text:
Lloyd (automobile)

Lloyd Motoren Werke G.m.b.H. (Lloyd Engine Works) was a German automobile manufacturer, created in 1908 and owned by the Norddeutscher Lloyd shipping company. The factory was in Bremen. The company operated under a variety of different names throughout the decades, but their products were nearly always badged with the Lloyd marque. Originally a manufacturer of luxury cars, the company was folded into the Borgward Group in 1929, with the brand not used on passenger cars again until 1950. Production ended for good in 1963, although a successor company continued trading until 1989, selling replacement parts, as well as manufacturing engines for snowmobiles and boats.

The German Lloyd marque had no connection with the British Lloyd Cars Ltd company active between 1936 and 1951.

1908–1937
The first cars were licence-built Kriéger electric vehicles. Petrol-engined models followed in 1908, using 3685 cc engines, but few were made. The Belgian electrical engineer, Paul Mossay, was employed for four years as chief engineer, designing both engines and electric vehicles. In 1914, the company merged with Hansa to become Hansa-Lloyd Werke AG. The company was never on a sound financial footing and changed names and badging on a number of occasions. Most of the Hansa/Lloyd cars made during that period were branded as "Hansa". The "Hansa-Lloyd" name mainly attached to commercial vehicles, with the exception of the Treff-Aß and the Trumpf-Aß. The company was integrated in the Borgward group after the purchase of Hansa by Carl F. W. Borgward in 1929, and car production ceased.

Until 1937, the Hansa-Lloyd brand was used on a number of commercial vehicles (trucks and buses), from the one-ton "Express" to the five-ton "Merkur". They were largely replaced by Borgward-branded vehicles, but a few models were sold in 1938 with just "Hansa" badging.

1950–1963

Lloyd as a stand-alone name only entered mass-production of cars and light trucks in 1950, when the company became Lloyd Motoren Werke GmbH – still in Bremen. The very first cars (the Lloyd 300) were wood- and fabric-bodied. Between 1953 and 1954, thin, rolled steel gradually replaced the original fabric shell (Lloyd 400), but wood framing was still used within the doors and elsewhere.

The Lloyd 250 was called "Prüfungsangst-Lloyd" ("Lloyd for exam nerves") because they appealed to drivers who had older driving licenses and could drive the car without having to pass the new test for drivers of cars with a cubic capacity of over 250 cc, a test which was introduced in a legal reform in the mid-1950s. With an engine producing only 11 PS (DIN), the Lloyd designers saw a need for saving weight, and thus offered the LP 250 without a back seat, bumpers, hub caps or trims. However, most buyers ordered the LP 250 V with those features as optional extras.

Overall, the vehicles filled the need for small, cheap cars, which were characteristic of post-war Germany, and they provided a comparatively high standard of comfort and reliability. For several years in the 1950s, they rose to third place in the annual licensing statistics, behind only Volkswagen and Opel. In spite of that success, there was little prestige gained in driving a Lloyd. In the vernacular, the Lloyd 300 was called "Leukoplastbomber", due to the owners' habit of repairing nicks in the fabric of the body with sticking plaster called Leukoplast. A contemporary derisive verse went "Wer den Tod nicht scheut, fährt Lloyd" ("He who is not afraid of death, drives a Lloyd").

Pietro Frua designed a coupé based on the Lloyd Alexander, which was presented at the Turin Motor Show in November 1958.

The parent company failed in 1961 but cars were still made up to 1963. By that time, the LP 900 was named "Borgward Arabella" instead of "Lloyd Arabella".

Australian production – The Lloyd-Hartnett
The Lloyd 600 was assembled in Australia by a company formed as joint venture between Carl Borgward and Laurence Hartnett in the late 1950s. The car was introduced in December 1957 as the Lloyd-Hartnett and a total of 3000 cars were built before production ceased in 1962.

title: Lloyd (automobile)


text:
Messiah (disambiguation)

Messiah is a title given to a saviour or liberator of a group of people in Abrahamic religions.

Messiah also may refer to:
 * Messiah (Handel), a 1741 oratorio by George Frideric Handel
 * Christ (title), Greek translation of Messiah

Film

 * The Messiah (1975 film), an Italian film
 * Messiah (1999 film), a French film performance of Handel's oratorio
 * The Messiah (2007 film) or Mesih, a 2007 film by Nader Talebzadeh
 * Messiah (2011 film), a 2011 film

Television

 * Messiah (British TV series), a BBC television drama series
 * Messiah (American TV series), a Netflix TV drama
 * Messiah (Derren Brown special), a Channel 4 television show

Literature

 * The Messiah (novel), a novel by Marjorie Holmes
 * Der Messias (Klopstock), an epic poem (ed. 1748 to 1773) by Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock
 * Messiah (English poem), a 1709 poem by Alexander Pope
 * Messiah (Latin poem), a poem by Alexander Pope
 * Messiah (Starling novel), a 1999 thriller by Boris Starling
 * Messiah (Vidal novel), a 1954 satirical novel by Gore Vidal
 * The Messiah, a novel by Marek Halter
 * The Messiah, a play by the National Theatre of Brent

Music

 * Messiah Stradivarius, a 1716 Stradivari violin

Artists

 * Messiah (Swiss band), a death/thrash metal band from Switzerland
 * Messiah (UK band), a techno group from London
 * Mr. Messiah or Yuri Kostrov, Russian electronic musician and DJ
 * Mesiah or Eirik Norheim (born 1967), Norwegian musician, former member of Mayhem
 * Messiah (rapper)

Albums

 * Messiah (Fear Factory album)
 * Messiah (Mormon Tabernacle Choir album)
 * Messiah (EP), a Godflesh EP

Songs

 * "Messiah", a 1994 song by The Farm
 * "Messiah", a 2013 song by I See Monstas
 * "Messiah", a 2015 song by Madonna from Rebel Heart
 * "Messiah", a 2019 song by Nebula from Holy Shit

Religious figures

 * Jesus, the Messiah in Christianity
 * Moshiach, the Messiah in Judaism
 * Messiah ben Joseph, or Mashiach ben Yoseph, also known as Mashiach bar/ben Ephraim, a Jewish messiah from the tribe of Ephraim and a descendant of Joseph

Sports

 * The Messiah (wrestler) (born 1977), American professional wrestler
 * Lionel Messi or Messiah, Argentinian football player

Other uses

 * Messiah (software), a computer animation and rendering package
 * Messiah (video game), a 2000 third person shooter video game by Interplay
 * Messiah Cathedral, an Indonesian megachurch of the predominantly Indonesian-Chinese Indonesian Reformed Evangelical Church
 * Messiah College, a Christian liberal arts college in Grantham, Pennsylvania
 * Messiah complex, a state of mind in which an individual holds a belief that they are destined to become a savior

People

 * Aaron Messiah (1858-1940), French architect
 * Albert Messiah (1921–2013), French physicist and author of a classic graduate text on quantum mechanics
 * Messiah Marcolin (born 1967), real name Bror Jan Alfredo Marcolin, also known as Eddie Marcolin, a vocalist in the doom metal band Candlemass

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

title: Messiah (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Return to the 36th Chamber

This article is necessary
This article is unnecessary as there is a far more indepth article under the full name of the album. Krazykillaz 03:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation link leads to the ODB album. This article is about the 1980 Shaw Brothers martial arts film and is necessary. — WiseKwai 18:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mistake?
When he finished his work, he said that it took him around 1 year to finish it. But when he returned to town it is said that he has been gone for three years. Does he took 2 years by practiceng with the stone and washing his hair? Or is it only a mistake in the german synchronisation I've watched.77.13.133.34 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Return to the 36th Chamber


text:
Piophila

Piophila is a genus of small flies which includes the species known as the cheese fly. Both Piophila species feed on carrion, including human corpses.

Description
Piophila are small dark flies with unmarked wings. The setulae (fine hairs) on the thorax are confined to three distinct rows.

