep understanding and participation is counter productive.
 * 3) next, I was subject to several name calling by slim when I commented on an RfA by herRequests_for_adminship/Ramallite. She wanted to appoint to an admin a user who was engaged in edit war and POV pushing and when I objected she called me "difficult editor".
 * 4) Later I noticed that this RfA is not the first in which she tries to push to amidships an editor who's anti-Israel bias is clear. Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor

As I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what of wikipedia rules has she violated but I clearly feel she is pushing a certain POV in more than one legitimate way.

Statement by MacGyverMagic
My apologies for allowing this dispute to end in arbitration. Obligations outside of Wikipedia have prevented me from doing anything as time-consuming as mediation for a while now, and this particular case turned out more difficult than I initially thought. I've taken steps to ensure active people are tending to the mediation requests now. - Mgm|(talk) 07:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Merge into below case, if both are accepted. James F. (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge Fred Bauder 19:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge ➥the Epopt 03:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration merge problems
As I understand it, both my original case against user:Willmcw and user:SlimVirgin and a second case filed later by user:Willmcw against me were accepted by the Arbcom. Yet in reviewing the Arbcom votes on both cases it appears clear to me that the votes on arbitration for Willmcw's complaint against me (Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude) were to accept and merge that case into the first case, which I filed (Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin), not the other way around as has been done. This is explicitly stated in James F.'s vote "Accept. Merge into below case, if both are accepted" and indicated in the three subsequent votes, which all state "Accept and merge." None of the Arbcom votes on Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin had a merge stipulation, indicating it was understood that the other case would be merged into it - not the other way around. Given this, I am posting this note to ask an Arbcom member correct the listings on these two cases to reflect these votes. I apologize if this appears to be nitpicking and I believe it was simply an honest mistake, but I want to make sure that this case proceeds by the books out of fairness to myself and to all parties involved. Thanks - Rangerdude 16:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:212.120.230.205

title: User talk:212.120.230.205


text:
File:Atomic Kitten Its Ok Front.jpg

Summary
Cover image of It's Ok! single. Used in acc. with Fair Use. Self scanned

title: File:Atomic Kitten Its Ok Front.jpg


text:
Talk:Clive Stafford Smith

Please Cleanup this article
Clive Stafford Smith, Esq. is a notable (but not prominent) attorney who deserves a better article. A highly-rhetotical article does him a disservice. Please take a look at Johnny Cochran (long), Richard Haynes (short) and you will see models for articles on attorneys who handle high-profile cases. Or look at William Kunstler for a neutral way to profile an activist lawyer. Joaquin Murietta 16:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks it looks better. We need a PHOTO. I removed both the stub and the clean up tags. Joaquin Murietta 23:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

British Born
I have removed -born. He still hold UK citizenship and is quite open that he only took US citizenship to allow his wife to stay with him in the US. He further adds that when he took the citizen ship oath of allegiance he altered it so as not to disclaim his British citizenship. So it seems fair to leave it as British which is obviously how he regards himself.Alci12 12:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Having actually met and studied under Stafford Smith, I can confirm that he considers himself both British and American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.252.252 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * In a New York Times op-ed, he (and the NYT) described himself as American. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/in-pakistan-drones-kill-our-innocent-allies.html We need a source for that. It sounds like the most accurate and complete way to describe him would be as a British-born lawyer who holds U.S. and U.K. dual citizenship (unless he's objected to that description). --Nbauman (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Clive Stafford Smith now lives in London and is director of reprieve. His official UK biography and his Who's Who entry describe him as British. He is also recorded as British by the Law Society and lives in resides in the UK as a British citizen. This is actually a rather pointless discussion. He is a Briton who also holds a US passport albeit he has left the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.12.27 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Returned O.B.E?
I thought I read (or heard) somewhere recently that he had returned his OBE (presumably as a form of protest). Any one know if this is correct?
 * Unsigned comment at 12:44, 23 June 2009 by 86.152.241.5

