text:
Absolute monarchy in France

Absolute monarchy in France slowly emerged in the 16th century and became firmly established during the 17th century. Absolute monarchy is a variation of the governmental form of monarchy in which the monarch holds supreme authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs. In France, Louis XIV was the most famous exemplar of absolute monarchy, with his court central to French political and cultural life during his reign. It ended in May 1789, when widespread social distress led to the convocation of the Estates-General, which was converted into a National Assembly in June. The Assembly passed a series of radical measures, including the abolition of feudalism, state control of the Catholic Church and extending the right to vote.

Introduction
The 16th century was strongly influenced by religious conflicts that developed out of the Reformation. France's precarious position created ideal conditions for the formation and justification of absolute monarchy. Its disputes between monarchy and community as well as the fatal loss of the House of Valois' authority during the second half of the 16th century prompted theoretical reflections that led to the consolidation of the monarchy's power.

Establishment
By the early 9th century, the efficient administration of Charlemagne's Empire was ensured by high-level civil servants, carrying the, then non-hereditary, titles of counts (in charge of a County), marquis (in charge of a March), dukes (military commanders), etc. During the course of the 9th and 10th centuries, continually threatened by Viking invasions, France became a very decentralised state: the nobility's titles and lands became hereditary, and the authority of the king became more religious than secular and thus was less effective and constantly challenged by powerful noblemen. Thus was established feudalism in France. Over time, some of the king's vassals would grow so powerful that they often posed a threat to the king.

Since then, French kings had continuously tried to strengthen existing royal powers scattered among their nobles. Philip the Fair, Charles the Wise and Louis the Cunning were instrumental in the transformation of France from a feudal state to a modern country. By the time of Francis I, France was a very centralized state but the French Wars of Religion posed a new threat to royal absolutism with quasi-independent Protestant strongholds developing in various locations in the country.

With his skillful Prime Minister Richelieu, who vowed "to make the royal power supreme in France and France supreme in Europe." (source: Cardinal Richelieu's Political Testament), Louis XIII established Absolute Monarchy in France during his reign. When his son and successor Louis XIV came to power, a period of trouble known as the Fronde occurred in France, taking advantage of Louis XIV's minority. This rebellion was driven by the great feudal lords and sovereign courts as a reaction to the rise of royal power in France.

The rebellion was crushed; however, many obstacles stood in the way of absolutism in France:
 * Nobles had the means to raise private armies and build fortifications. The king did not have the means to raise and keep an army himself and had to rely on these nobles to defend the nation;
 * Lesser nobles, who had the ability to read and write, also acted as the king's agents. Effectively, they were his representatives of government to the people. They collected taxes, posted edicts, and administered justice.
 * The Huguenots, who since the 1598 Edict of Nantes by Henry IV, held the rights to bear arms and to build fortifications in certain locations.

To overcome these obstacles King Louis XIV adopted several measures to weaken or eliminate competing centers of power:

The Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685 removed the former policy of tolerance toward French Huguenots, as formalised by the Edict of Nantes

A more subtle tactic was the demolition of a number of fortified castles still owned and occupied by members of the nobility. This Edict of 1626 was justified as a budgetary reform to reduce maintenance costs by removing obsolete fortifications within the borders of France. While a rational economic step in itself, this measure did have the additional effect of undermining the independence of the aristocracy.

Louis XIV reduced the nobles' power further by requiring them to spend at least some portion of the year as courtiers in residence at the Palace of Versailles. At Versailles, the aristocracy were removed from their provincial power centers and came under the surveillance and control of the royal government. Rather than seen as demeaning, the nobles took required membership of the royal court to be a high honor. Nobles, being granted residence at Versailles, were generally prepared to give up their former duties as royal representatives outside Paris. Louis XIV, with the help of his minister of finance, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, replaced them with royal appointees drawn largely from the merchant class, who were generally better educated and whose titles were revocable and not hereditary.