Species
There are two species in the genus Piophila:
 * Piophila casei (Linnaeus, 1758), the cheese fly
 * Piophila megastigmata J. McAlpine, 1978

title: Piophila


text: Talk:Piophila

title: Talk:Piophila


text:
List of England Test cricket records

Test cricket is the oldest form of cricket played at international level. A Test match is scheduled to take place over a period of five days, and is played by teams representing full member nations of the International Cricket Council (ICC). England was a founding member of the ICC, having played the first Test match against Australia in March 1877 at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. , they have played more Test matches than any other team, and of their 1071 games, have won 392, drawn 355 and lost 324. With 36.6 per cent of matches won, this makes England the third most successful team in the history of Test cricket, behind Australia on 47.8 per cent and South Africa on 38.36 per cent.

Opening batsman and former captain Alastair Cook holds several England Test cricket records. Playing between 2006 and 2018, he scored 12,472 runs, making him the first England player to score 10,000 Test runs. He scored a record 57 half-centuries and 33 centuries. As a slip fielder, Cook has also taken the most catches for England with 175 and holds the England record for the most catches taken in a Test series with 13. Cook also holds the Test record for the most consecutive matches played with 159.

The most successful Test wicket-taker for England is James Anderson, who made his Test debut in 2003 and is currently still active. , he has played in a total of 187 Test matches and taken a record 700 wickets for a fast bowler at Test level, both records for England. He has also picked up five wickets in an innings on 32 occasions, which is the most for the national side. The corresponding record for taking ten wickets in a match is held by Sydney Barnes, who achieved this feat seven times. He also holds the Test record for the most wickets taken in a series, having removed members of the opposing side 49 times during the England tour of South Africa in 1913–14. Alan Knott is England's most successful wicket-keeper, having taken 269 dismissals. England claims two age records: James Southerton as the oldest player to make his Test debut, at 49, and Wilfred Rhodes, aged 52, as the oldest cricketer to ever play in a Test match.

Key
The top five records are listed for each category, except for the team wins, losses and draws and the partnership records. Tied records for fifth place are also included. Explanations of the general symbols and cricketing terms used in the list are given below. Specific details are provided in each category where appropriate. All records include matches played for England only, and are correct.

Team wins, losses and draws
, England have played 1,071 Test matches resulting in 392 victories, 324 defeats and 355 draws for an overall winning percentage of 36.60, the third highest winning percentage of Test playing teams. England has played the highest number of Test matches, ahead of Australia which has competed in 866. England is undefeated against Zimbabwe and Ireland, and has defeated Bangladesh on all but one occasion. England played the debut Test matches of Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies – winning all of them except against Australia.

Most runs in an innings
The highest innings total scored in Test cricket came in the series between Sri Lanka and India in August 1997. Playing in the first Test at the R. Premadasa Stadium in Colombo, the hosts posted a first innings total of 952/6d. This broke the longstanding record of 903/7d which England set against Australia in the final Test of the 1938 Ashes series at The Oval. This in turn broke England's 849 all out against the West Indies in 1930.

Highest successful run chases
The highest successful run chase came in the West Indies victory over Australia in May 2003 at the Antigua Recreation Ground. Set 418 for victory in the final innings, the hosts achieved the target for the loss of seven wickets. England's highest successful chase came in the fifth Test of the 2021 series against India at Edgbaston (held over until 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic). England reached the target of 378 runs with seven wickets in hand, having successfully chased a target of over 300 runs in Test matches on only four previous occasions.

Fewest runs in an innings
The lowest innings total scored in Test cricket came in the second Test of England's tour of New Zealand in March 1955. Trailing England by 46, New Zealand were bowled out in their second innings for 26 runs. The equal twelfth-lowest score in Test history is England's total of 45 scored in their first innings against Australia in the first Test of the 1886–87 Ashes series.

Result records
A Test match is won when one side has scored more runs than the total runs scored by the opposing side during their two innings. If both sides have completed both their allocated innings and the side that fielded last has the higher aggregate of runs, it is known as a win by runs. This indicates the number of runs that they had scored more than the opposing side. If one side scores more runs in a single innings than the total runs scored by the other side in both their innings, it is known as a win by an innings and runs. If the side batting last wins the match, it is known as a win by wickets, indicating the number of wickets that were still to fall.

Greatest win margins (by innings)
The fifth Test of the 1938 Ashes series at The Oval saw England win by an innings and 579 runs, the largest victory by an innings in Test cricket history. The next largest victory was Australia's win against South Africa in the first Test of the 2001–02 tour at the Wanderers Stadium, where the tourists won by an innings and 360 runs.

Greatest win margins (by runs)
The greatest winning margin by runs in Test cricket was England's victory over Australia by 675 runs in the first Test of the 1928–29 Ashes series. The next two largest victories were recorded by Australia including defeat over England in the final Test of the 1934 Ashes series by 562 runs.

Greatest win margins (by 10 wickets)
England have won a Test match by a margin of 10 wickets on 20 occasions, the third highest behind Australia on 30 and the West Indies on 28.

Narrowest win margins (by runs)
England's narrowest win by runs was against Australia in the second Test of the 2005 Ashes series at Edgbaston. Set 282 runs for victory in the final innings, Australia were bowled all out for 279 to give victory to the hosts by two runs. This was the second-narrowest win in Test cricket, with the narrowest being the West Indies' one-run win over Australia in 1993.

Narrowest win margins (by wickets)
England have won by a margin of one wicket on four occasions, the most recent being the third Test of the 2019 Ashes series at Headingley. This match saw the hosts achieving their highest successful run chase in Test cricket of 359 runs, one of only fourteen one-wicket victories in Test cricket.

Greatest loss margins (by innings)
England suffered their greatest defeat by an innings at The Gabba in the first Test of the 1946–47 Ashes series, the first Test match to be played in Australia after the Second World War. Going down to the hosts by an innings and 332 runs, this is the fourth-heaviest defeat in Test cricket history.

Greatest loss margins (by runs)
The first Test of the 1928–29 Ashes series saw Australia defeated by England by 675 runs, the greatest losing margin by runs in Test cricket. The results were reversed in the fifth and final Test of the 1934 Ashes series at The Oval where the tourists defeated the hosts by 562 runs, England's greatest defeat by runs.

Greatest loss margins (by 10 wickets)
England have lost a Test match by a margin of 10 wickets on 25 occasions, more than any other Test playing team.

Narrowest loss margins (by runs)

Only two matches in 147 years of Test cricket has been decided by a margin of one run. First was the fourth Test of the West Indian tour of Australia in 1992–93 where the visitors secured victory, which was equalled in England's loss in the second Test of their 2023 tour to New Zealand at Basin Reserve, Wellington. England had made New Zealand follow-on, but a second innings of 483 from the home team set a target of 257. This was also only the fourth time that a team made to follow-on had won a Test.

Narrowest loss margins (by wickets)
Test cricket has seen fourteen matches decided by a margin of one wicket, with England being defeated in one of them. The first Test of the 1905–06 series against South Africa at Old Wanderers saw the home side chase down the target of 284 runs in the final innings.

Most career runs
A run is the basic means of scoring in cricket. A run is scored when the batsman hits the ball with his bat and with his partner runs the length of 22 yards of the pitch.

India's Sachin Tendulkar has scored the most runs in Test cricket with 15,921. Second is Ricky Ponting of Australia with 13,378 ahead of Jacques Kallis from South Africa in third with 13,289. Alastair Cook, one of two England batsman to have scored more than 10,000 runs in Test cricket, is in fifth with 12,472.

Highest individual score
The final Test of the 2003–04 series of the Wisden Trophy, contested between England and the West Indies, at the Antigua Recreation Ground saw Brian Lara of the West Indies set the highest Test score with 400 not out. Len Hutton's score of 364 runs against Australia during the final Test of the 1938 Ashes series at The Oval is the sixth highest individual score in Test cricket and the highest by an England player. Wally Hammond's 336, scored against New Zealand in 1933, is the third highest not out Test innings and the ninth highest overall. Hutton's, Hammond's and Andy Sandham's 325 against the West Indies in 1930 were Test record scores at the time they were scored.