This is absolutely untrue. This is a completely contrived assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.12.27 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Clive Stafford Smith is not a British lawyer so-called or a Louisiana attorney or a DC attorney
There is strictly-speaking really no such a thing as a "British lawyer", only English solicitors, English barristers, English notaries public, Scottish solicitors, Scottish advocates, Scottish notaries public, Northern Ireland solicitors, Northern Ireland barristers and Northern Ireland notaries public. There is no record of Stafford Smith being listed as being currently registered as a member of the Law Society of England and Wales as a solicitor —and he is obviously not an English barrister. There is also no record of Stafford Smith being currently a member as an attorney either of the Louisiana Bar, or of the District of Columbia Bar. It is obvious that his supporters—perhaps more likely of the Trotskyist, Anarchist, Anarcho-Trotskyist or Islamic persuasions—and probably mostly under 30 years of age, if not 25!—have been hijacking the page and have been doing all sorts of non-neutral editing throughout the years. Wikipedia has, of course, been suffering from years and years of systematic Trotskyist and Anarcho-Trotskyist infiltration, under the veil of supposed "consensus" (manufactured, of course), cue the blatant "party-line" towed in the articles for the British Socialist Workers Party, Left Unity and Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, all British hard-left political parties or organisations with a Trotskyist or an Anarcho-Trotskyist agenda, or both. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No record of OBE in the sole authoritative official source which is the London Gazette
There is also no record of Clive Stafford Smith of ever being awarded (by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, in right of the United Kingdom, on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom) the OBE, in the sole authoritative official source, which is the London Gazette. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes there is: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/55710/supplement/35/data.pdf]. If you're going to search, you need to use his full name:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.88.250 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clive Stafford Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314133305/http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/short-books.aspx to http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/short-books.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clive Stafford Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080802181057/http://www.gandhifoundation.org/peaceaward.html to http://www.gandhifoundation.org/peaceaward.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

He does not view himself as British: Source below
In this radio lab episode: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/other-latif-episode-5

At 22:10, he states ‘not withstanding my patent British accent, I’m American’

How should we apply this information? (Ned) 12:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Clive Stafford Smith


text:
Marina Kislova

Marina Vladimirovna Kislova (Марина Владимировна Кислова; born 7 February 1978 in Leningrad) is a Russian sprinter.

Personal bests

 * 100 metres - 11.09 (2001)
 * 200 metres - 22.99 (2000)

title: Marina Kislova


text:
British NVC community A9

The Potamogeton natans community (NVC community A9) is one of the aquatic communities in the British National Vegetation Classification system.

It is a comparatively widely distributed community. There are three subcommunities.

Community composition
One constant species is found in this community, Broad-leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton natans).

No rare species are associated with the community.

Distribution
This community is found widely throughout Britain.

Subcommunities
There are three subcommunities:
 * the so-called Species-poor subcommunity
 * the Elodea canadensis subcommunity
 * the Juncus bulbosus - Myriophyllum alterniflorum subcommunity

title: British NVC community A9


text:
Talk:List of statements independent of ZFC

Remarks on assumptions used to prove independence
I've revised the paragraph on large cardinals. What it said before was true--ZFC can neither prove nor disprove the existence of large cardinals. However what the page said at the top was "assuming ZFC is consistent", which in context probably refers to statements that can be formally proved in ZFC+Con(ZFC), and it is not possible to prove in ZFC+Con(ZFC) that the existence of large cardinals is consistent. In some sense that's the whole point of large cardinals--they provide a scale by which to measure "consistency strength".

But I think maybe the premise of the page should be rethought. It's extremely arbitrary--especially when talking aobut results like these--to assume tacitly that what we can assert is just what's provable in ZFC, and then add "assuming ZFC is consistent" to bump it up to ZFC+Con(ZFC). There are quite a few interesting statements that are independent of ZFC, but to prove one direction or the other you need some large cardinal strength; these could naturally be included here. --Trovatore 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was not currently known whether ZFC disproves the existence of any type of large cardinals, unless this is a remarkable recent development of which I'm not aware. If it were true that ZFC cannot disprove the existence of large cardinals then, assuming ZFC is consistent, there must be a model of ZFC in which there are no large cardinals. I've never seen one; could you point me to an example? (For example I would like to see a model that has no strongly inaccessible cardinals that does not require the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals to construct.) --Shawn