Highest career average
A batsman's batting average is the total number of runs they have scored divided by the number of times they have been dismissed.

Australia's Don Bradman, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time, finished his Test career with an average of 99.94. With 60.73, Herbert Sutcliffe is one of only five batsmen to finish his international career with an average above 60.

Most half-centuries
A half-century is a score of between 50 and 99 runs. Statistically, once a batsman's score reaches 100, it is no longer considered a half-century but a century.

Sachin Tendulkar of India has scored the most half-centuries in Test cricket with 68. He is followed by the West Indies' Shivnarine Chanderpaul on 66, India's Rahul Dravid and Allan Border of Australia are third on 63 and in sixth with 61 fifties to his name, England's Joe Root.

Most centuries
A century is a score of 100 or more runs in a single innings.

Tendulkar has also scored the most centuries in Test cricket with 51. South Africa's Jacques Kallis is next on 45 and Ricky Ponting with 41 hundreds is in third. The highest ranked England player is Alastair Cook in tenth with 33 centuries.

Most double centuries
A double century is a score of 200 or more runs in a single innings.

Bradman holds the Test record for the most double centuries scored with twelve, one ahead of Sri Lanka's Kumar Sangakkara who finished his career with eleven. In third is Brian Lara of the West Indies with nine. England's Wally Hammond, India's Virat Kohli and Mahela Jayawardene of Sri Lanka have all reached the mark on seven occasions.

Most triple centuries
A triple century is a score of 300 or more runs in a single innings.

Four cricketers hold the Test record for the most triple centuries scored with two – Don Bradman, India's Virender Sehwag and West Indians Chris Gayle and Brian Lara. Five England players have scored a single Test triple century with former captain Graham Gooch the most recent to do so in 1990,.

Most runs in a series
The 1930 Ashes series in England saw Bradman set the record for the most runs scored in a single series, falling just 26 short of 1,000 runs. He is followed by Wally Hammond with 905 runs scored in the 1928–29 Ashes series. Alastair Cook's 766 runs scored during the 2010–11 Ashes series ranks in 14th.

Most ducks
A duck refers to a batsman being dismissed without scoring a run. Former West Indian fast bowler Courtney Walsh has scored the highest number of ducks in Test cricket with 43 followed by England's Stuart Broad with 39. James Anderson, with 31 scoreless innings, is eighth on the list.

Most career wickets
A bowler takes the wicket of a batsman when the form of dismissal is bowled, caught, leg before wicket, stumped or hit wicket. If the batsman is dismissed by run out, obstructing the field, handling the ball, hitting the ball twice or timed out the bowler does not receive credit.

Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan holds the record for taking the most wickets in Test cricket with 800, followed by Australia's Shane Warne who previously held the record with 708. James Anderson of England is third on the list with 700 Test wickets to his name, having passed Australia's Glenn McGrath to become the fast bowler with the most Test wickets in September 2018. Stuart Broad, with 604, is the second-highest England Test wicket-taker and fifth overall, after becoming the second fast bowler to overtake McGrath's total of 563 wickets in September 2022. Of genuine all-rounders, no England player has taken more wickets than Ian Botham, who also scored 5,200 Test runs.

Best figures in an innings
Bowling figures refers to the number of the wickets a bowler has taken and the number of runs conceded.

There have been three occasions in Test cricket where a bowler has taken all ten wickets in a single innings – Jim Laker of England took 10/53 against Australia in 1956, India's Anil Kumble in 1999 returned figures of 10/74 against Pakistan and in 2021 Ajaz Patel of New Zealand took 10/119 against India. George Lohmann, one of sixteen bowlers who have taken nine wickets in a Test match innings, sits fourth on the list taking figures of 9/28 against South Africa in 1896.

Best figures in a match
A bowler's bowling figures in a match is the sum of the wickets taken and the runs conceded over both innings.

No bowler in the history of Test cricket has taken all 20 wickets in a match. The closest to do so was English spin bowler Jim Laker. During the fourth Test of the 1956 Ashes series, Laker took 9/37 in the first innings and 10/53 in the second to finish with match figures of 19/90. Sydney Barnes's figures of 17/159, taken in the second Test of the 1913–14 South African tour, is the second-best in Test cricket history.

Best career average
A bowler's bowling average is the total number of runs they have conceded divided by the number of wickets they have taken.

Nineteenth century English medium pacer George Lohmann holds the record for the best career average in Test cricket with 10.75. J. J. Ferris, one of fifteen cricketers to have played Test cricket for more than one team, is second behind Lohmann with an overall career average of 12.70 runs per wicket. Billy Barnes is third on the list, finishing his Test career with an average of 15.54.

Best career strike rate
A bowler's strike rate is the total number of balls they have bowled divided by the number of wickets they have taken.

As with the career average above, the top two bowlers with the best Test career strike rate are George Lohmann and J. J. Ferris, with Lohmann on 34.1 and Ferris with an overall career strike rate of 37.7 balls per wicket.

Best career economy rate
A bowler's economy rate is the total number of runs they have conceded divided by the number of overs they have bowled.

English bowler William Attewell, who played 10 Tests between 1884 and 1892, holds the Test record for the best career economy rate with 1.31. Cliff Gladwin, with a rate of 1.60 runs per over conceded over his 8-match Test career, is second on the list.

Most five-wicket hauls in an innings
A five-wicket haul refers to a bowler taking five wickets in a single innings.

Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan has taken the most five-wicket hauls in Test cricket with 67 throughout his career followed by Shane Warne achieving 37. James Anderson is the highest ranked England player in sixth, with 32.

Most ten-wicket hauls in a match
A ten-wicket haul refers to a bowler taking ten or more wickets in a match over two innings.

As with the five-wicket hauls above, Muttiah Muralitharan leads Shane Warne in taking the most ten-wicket hauls in Test cricket with Muralitharan having taken 22 to Warne's 10. Sydney Barnes of England is in equal sixth with three other bowlers, each achieving the feat on seven occasions.

Worst figures in an innings
The worst figures in a single innings in Test cricket came in the third Test between the West Indies at home to Pakistan in 1958. Pakistan's Khan Mohammad returned figures of 0/259 from his 54 overs in the second innings of the match. The worst figures by an England player are 0/169 that came off the bowling of Tich Freeman in his final Test appearance.

Worst figures in a match
The worst figures in a match in Test cricket were taken by South Africa's Imran Tahir in the second Test against Australia at the Adelaide Oval in November 2012. He returned figures of 0/180 from his 23 overs in the first innings and 0/80 off 14 in the third innings for a total of 0/260 from 37 overs. He claimed the record in his final over when two runs came from it – enough for him to pass the previous record of 0/259, set 54 years prior.

The worst figures by an England player came in the fourth Test of the 1989–90 tour of the West Indies when Devon Malcolm returned figures of 0/142 and 0/46 for a total of 0/188 off 43 overs.

Most wickets in a series
England's seventh Test tour of South Africa in 1913–14 saw the record set for the most wickets taken by a bowler in a Test series. English paceman Sydney Barnes played in four of the five matches and achieved a total of 49 wickets to his name. Jim Laker sits second on the list with 46 wickets taken during the 1956 Ashes series.

Wicket-keeping records
The wicket-keeper is a specialist fielder who stands behind the stumps being guarded by the batsman on strike and is the only member of the fielding side allowed to wear gloves and leg pads.

Most career dismissals
A wicket-keeper can be credited with the dismissal of a batsman in two ways, caught or stumped. A fair catch is taken when the ball is caught fully within the field of play without it bouncing after the ball has touched the striker's bat or glove holding the bat, while a stumping occurs when the wicket-keeper puts down the wicket while the batsman is out of his ground and not attempting a run.

South Africa's Mark Boucher has taken the most dismissals in Test cricket as a designated wicket-keeper with 555, followed by Adam Gilchrist of Australia on 416. England's Alan Knott, who took 269 dismissals during his 95-Test match career, is eighth on the list. He is followed by his compatriots Matt Prior and Alec Stewart in tenth and eleventh with 256 and 241 dismissals respectively.

Most career catches
Boucher also leads Gilchrist in the number of catches taken as a designated wicket-keeper in Test cricket, 532 to 379. Alan Knott, with 250 catches to his name is ninth on this list. He is again followed by Prior and Stewart in tenth and eleventh with 243 and 227 catches respectively.

Most career stumpings
Australia's Bert Oldfield holds the record for the most stumpings in Test cricket with 52. He is followed by Godfrey Evans of England with 46 to his name.

Most dismissals in an innings
Four wicket-keepers have taken seven dismissals in a single innings in a Test match—Wasim Bari of Pakistan in 1979, Englishman Bob Taylor in 1980, New Zealand's Ian Smith in 1991 and most recently West Indian gloveman Ridley Jacobs against Australia in 2000.

The feat of taking 6 dismissals in an innings has been achieved by 25 wicket-keepers on 33 occasions including 7 Englishmen on 11 occasions.

Most dismissals in a series
Brad Haddin holds the Test cricket record for the most dismissals taken by a wicket-keeper in a series. He took 29 catches during the 2013 Ashes series which broke the previous record held by fellow Australian Rod Marsh when he took 28 catches in the 1982–83 Ashes series. Jack Russell of England is equal third with 27 dismissals taken during the 1995–96 tour of South Africa.

Most career catches
Caught is one of the nine methods a batsman can be dismissed in cricket. A fair catch is defined as a fielder catching the ball, from a legal delivery, fully within the field of play without it bouncing when the ball has touched the striker's bat or glove holding the bat. The majority of catches are caught in the slips, located behind the batsman, next to the wicket-keeper, on the off side of the field. Most slip fielders are top order batsmen.

India's Rahul Dravid holds the record for the most catches in Test cricket by a non-wicket-keeper with 210, followed by Mahela Jayawardene of Sri Lanka on 205 and South African Jacques Kallis with 200. Former captain Joe Root is the highest ranked England player in fifth, securing 193 catches in his Test career.

Most catches in a series
The 1920–21 Ashes series, in which Australia whitewashed England 5–0 for the first time, saw the record set for the most catches taken by a non-wicket-keeper in a Test series. Australian all-rounder Jack Gregory took 15 catches in the series as well as 23 wickets. Greg Chappell and KL Rahul are joint second behind Gregory with 14 catches taken during the 1974–75 Ashes series and the 2018 India tour of England respectively. The same series saw Alastair Cook become the highest placed England player in equal fourth with 13 catches taken alongside Bob Simpson, Brian Lara and Rahul Dravid.

Most career matches
India's Sachin Tendulkar holds the record for the most Test matches played with 200, with James Anderson in second with 183 caps. Former captains Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh are joint third with each having represented Australia on 168 occasions. Anderson is one of 15 cricketers to have played 100 Tests for England.

Most consecutive career matches
Former English captain Alastair Cook holds the record for the most consecutive Test matches played with 159. Cook equalled the previous record of 153, set by Australia's Allan Border, during the first Test of the two-match series against Pakistan in May 2018 and broke it by playing in the second Test of the same series. Former English skipper Joe Root brought his run of 77 consecutive Tests to an end when he missed the first Test against the West Indies in July 2020, due to the birth of his second child.

Most matches as captain
Graeme Smith, who led the South African cricket team from 2003 to 2014, holds the record for the most matches played as captain in Test cricket with 109. Allan Border, who skippered Australia from 1984 to 1994 is second with 93 matches. Joe Root, is seventh on the list with 64 matches.

Youngest players
The youngest player to play in a Test match is claimed to be Hasan Raza at the age of 14 years and 227 days. Making his debut for Pakistan against Zimbabwe on 24 October 1996, there is some doubt as to the validity of Raza's age at the time. The youngest cricketer to play Test cricket for England was Rehan Ahmed who was 18 years and 126 days old when he debuted in the third Test of the series against Pakistan in December 2022.

Oldest players on debut
At 49 years and 119 days, James Southerton of England, playing in the very first Test match in March 1877, is the oldest player to make his debut in Test cricket. Second on the list is Miran Bakhsh of Pakistan who at 47 years and 284 days made his debut against India in 1955.

Oldest players
England all-rounder Wilfred Rhodes is the oldest player to appear in a Test match. Playing in the fourth Test against the West Indies in 1930 at Sabina Park, in Kingston, Jamaica, he was aged 52 years and 165 days on the final day's play. The second-oldest Test player is Bert Ironmonger who was aged 50 years and 327 days when he represented Australia for the final time in the fifth Test of the 1932–33 Ashes series at the Sydney Cricket Ground.

Partnership records
In cricket, two batsmen are always present at the crease batting together in a partnership. This partnership will continue until one of them is dismissed, retires or the innings comes to a close.

Highest partnerships by wicket
A wicket partnership describes the number of runs scored before each wicket falls. The first wicket partnership is between the opening batsmen and continues until the first wicket falls. The second wicket partnership then commences between the not out batsman and the number three batsman. This partnership continues until the second wicket falls. The third wicket partnership then commences between the not out batsman and the new batsman. This continues down to the tenth wicket partnership. When the tenth wicket has fallen, there is no batsman left to partner so the innings is closed.

English batsmen hold three Test wicket partnerships records, all set since 2010. Ben Stokes and Jonny Bairstow came together in the second Test of the 2015–16 series against South Africa at Newlands Cricket Ground and put together a sixth wicket partnership of 399 runs. The pair of Jonathan Trott and Stuart Broad set the highest eighth wicket partnership of 332 runs at Lord's in August 2010 against Pakistan. Finally, the tenth wicket partnership of 198 was made by Joe Root and James Anderson in the first Test against India at Trent Bridge in July 2014.

Highest partnerships by runs
The highest Test partnership by runs for any wicket is held by the Sri Lankan pairing of Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene who put together a third wicket partnership of 624 runs during the first Test against South Africa in July 2006. This broke the record of 576 runs set by their compatriots Sanath Jayasuriya and Roshan Mahanama against India in 1997. New Zealand's Andrew Jones and Martin Crowe hold the third-highest Test partnership with 467 made in 1991 against Sri Lanka. The English pairing of Peter May and Colin Cowdrey together scored 411 for the fourth wicket against the West Indies in 1957 to place themselves thirteenth on the list.

Most matches umpired
An umpire in cricket is a person who officiates the match according to the Laws of Cricket. Two umpires adjudicate the match on the field, whilst a third umpire has access to video replays, and a fourth umpire looks after the match balls and other duties. The records below are only for on-field umpires.

Aleem Dar of Pakistan holds the record for the most Test matches umpired with 145,. The currently active Dar set the record in December 2019 overtaking West Indian Steve Bucknor's mark of 128 matches. They are followed by South Africa's Rudi Koertzen who officiated in 108. The most experienced Englishman is David Shepherd who is fifth on the list with 92 Test matches umpired. Dickie Bird, who previously held the record with 66 Tests, is currently sixteenth.

title: List of England Test cricket records


text:
Wichita Falls Railroad Museum

Prior to closure, the Wichita Falls Railroad Museum was a railroad museum in Wichita Falls, Texas. It was founded in 1980 to establish a museum of railroad, streetcar, and pioneer history. Starting its existence in the town's historic Depot Square, it changed locations over time, but had since 1992 been located back in Depot Square.

Rolling stock included the Fort Worth and Denver Railway No. 304 steam locomotive, and the Missouri–Kansas–Texas Railroad ("Katy") diesel switcher 1029, as well as Commuter Cars, Pullman Troop Sleepers, Dining Cars, Post Office and Baggage Cars, Cabooses and more.