Here's an example of how to construct one: either there is a strongly inaccessible cardinal or not. If not, then V is a (class) model of ZFC + "there are no strongly inaccessible cardinals." If yes, let \lambda be the least. Then V_\lambda is such a model. This could be strengthened to weakly inaccessibles by working in L. 128.237.246.219 (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

you said above "ZFC can neither prove nor disprove the existence of large cardinals". Surely, this can only be true if ZFC is consistent; otherwise ZFC can prove and disprove anything, including its own consistency. So to me the addition in the intro ("assuming ZFC is consistent") makes perfect sense. If instead we made a list of "statements which are known to be neither provable nor disprovable in ZFC", then the list would be empty. BTW, with Shawn above, I believe that currently it is not known whether ZFC+Con(ZFC) can disprove the existence of large cardinals. AxelBoldt (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the situation: ZFC cannot prove the existence of large cardinals unless ZFC is inconsistent (which, of course, it is not).  It cannot disprove it either, unless of course their existence is inconsistent (which, of course, it is not).
 * You might wonder if something like the following could be true: You can't prove from ZFC that there is a (say) Mahlo cardinal, but you can prove that it's consistent that there's a Mahlo cardinal.  The answer to that is no.  There is no hope to prove any consistency result like that; it contradicts second incompleteness, because Con(ZFC+Mahlo) is actually consistency-wise slightly stronger than ZFC+Mahlo.
 * I object somewhat to the "not known" formulation. It depends on what you mean by "known".  There is a tradition that equates "known" with "proved", but to make that work you have to specify what axioms you're considering to be "known" in the first place, so this is not really a justifiable epistemology.
 * I hope you agree that the edit I made makes this clearer. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, your edit is fine and I agree with everything you said. The point that a consistent ZFC can never be hoped to prove the relative consistency of large cardinals is an important one; maybe we should add it here or at large cardinal. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fubini theorem
I've always thought that the consistency of the Fubini theorem for any function was first proved by Harvey Friedman: A Consistent Fubini-Tonelli Theorem for Nonmeasureable Functions,        Illinois J. Math., Vol. 24, No. 3, (1980), pp. 390-395.Kope (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Right. I'll add it (but keep the Freiling paper which is quite popular). Uffish (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exact Godel numbers needed
For all the undecidables mentioned, no exact Godel numbers are given. They should be, with the details of the calculation in each case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.135.109 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be impractical, because even for relatively simple formulae (e.g. 0=0), the corresponding Gödel number is quite large. And what would be the point anyway? The undecidability of these statements hasn't been derived from Gödel's incompleteness theorem. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike Rosoft has used the singular "Godel number". Actually, there are infinitely many Godelisations and the same equation such as 0=0 has infinitely many Godel numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, but so what? Regardless of the numbering scheme used, the Goedel numbers are still irrelevant.  --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

MA and CH
I think the current text about the chain of implications, with Martin's axiom at the end, is a little — peculiar. It's all true, of course, formally. But the implication CH->MA is true for an uninteresting reason. CH essentially makes MA vacuous.

In actual practice, consequences of MA are interesting only if CH fails. The weakest form of MA that is used in practice is MA(ℵ1), which implies (for example) that all sets of reals of size ℵ1 have measure 0 (and thus obviously contradicts CH).

The diamond-shaped graph is sort of interesting, I guess — V=L implying two different strengthenings of CH, neither of which implies the other — but I don't see the point of putting MA at the end of it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Undecidable diophantine equation
"One can write down a concrete polynomial p ∈ Z[x1, ..., x9] such that the statement "there are integers m1, ..., m9 with p(m1, ..., m9) = 0" can neither be proven nor disproven in ZFC (assuming ZFC is consistent). The polynomial is constructed so that it has an integer root if and only if ZFC is inconsistent."