The museum closed in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Museum officials originally agreed with the City of Wichita Falls, which owned the museum building, to terminate the lease and, by the end of 2021, ship the contents to the Museum of North Texas History, also in Wichita Falls. However, by May of 2022, no final plan regarding what to do with the artifacts had been approved by the City of Wichita Falls, and the artifacts remained behind locked gates in their old location.

title: Wichita Falls Railroad Museum


text: User talk:201.240.119.26

title: User talk:201.240.119.26


text:
Carl Magee

Carlton Cole "Carl" Magee (January 5, 1872 – February 1946) was an American lawyer and newspaper publisher. He also patented the first practical parking meter. He was born in Iowa. Magee graduated from Upper Iowa University in 1896. He moved to New Mexico in 1917 with his wife.

Magee founded the Magee's Independent in 1922, which would change its name to the New Mexico State Tribune in 1923 and to the Albuquerque Tribune in 1933. The Tribune closed in 2008. Magee was important in bringing the Teapot Dome scandal to the fore. When a judge Magee had once accused of corruption knocked him down in a hotel lobby, Magee drew his pistol and fired, accidentally killing a bystander. Magee was acquitted of manslaughter, but moved to Oklahoma City to run the Oklahoma News. He was the paper's editor until he was transferred to the Oklahoma City News.

Carl Magee was an attorney and newspaper editor who joined the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce traffic committee in 1933 and, shortly thereafter, was charged with lessening the escalating traffic congestion in the city's downtown. Local merchants complained that their sales were hurt by low traffic turnover, since parking spaces adjacent to downtown businesses were occupied by the same cars all day. Magee conceived the idea of a coin-operated timer that could be used to increase traffic turnover in busy commercial thoroughfares, and he sponsored a contest at the University of Oklahoma to develop such a device. After the contest, Magee designed and patented his own model and sought Professors H. G. Thuesen and Gerald Hale from Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College (now Oklahoma State University) to help him develop his model into an operating meter. The first model eventually created was powered by a clock-type mainspring, which required subsequent winding by parking patrons after they had fed coins into the meter. Magee later partnered with Gerald Hale to form the Magee-Hale Park-O-Meter Company, predecessor to the modern POM, Inc.

The first parking meters were installed in downtown Oklahoma City on July 16, 1935, and charged five cents per hour. Businesses benefited greatly from the decreased parking congestion, but some outraged citizens complained and even initiated legal action in response to installation of the meters. Legal action failed to halt implementation of the meters, however, and the added benefits of revenue generation quickly led other cities to install parking meters of their own.

The earliest Magee-Hale meters were manufactured in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma, by Rockwell International, which moved its meter production to Russellville, Arkansas in 1963. POM, Inc., as constituted today was organized in 1976 to purchase the parking meter production operations from Rockwell, as well as its Russellville plant.

New ownership and production facility expansion occurred at POM in the 1980s, and POM unveiled its patented “Advanced Parking Meter” (APM) in 1992, featuring a choice of battery or solar power, among other improvements. According to its website, the company today “has the largest plant in the world devoted to the manufacturing of digital parking meters.”

Magee switched from Republican to Democrat and ran unsuccessfully for the United States Senate in 1924.

He is best known in journalism today for the E.W. Scripps Company motto, adopted from Dante for the Albuquerque Tribune and which is now carried by all Scripps chain newspapers: “Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way.”

Magee died in Tulsa, Oklahoma in February 1946.

title: Carl Magee


text:
Commonwealth men

The Commonwealth men, Commonwealthmen, Commonwealth's men, or Commonwealth Party were highly outspoken British Protestant religious, political, and economic reformers during the early 18th century. They were active in the movement called the Country Party. They promoted republicanism and had a great influence on Republicanism in the United States, but little impact in Britain.

The most noted Commonwealthmen were John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, who wrote the seminal work Cato's Letters between 1720 and 1723. Other members include Robert Crowley, Henry Brinkelow, Thomas Beccon, Thomas Lever, and John Hales. They condemned corruption and lack of morality in British political life, theorizing that only civic virtue could protect a country from despotism and ruin.

Their criticism about enclosure and the general material plight of the poor were particularly notable to early twentieth-century scholars like Richard Tawney who saw in them a valuable though regrettably abortive form of Christian socialism that represented a preferable alternative to the view of Max Weber that Protestantism enabled and sustained the rise of capitalism. On the other hand, it has been argued that the Commonwealthmen "by no means stand against an individualistic or capitalistic spirit, and — despite what [for example, historians JGA Pocock and Gordon Wood] have claimed — are far from espousing classical virtue or the Aristotelian conception of man as zoon politikon [a political animal]."

Although nearly all British politicians and thinkers rejected the ideas of the Commonwealthmen in the eighteenth century, these writers had a powerful effect on British colonial America. It is estimated that half the private libraries in the American Colonies held bound volumes of Cato's Letters on their shelves.

title: Commonwealth men


text:
Caleb Rand Bill

Caleb Rand Bill (9 January 1806 – 1 February 1872) was a member of the Canadian Senate.

Biography
Born in Billtown, Nova Scotia, a town founded by his ancestors, he was a farmer before entering politics. In 1828, he married Rebecca Cogswell. He represented Kings County from 1855 to 1859 and the northern region of Kings County from 1863 to 1867 in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly. A Liberal-Conservative, he was appointed to the Senate on 23 October 1867 by a royal proclamation of Queen Victoria following Canadian Confederation earlier that year. He represented the senatorial division of Nova Scotia until his death. He was also governor for Acadia College, president of the county agricultural society and a member of the school commission.

His son William served as a member of the Nova Scotia assembly.

title: Caleb Rand Bill


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Corncobs.jpg

Corn Cobs

Selfnom - I had noticed the corn article looked a little drab, and that there were great looking varieties at my local market.

Raven4x4x 13:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - — Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I like this! Very vibrant. -Branddobbe 18:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I like it too. Enochlau 04:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A great variety of pretty multicoloured corn. DO'Иeil 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that I'm supporting a picture of corn. Very nice though. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark) 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Who'd have thought corn would look so attractive? — ceejayoz ★  23:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Don't we already have one of these featured?--Deglr6328 05:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not a criterion is it, uniqueness? Enochlau 10:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Congrats on adding a very nice photo to wikipedia. Oska 23:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Indeed there is another, but this one is excellent in its own right. CapeCodEph 08:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: very colourful corn! It's... Thelb4! 20:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 02:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Is it genetically modified? :P --Andylkl (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Its a nice picture, but we already have Image:GEM corn.jpg as an FP in the same Maize article. This one shows fewer varieties of corn, is smaller and has a somewhat less interesting composition. -- Solipsist 18:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ( − ) Oppose Agree with Solipsist and add that it is slightly blurred --Fir0002 02:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose current FPid better Circeus 15:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose current FP is superior Broken S 14:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Bevo 22:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Glaurung 07:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Robot fetishism

Also
So just so as we know, external links must not be advertisements, and generally should be newspaper articles or stuff like that. Lotusduck 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Someone slapped a "merge with statuephilia, see discussion" tag on the article, but there's no discussion of it here. So I removed it. Robots and mannequins are clearly not the same thing anyway, especially to these fetishists. wikipediatrix 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Major edit
I've added much to this page, but unfortunately there are no sources I know of to site that exist off the web. All of the information I have added comes from my knowledge and experience as a member of the ASFR community, and from indepth discussions with fellow members at the Fembot Central message board. Robotman1974 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill Page
I can't see what the opinion "This phase was widely regarded as his worst." has to do with the article. It sounds like POV to me, so I've removed it. Also, I can't seem to find any reference to "Bill Page" the fetish artist on either Wikipedia or Google. Can someone provide an example for verification? If he is indeed popular, there should be a Wikipedia article or stub concerning him. Robotman1974 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Links removed
I saw that 2 external links were removed. I don't know much about sexrobot.com, so I have no issues with that being out. However, the link to SexTV is to an episode of a Canadian documentary television series. I think the information presented in the clip on that website is important information regarding this article. I've added the link again. Robotman1974 08:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Sexy robot into Robot fetishism

 * Oppose — Aside from the art appealing to some robot fetishists, the articles have little to do with one another. Merge instead into Hajime Sorayama. Robotman1974 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Good point. My original intent was that the article "Sexy robot" seemed to be a section of another article, not an entire article by itself. I'll change the tags to merge into Hajime Sorayama. 71.112.117.93 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture section
I've removed all but 5 of these items. The list was getting too long and was starting to look like fancruft. The list should provide only a handful of the most relevant examples, and is not intended to be a complete listing of every instance (see WP:NOT). Robotman1974 20:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edit. I'm not sure what your scale for measuring "relevance" is -- high profile entertainment like Futurama having a definitive, pervasive, widely recognized reference to robosexuality really trumps some obscure low budget pieces that you left in Robotman. -- CaptainMike 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was talking about relevance to the topic of showing sexual attraction to robots, not popularity or amount of exposure to an audience. That's all highly subjective though.  Input from some other editors on this issue would be helpful. Robotman1974 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm defending the Futurama reference more than anything. they did have an entire vignette about the dangers of sexuality with robots. -- CaptainMike 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw that... it's a personal fave. ;) Reconsidering, I guess that should be included too, but I'll wait for other editors to pare the list down again. Robotman1974 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where was it called "robosexuality"? This word wasn't uttered during the episode.--Orthologist 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed an edit about a music video. This pop culture list is way too long as it is, and to me the video in question seems not to be an example of robot fetishism. A depiction of a sexual relationship with a robot and an example of genuine robot fetishism are close but not the same thing. If the guy in the video actually had a robot fetish he wouldn't have gotten rid of the malfunctioning robot. He would have reveled in that experience. Robotman1974 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you cannot actually mention all the anime where someone has sex, or tries to have sex with a robot.Lotusduck
 * Word search on this page for "anime" "manga" and "japan" turns up nothing, this page is clearly incomplete.76.7.201.35 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Major revisions
I've just removed most of the revisions that were made to this article on June 14. The edit summaries here, here, here, here, here and here explain my reasoning for this. The most drastic change was to the "Pop culture" section. As has been discussed above, this section should contain only examples of a fetish for robots, not examples of sexual relationships with robots. Some of what was removed were things known and loved by the ASFR community, but are not depictions of a fetish for robots. In keeping with the guidelines on trivia (see WP:TRIVIA), the list should be getting shorter and eventually vanish, not be expanded. 66.222.227.42 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed more entries from the trivia section. The difference can be seen here.  Again, these entries showed only human/robot sexual relationships and not specifically instances of a robot fetish. 66.222.227.42 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, a proposed merger with agalmatophilia
This is the second time that someone has suggested a merge with statue fetishism, but the two subjects are completely different and I'd be strongly against such a merger. Most robot fetishists, I'm sure, would not be attracted by statues, the major factor of independent or controllable movement being an important feature of robot fetishism. Far better to have the articles as they are at the moment, stating that although there are similarities between the two fetishes, they are different enough to be regarded as separate philias. Grutness...wha?  22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. - Robots are not statues.... neither are statues robots. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 * For. The objects are different, but agalmatophilia is the concept. Anyway.. where are the sources on "Robot fetishism"? The article seems not to have any reason for its independence; it certainly reveals nothing about how it exists as a fetish. If "robot fetishism" does not exist in psychological/clinical literature then what is the context?? Where is the context? and by whom?.. This proposed merger is a more than fair concession for a simple fan-based neologism. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I've changed the merge proposal; the current text may be more useful as an addition or expansion to the context of technosexuality, rather than merging with fetishes, agalmatophilia or complete deletion. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose. - The subject of the Technosexual article seems to be the word itself. This article focuses on a sexual fetish for robots.  The two topics are different and categorized differently as well.  They are unsuitable for merging. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not convinced by your claim "sexual fetish for robots"... according to whom is this a fetish?.. where is the fetishistic context? Isn't it just the interest in machines as sexual devices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.112.32.101 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I don't understand all the talk about context. What do you mean by that?  The phrase "sexual fetish for robots" couldn't be more self explanatory.  Do you know what a sexual fetish is? 66.222.227.42 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * According to the article - "Robot fetishism is a sexual fetish for robots... Robot fetishism can be viewed as a form of erotic anthropomorphism", but, the sources do not refer to this phrase or concept. Why is this? Because the phrase does not belong in an anthropological context, or in the contexts of clinical psychology, and instead has its own meaning. So, what does it mean - what is the context? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think I can answer your question. The statement "Robot fetishism is a sexual fetish for robots" is about as clear and plain as it gets.  It means precisely what it says. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I know it's a difficult question - because we are without sources, and thus the question is being answered with the rights of an editor's personal opinion, not fact, and therefore constitutes original research. Furthermore; the clarity and plain-ness of the meaning of "Robot fetish" explains little except an ability to use English according to one's beliefs. Without sources, the article has the context of a group of robot enthusiasts developing a fan page and misunderstanding the meaning of fetishism.. or at least cannot explain themselves.. which begs the question of how they know they're describing a fetish? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fansite tag
I see no justification for the Fansite tag that has been placed in the article. Certainly, no explanation has yet been given for it. If no good reason for the tag is given, I will remove it. If there is anything in the article that could remotely be considered fancruft, then that can easily be removed. This is not a long article. I have just removed some of the "pop culture" references myself, and I wouldn't have a problem with that entire section being removed. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I added the tag because the section is superficial. It reads like a list of guestimates and lifestyle preferences being shared between friends. "Many people..", "some people", "A recent informal survey of ASFR community members", "some ASFRians do not wish to use synthetic partners at all". The article reveals very little - except opinion and descriptions of acceptable action to the ASFR community. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Almost all of those statements are sourced, and to me they appear to be exactly the kind of information one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article on a topic such as this.  I take issue with the placement of a "fansite" tag mainly because it is inappropriate for an article with this type of subject matter.  The topic of the article, a fetish for robots, is not fictional.  I can see where there might be some confusion as some of the objects of this fetish are fictional.  That being said, the fetish itself is not fiction.  Therefore to suggest (as I think has been suggested above) that "real-world" context needs to be demonstrated is rather odd and off the mark, to say the least. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * The statements are not sourced for "fetishism", fetishes or "Robotfetishism" - the sources describe a "lifestyle choice" about technosexuality by robot enthusiasts and TV hacks. I don't know where you are getting your source about fetishism. Care to provide one? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I honestly don't know what you are talking about now. It almost looks like you have a problem with the article's title.  If that's the case, you're going about it in a strange way.  Sources are provided.  They are in the article.  I don't know what else to say. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Changing the title would be an appropriate move. If you could also point to the source that declares or describes "Robot Fetishism", I will consider not deleting the page/article. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes
I have just made some changes in order to repair broken references and add cited information that was previously removed. Judging by the recent changes, tags added and talk page discussion, those changes appear to have been made with much confusion about this article's subject. First a merge with statuephilia was suggested, quickly changed to a merge with technosexual. Both ideas were later apparently discarded. Then a "fansite" tag was added despite the fact that this article's subject is not a work of fiction. The image that has been replaced was of an industrial robotic arm... which shows to me just how deep this confusion is. Most of the article was re-written, which is mostly fine because it says with less detail essentially what was said before. But I have made some changes to remove what looks like original research. Specifically, I've replaced the text "The usenet group alt.sex.fetish.robots is considered the first newsgroup related to the fetishization of robots. The acronym of this group ASFR has recently come to describe a small culture of contemporary erotic interest in robots." with "By its enthusiasts, robot fetishism is more commonly referred to by the initials ASFR.[3] This acronym stems from the now defunct newsgroup alt.sex.fetish.robots." The former assertion is dubious because it lacks sources. 66.222.227.42 15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The article is confusing while the idea of fetishizing robots is presented as a recent phenomena according to the self-referential supporters of ASFR. Perhaps it was the case in the beginning of 1987 that there was a dirth of material on a computer network that automatically spoke words of "Robot fetishism", "Robot fetishism!" and this was boring, and needed to be created, and was, thus justifying the current thoughts of uniqueness, and the exclusive reports on this sexual abomination.