Sorry but what does this mean? Since we are assuming ZFC is consistent, ZFC proves that p(m1, ..., m9) = 0 must have no solution by the second sentence! After all, how is the set of natural numbers defined if ZFC is inconsistent? 129.104.241.198 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Billy Jack Haynes

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Billy Jack Haynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060323232740/http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33924 to http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=33924

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP
I have removed serious allegations involving Haynes from the article and this talk page, as per WP:BLP. We should be very careful about reporting unverified claims of criminality as fact. Once in a Lifetime (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I am not sure what used to be in the article but Haynes claimed to have witnessed the Killing of Don Henry and Kevin Ives. -Location (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing Person
Should this article not be edited to reflect Billy Jack's disappearance? He's been missing for almost a year now, I believe. 86.8.200.75 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Arrested for Murder
he has been arrested for Murder according to Rene Dupree Cafe De Rene podcast 47.198.114.252 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that no mainstream media sources have picked up this story, and we have to rely on garbage sources like BodySlam and Ringside News for a story about a man killing his wife. I am going to remove for now unless it gets covered by quality sources.LM2000 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a local news report, which I believe broke the story. Although they note that the suspect is a former wrestler, they state: "Police have not identified either the person in custody or the victim, but neighbors say a former pro wrestler lives at the home with his wife."  The (unreliable) sources that have picked this up were able to connect the dots and find and identify the individual perhaps, but reliable outlets seem uncomfortable running with the story at this time.LM2000 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

He shot his wife
https://www.sescoops.com/news/ex-wwe-star-billy-jack-haynes-arrested-after-fatal-shooting-leaves-woman-dead 146.199.45.150 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

BNN is not listed as unreliable news source
Don't believe me? Then see for yourself.2601:447:4100:C30:DC41:BDBF:1243:7CA5 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see BNN at all there, it's not connected to Bloomberg as the links in the reference suggest. It's irrelevant though, other reliable sources have started naming Haynes as the suspect in this story, so I do not have any problem with naming him in this article anymore.LM2000 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Billy Jack Haynes


text:
User talk:Maian

Welcome to Wikipedia
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 such as yourself:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Spinboy 16:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maian


text:
Category:British National Vegetation Classification aquatic communities

This category groups together articles on the aquatic communities in the British National Vegetation Classification system.

x


text: Template:French terms for administrative divisions


text:
Talk:2-6-8-0

Railroads using this type
Was it really the Great Northern Railway (US) and Southern Railway (UK) that used this type? I would think that it would be both in the US. Whatever is correct (I don't have a reference for it right now), the article should state the locations for the two railroads to avoid confusion by readers. slambo 16:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * SPUI disambiguated Southern Railway incorrectly. I've cleared up the ambiguity. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

pictures
i want pictures of this loco and its wheels —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.222.84.70 (talk • contribs).

title: Talk:2-6-8-0


text:
Russian coast defense ship Gangut

Gangut (Russian: броненосец "Гангут") was an Imperial Russian coast defense ship named after the Battle of Gangut. This ship was a scaled-down version of the Imperator Aleksandr II-class battleships.

Design and construction
The ship was designed as a smaller version of the Imperator Aleksandr II-class battleship on the instruction of Navy Minister Ivan Shestakov. The aim was to have a cheaper vessel able to operate in the shallow water of the Baltic Sea with long range deployment to the Mediterranean and the Far East. The specification was issued in 1887 and the design was approved by the Marine Technical Committee in 1888.

She was built by New Admiralty yard, Saint Petersburg. Construction started on 29 October 1888, and she was launched on 3 July 1893. Completed in 1894, she was 600 tons over her designed displacement which led to an increase in draught and a loss in speed. Her trials were difficult and she had to return to Kronstadt to have repairs after 19 days. Several modernisation schemes to correct the defects were considered but did not proceed due to extensive demands on the Russian shipbuilding industry.

Armament
The main armament comprised a single 305 mm gun in a barbette mounting at the bow. The secondary armament comprised four 229 mm guns in casemates and four 152 mm guns which were not protected. Anti torpedo-boat armament comprised six 47 mm guns and twelve 37 mm Hotchkiss guns. There were also four 63 mm landing guns and six torpedo tubes. The Russian Navy considered replacing the 305 mm gun with another 229 mm gun to reduce weight. Another plan was to replace the secondary armament with new 152 mm Canet guns and leave the 305 mm gun in place.

Protection
Compound armour was used. The main belt was 2.13 m tall but had only 0.91 m height above the mean waterline due to excessive weight. The Russian Navy Marine Technical Kommittee (MTK) considered re-armouring her with a thinner belt of stronger Harvey armour

Machinery
Two vertical triple expansion steam engines with eight cylindrical boilers were installed. The ship also had a complex drainage system with steam turbine pumps. She proved slower than designed with a maximum speed of 13.8 kn rather than the intended 15 kn.

Sinking
On 12 June 1897, Gangut hit an uncharted pinnacle of rock near Vyborg in the Gulf of Finland during a military exercise. A gash along the ship′s bottom led to both boiler rooms flooding and a loss of power to her pumps. Her bulkheads were poorly riveted, leading to leaks. Drawbacks in her design gave her limited stability and resulted in ineffective counter-flooding efforts by her crew. The ship settled and sank slowly on an even keel in 30 m of water. There were no fatalities.

The vessel was not popular in the Imperial Russian Navy. Rear Admiral Birilev, her former captain, is quoted as describing her as ".. a vile ship, it's good that she sank, and it is pointless to raise her."

A plan to refloat the ship by the Swedish Neptune Company was not carried out, although divers recovered some items from the ship in 1898.

title: Russian coast defense ship Gangut


text:
Politzer

Politzer is a surname deriving from Politz. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Adam Politzer, Hungarian physician
 * Politzerization, a treatment technique for ear infections, developed by him
 * Georges Politzer, French philosopher
 * H. David Politzer, American physicist
 * Heinz Politzer, Austrian writer
 * Kerry Politzer, American pianist
 * Rózsa Péter (1905–1977), born Rózsa Politzer, a Hungarian mathematician

title: Politzer


text:
SCORAD

The SCORAD ("SCORing Atopic Dermatitis") index is a clinical tool for assessing the extent of the disease, disease intensity, and subjective symptoms of atopic dermatitis. It gives approximate weights of 60% to intensity and 20% each to extent and subjective symptoms. These are used to calculate a maximum total score of 103, however, the scores for each category can be used individually if clinically appropriate.

The SCORAD index was developed by the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis in 1993. The index was the most widely used disease-severity scale for atopic dermatitis between its development and 2010.

Calculation
To calculate the SCORAD index, the extent of disease is determined using the rule of nines to estimate percentage of the affected body surface area. The maximum value for the extent of the disease is 100%.

Disease intensity is then calculated based on six characteristics: erythema, edema, oozing/crusts, excoriations, lichenification, and dryness. Each characteristic is given a score between 0 and 3, where 0 is absent and 3 is severe. The scores for each characteristic are added together for a total intensity score of up to 18.

Subjective symptoms including sleep loss and pruritus are measured using a 10 cm visual analogue scale with a total maximum score of 20.

The SCORAD index is then calculated with the following formula:
 * $$\text{Extent}/5 + 7\times \text{Intensity}/2 + \text{Subjective Symptoms}$$

title: SCORAD


text:
Leach Botanical Garden

Leach Botanical Garden is a 16 acre botanical garden located in outer southeast Portland, Oregon, near S.E. 122nd Avenue and Foster Road. It was acquired by the Portland Parks Bureau in 1972.

History
The garden was established in 1931 as landscaping for the private home of botanist Lilla Leach and pharmacist John Leach, and subsequently donated to the city. The garden was originally named Sleepy Hollow. The Leaches built their cottage-style manor house on the property in 1936. They lived in a stone cottage near Johnson Creek during the summer before the house was completed.

Lilla Leach was the first recipient of the Eloise Payne Luquer Medal, awarded by the Garden Club of America in 1950, for distinguished achievement in botany. From 1945 until 1948, she was director of Save the Myrtle Wood, Inc.

Following the Leaches' deaths, the garden was left to the City of Portland with the stipulation that the city had ten years to take over maintenance of the garden, or the land would go to the YMCA.

Work on a 5 acre expansion began in 2018 and was completed in 2021, increasing the garden's size to 16 acre.

The Gardens
The garden currently features a diverse collection of over 2,000 hybrids, cultivars, native and non-native plants, including alpines, medicinal herbs, rock garden plants, camellias, and 40 genera and over 125 species of ferns. Many are labeled. The property is divided by Johnson Creek and most of the land is on an incline. A self-guided tour winds along trails with views of firs, ferns, and wildflowers. As of 2010, the garden's director was David Porter.

title: Leach Botanical Garden