 * The changes to the merger reflect my latest discovery that statuephilia is another slanged neologism, and that "technosexuality" is correctly sourced, but is another "pop culture" agenda and would do well to be deleted. Likewise "Robot fetishism" if we can't find any information beyond "ASFR" group preferences, how to act and label things as "ASFR", and popular books on the subject of deviancy. 194.112.32.101 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I have reverted the recent changes made to this article. Those edits ranged from subtle but crucial changes in wording that altered the meaning of the cited statements, to the introduction of off-topic material and heaps of original research.  The above comment, with its references to "this sexual abomination", "my latest discovery" and "deviancy" make it clear to me that the recent edits were made without a neutral point of view, and so I will proceed with a request for comment on all the recent edits to this article. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Please don't confuse the content of the discussion page with the content of the article... My changes have corrected and expanded the context and meaning of a very short-sighted article and the over-reliance on sexuality as the sole motivation and the ASFR newsgroup as the defining environment. Redblueball (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

 * "don't confuse the content of the discussion page with the content of the article"??? I'm not sure you are aware of this, but the entire purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article.  If you have been discussing something else, then what?  I am now left with no doubt that the edits to this article made by 194.112.32.101/Redblueball are nor being made in good faith.  It appears to me that this editor has a bias against this particular sexual fetish and would like to have all of the sourced and cited information that doesn't match his/her bias removed.  At least one administrator and probably a few others have noticed problems with this user's edits.  Therefore, I have reverted the article back to a version which existed in stability before the above user started making a confused series of edits.  Every statement in this version is backed up completely by cited sources. I have a hunch that Redblueball would rather see the article deleted.... in which case I can provide a link to WP:AFD. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) All issues on both my talk page(s) have been resolved.
 * 2) This reason for this has not been brought to my attention.
 * 3) I've registered the name "Redblueball" in good faith, and I have abandoned using an IP address.

 * Beyond the personal attacks - The status of the "Robot fetish" article is such that it is not clear whether the subject is correctly labelled, verifiable, notable, or an article of original research, and thus; the article is available to edit or delete accordingly. I have doubts on these issues because the sources are either referenced to the members of the a.s.f.r newsgroup directly (notability and self-referencing issues), to documentaries with a.s.f.r supporters and the "Fembot Central Message Board". The "Let's mech love" source does not mention a fetish for robots and instead presents a description of the interest in devices designed for sex (contrary to the existence of a fetish object). The source ""Wrong Turns Down The Sex-Info-Highway 5.07" again references alt.sex.fetish.robots newsgroup, but does not mention a "robot fetish" in an alternative context, instead presenting links to websites concerning the interest in robots resembling women (contrary to fetish objects being non-living or not human related), again machines designed for sex, and a link to a paraphilia Agalmatophilia (not a fetish). The only source with an apparent degree of reputation and that mentions a "Robot fetish" directly is the book "Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex" which describes it as a type of sexual role-play and the dressing-up in costumes enjoyed between partners. Redblueball (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Quote: "The "Let's mech love" source does not mention a fetish for robots".... The opening paragraph pf that article states: "Forget latex, school uniforms and spanking: there's a new fetish in town. Technosexuality, or the attraction to robots, is stirring loins all over the world." So far, all of the arguments you have put forth amount to little more than blowing smoke and grasping at straws.  If you can be so completely wrong about this particular source, why should your judgement on any other matter be trusted?  Your bias and desire to insert original research into this article has already been shown, both by the strange nature of your edits and by your comments about "this sexual abomination", "my latest discovery" and "deviancy" above. I've reverted the change you made to introduce the following wording: "A.S.F.R stands for alt.sex.fetish.robots, and refers to a fetish group or internet community of mostly men, who have a number of interests but generally they revolve around women who have no will of their own, so that may include robots but also manequins, hypnotism even freezing, and statues."  This is not supported by the sources, and is factually wrong.  I have also removed the article about robotic dogs, toys, and cars from the external links section because it is unrelated. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The quote... "Forget latex, school uniforms and spanking: there's a new fetish in town. Technosexuality, or the attraction to robots, is stirring loins all over the world."... is not explicit enough in my opinion, and the context of the source (metro.co.uk) needs honest consideration and comparison, however, I'm willing to concede to your preferences with this.. because the source is verifiable.

 * In regards to your representation of the second quote; you are quite wrong. It is from Allison de Fren (the documentary film maker referred to on 8 occasions in the article). My last edit stated that; 'one' could listen to this on the referenced video Remote Control: Romancing the Robot(streaming video) at 1 minute and 7 seconds and is as follows - "A.S.F.R stands for alt.sex.fetish.robots, it's an internet community of mostly men, who have a number of interests but generally revolve around women who have no will of their own, so it may include robots but also mannequins, hypnotism sometimes even freezing, and statues."

 * The article Techno Fetishes: Plugged in, wired up and totally hooked, American otaku confess their secret Japanese addictions. is pretty much self explanatory, but as it does not explicitly refer to "Robot fetish" or the newsgroup "alt.sex.fetish.robots", I shall move it to a "further reading" section.

 * Redblueball (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The video you quote is indeed one of the article's many sources. However, your own interpretation of that quote introduces bias and error into the article, and is therefore not acceptable. I've reverted to remove this bias, and also removed the unrelated article about toys and cars. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
The edits made by myself and an editor at 194.112.32.101 (presumably also Redblueball) are at odds. I can not see how the article's sources back up the changes being made, and I see a lot of original research and speculation going into the article as well. Also, I can't quite decipher much of what has been posted by that user on this talk page. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken external link to "ASFR entry on sexuality.org" ?
This link appears to send the user to the main page, and yields no results in a search... "There were no matches for "ASFR", whether in the Vamp subsection or anywhere else in this site. Please try again."

Has the entry been moved, deleted.. ? Redblueball (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The link appears to be dead, and has been removed. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the first words of this article :  Robot fetishism (also ASFR or technosexuality)  ... What does this ASFR stand for?! I couldn't find the answer on the whole article... Arikel (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, i saw it... Wow... As usual, i learnt something on Wikipedia, but for once, i don't feel smarter now... Arikel (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is ASFR?
It's obviously an acronym but the article makes no mention of it's meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.140.6 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hajime Sorayama
Can this artist be included in the "See also" section? Wasn't sure if it's appropriate or not. I discovered him from the cover of the Aerosmith album, Just Push Play. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  04:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Attention needed

 * Check for notability
 * Check refs
 * Check content
 * check NPOV
 * keep an eye
 * reassess after work completed

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article has multiple issues. Also Robotism redirects here. Why? What is the justification for "robotism" being linked to "robot fetishism"? Much of the article reads like fanboy sci-fi speculation. How do we know such a fetish for robots even exists and is notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia? What is the medical opinion, the psychiatric opinion, if such fetishism actually exists? Do we have a wide variety of neutral sources unconnected to the subject that discuss and critique the subject? And so on. It is a pseudoencyclopedic article. Laval (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The article seems pretty well referenced now, and I tweaked the minor neutrality problems I found. -- Beland (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Excessive focus on the ASFR community's takes on the fetish
I'm sure it felt appropriate at the time, when alt.sex.fetish.robots was the only place you could find any content or discussion on robot fetishism, but two decades later using you can barely find much more in relation to robot fetishism using that acronym, other than this article, and most certainly the community must have dispersed into separate scattered communities, some having arisen independently of alt.sex.fetish.robots, as you can still find robot erotica without the ASFR tag attached.

Yes, this is all more on the side of personal research and experience than properly sourced references, but the point still stands: The ASFR community and the robot fetishist community are no longer the same, but rather one has become a shrinking subset of the other. Terms such as "ASFR art" and similar statements should be reprhased to something along the lines of "robot fetish art", though at times it's hard to tell at a glance which statements have proven to be specific to the ASFR community and which apply to robot fetishism as a whole. 94.228.4.251 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robot fetishism


text:
Talk:Stephen Barrett

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Stephen Barrett. 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/20071103051137/http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk:80/index.php?rid=1772 to http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/index.php?rid=1772
 * Added tag to http://www.health.gov/scipich/

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) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Defamation
Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. Nicmart (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Psychiatric boards
It is asserted that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? Nicmart (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-Sourced Content
Barrett appears to be the original source for many references which, according to Ronz via Naveen Jain and Naveen Jain Talk violates several policies. A consistent editing policy seems necessary for both articles. Either interviews and articles are legitimate or they are not. Unless there's a WP:HYPOCRISY policy I missed? --Lawfulneutral (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Wikipedia
For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged:

 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

BullRangifer (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case
Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case I'm not sure if there's anything worth using here, but someone else may think so, so leaving it here. -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not without more coverage. Applies to American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stephen Barrett


text:
Category:Government of Poland

 * This category focuses on the work of national and local government in the current state of Poland. For governments in former countries that were wholly or mainly in the territory of the current state, see Category:Governments in Poland. For other aspects of the political process in Poland see Category:Politics of Poland.

title: Category:Government of Poland


text:
Peter Glaser

Peter Edward Glaser (September 5, 1923 – May 29, 2014) was a Czechoslovakian-born American scientist and aerospace engineer. He served as Vice President, Advanced Technology (1985–94), was employed at Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA (1955–94); subsequently he served as a consultant to the company (1994–2005). He was president of Power from Space Consultants (1994–2005). Glaser retired in 2005.

Professional
Glaser's areas of professional activity have included solar and arc imaging furnaces, high temperature research, solar power satellites, solar heating and cooling, photovoltaic conversion, rural electrification systems using renewable resources, lunar surface missions, commercial space power, remote sensing, extra-vehicular activity on the Moon, launch site selection, space station habitation module appliances, advanced space transportation devices, space-based sensor systems to identify carbon dioxide-induced climate changes, space station portable contamination detectors, spacesuit gloves and boot soles, extravehicular dust protection, power relay satellites, and high-altitude long-endurance aircraft using wireless power transmission.

Glaser headed the Design Department of Werner Textile Consultants (1949–53). After his graduate studies Glaser spent his entire full-time professional career with Arthur D. Little, Inc. Glaser's professional papers and some of his personal papers (32 cubic feet in 96 boxes) are on deposit with Massachusetts Institute of Technology Library Archives.

Projects
He was project manager for the Apollo 11 Lunar Ranging Retroreflector Array installed on the lunar surface of July 20, 1969, and two other arrays installed on subsequent missions — the only science experiments still in operation on the Moon. He was responsible for the Lunar Heat Flow Probes and the Lunar Gravimeter which were operational during the Apollo program, and the Initial Blood Storage Experiment flown on the Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-61-C) in January 1986, to explore gravitational effects on human blood cells. In 1968 he presented the concept for, and in 1973 was granted the US patent on, the Solar Power Satellite to supply power from space for use on the Earth.

Memberships, offices, and advisory positions
Glaser served as consultant to the National Research Council (1960–62), a member of its board of assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology program (1993–96), and panel member (1994–95). He served as an advisor to NASA (1963–67) and as a member of its Advisory Council (1986), the Task Force on Space Goals, and the Lunar Energy Enterprise Case Study task force (1988–89). He served as a member of the Materials Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences (1958) of its Study Group on Solar Energy (1971–85). He was a member of the Solar Power Satellite Advisory Panel of the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress (1980–81).

Glaser was a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He was a member of the American Solar Energy Society and served as its president (1967–72). He was a member of the International Solar Energy Society and served as its President (1968–69). He was a member of the American Astronautical Society and served on the board of directors (1977–84). In 1978 he formed the SUNSAT Energy Council, an NGO associated with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and served as its president (1978–94) and chairman (1994–2000). He was a member of the International Astronautical Federation and chaired the Space Power Committee (1984–89). Glaser was a member of the National Space Society, serving on the Board of Advisors (1990–94), as director (1994–97), and on the Board of Governors (1997–2005). He was a member of the Management Advisory Board of the Center for Space Power of the Texas A&M University System (1990–94). He was a member of the senior Advisory Board of the Space Studies Institute (1990–2005). He was a member of the United Societies in Space and served as a regent (1997–2005). Glaser was a voting member of the Engineering Council of Columbia University (1984) and an advisor to Space Power Research, Japan (1998–2005). He was a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, of the International Academy of Astronautics, and of the American Society for Macro Engineering. He was a member of the International Institute of Refrigeration (1959–72).

Publication activity
Glaser has published more than 800 scientific books and papers.

Glaser was Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Solar Energy (1972–85) and a member of the editorial board (1985–93). He was Associate Editor of Space Power Journal (1980–86). He sat on the editorial boards of Space Policy, Space Power, Journal of Practical Applications in Space, and Solar Energy. He was guest editor of the special issue of Space Policy on "Space Solar Power." He contributed to Standard Handbook of Powerplant Engineering (1998).

Glaser was editor of The Lunar Surface Layer (1964), Thermal Imaging Techniques (1964), Solar Power Satellites — The Emerging Energy Option (1993), Solar Power Satellites — A Space Energy System for Earth, 2nd ed. (1998), and Solar Power Systems in Space.

Honors
Glaser was awarded the Carl F. Kayan Medal in 1974 by Columbia University for contributions to the field of engineering. He received the Farrington Daniels Award from the International Solar Energy Society in 1983. In 1993 the International Astronautical Federation established the Peter Glaser Plenary Lecture to be given at the Annual Congresses. He was inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame of the Space Foundation in 1996.

Personal
Peter Glaser was born in Žatec, Czechoslovakia to Hugo and Helen (Weiss) Glaser. Peter Edward Glaser was named, in his middle name, after his great-uncle Eduard Glaser, the 19th-century explorer of southern Arabia, including Sheba. Glaser emigrated to the US in 1948; he was naturalized as a US citizen in 1954. He married Eva F. Graf on October 16, 1955. Further family information here.

Education
Glaser earned a diploma from Leeds College of Technology in 1943, a diploma from Charles University in Prague in 1947, and Master of Science (1951) and of Doctor of Philosophy (1955) degrees from Columbia University.

Military service
During World War II, Glaser served in the Free Czechoslovak Army. He received a commendation from Czech President Edvard Beneš for personal bravery.

Archaeology
Glaser's avocation was the archaeology of southern Arabia. He was given ownership of Eduard Glaser's personal collection of Arabian artifacts. However, this collection remained in Czechoslovakia when he immigrated to the US, and as of his death the Czech Republic's government had refused to relinquish it to him. The collection consists of 99 items, including ceremonial daggers, hand-carved water vessels, a stone lantern from the palace of the Queen of Sheba, antique vases, porcelain and ceramic objets d'art, and hand-woven textiles. Glaser testified before the Helsinki Commission about the Czech government's resistance to restoring personal property which that government holds.

title: Peter Glaser


text:
China Life Insurance Company

China Life Insurance Company Limited (short China Life, ) is a Beijing-headquartered China-incorporated company that provides life insurance and annuity products. China Life is ranked No. 94 on Fortune 2015 Global 500 Company list. and is Chinese largest life insurer by market share, as of April 2023. In 2023, the company was ranked 62nd in the Forbes Global 2000.

In 2022, the company announced the de-listing of its American Depository Shares (ADS) and that the last day of trading was intended to be 1 September 2022. The underlying security of the ADS was the H shares, which would continue trading on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. The company cited limited trading volume in the ADS and administrative costs as the reasons for the de-listing.

In 2023, China Life Insurance invested $3.5 billion in Honghu Private Securities Investment Fund. The same amount was invested by New China Life Insurance. The fund will aim to improve capital utilization efficiency and increase long-term investment assets.

title: China Life Insurance Company


text: User talk:69.47.115.40

title: User talk:69.47.115.40