Limits to power
The absolute monarchy was not the same as totalitarian dictatorship, and there were limits to the king's power. Known as the "fundamental laws of the Kingdom", these evolved over time and were a set of unwritten principles which placed limits on the otherwise absolute power of the king from the Middle Ages until the French Revolution in 1789. They were based on customary usage and religious beliefs about the roles of God, monarch, and subjects.

Consequences
The final outcome of these acts did centralize the authority of France behind the king. The replacement of government ministers, removal of castles, and other financial policies of Colbert did reduce French national debt considerably.

In the 18th century, however, the relocation of nobles and the sheer obsolescence of Versailles became an important place for a rising merchant class and an instigative press.

Perhaps the most pressing consequence of absolutism in France is the emigration of the Huguenots. Of the merchant class, their emigration effectively led to a brain drain and a loss of tax revenue for France. Moreover, barred from New France, they immigrated to other nations, most notably the Thirteen Colonies, taking their skills of printing, glass making, carpentry, ceramics, a deep belief in the needs for freedom of religion (at least for Protestantism), and the right to bear arms.

The other consequence was a large reduction of the dominating influence of the Kingdom of France in Europe, and a rise in the power of other kingdoms to strengthen their empire, notably in Great Britain, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire. This caused numerous deadly wars with them (in Europe, America and Africa), some of them won by France or its allies (notably for the independence of the United States), but this caused the loss of most parts of New France (most continental parts in North America, including those that would be sold later to the United States after the end of monarchy in France by the First French Empire, and some islands in the Caribbean), severe degradation of the economic advantage of the first French colonial Empire, accumulation of debts in the kingdom (with a growing influence of the merchants against the French nobility), and a considerable loss of economic, diplomatic, political and cultural influence in Europe, all these being left to the growing British colonial empire (even after its loss of New England) and to its allies all around France in Spain (including the Spanish Netherlands), Austria (including Italy), Nordic countries (and later the United States).

Another consequence of the creation of the United States and of the costly wars between France and all its neighbours in Europe, was also that it initiated lot of severe political and social troubles throughout the kingdom, and it paved the way to the French Revolution and finally the end of the absolute monarchy, via a short step of constitutional monarchy (restoring some parliamentary powers to the Estates General) between 1789 and 1791, and then to the First French Republic (during which the eviction of the traditional French clergy and nobility from the new Constitution further strengthened the military alliance of all European neighbours against France). That lost influence of France was never restored in the following centuries, even after the emergence of the First French Empire (which terminated the dictature, reunited a strongly divided France, restored the freedom of religion, and allowed the reemergence of a stable commercial sector, but also initiated new wars against other monarchies in continental Europe), or after the formation of a new French colonial empire by the Third Republic.

Even today's Fifth Republic in France mimics some models from other European constitutional monarchies, because of the stability and influence of the head of state (monarch or elected president) to preserve the territorial unity by an enforced balance of powers. Unlike past republics, it even accepts and protects constitutionally the presence of nobility, religions or diverse cultures, as plain components and (non absolute) actors of the republic, even if it promotes its own unified system, freely accessible to all its nationals or applicable directly only to its foreign residents.

title: Absolute monarchy in France


text:
Chelatchie Prairie Railroad

The Chelatchie Prairie Railroad is a heritage railroad in Yacolt, Washington. Formerly a Northern Pacific branchline and operated by the Longview, Portland and Northern Railway for many years, in the 1980s and 1990s the line went through a number of successive operators. Today the railroad is owned by Clark County, Washington, and the trackage from Vancouver Junction to Heisson is operated by the Portland Vancouver Junction Railway for freight traffic. No freight traffic exists north of Battle Ground at this time.

The excursions travel through the historic logging country of north Clark County, Washington, from the town of Yacolt to Lucia Falls and returning, stopping for a half-hour at Moulton Falls Park. A trestle crosses the East Fork Lewis River.

Excursions are typically scheduled for one or two weekends within a month, along with special excursions for the Halloween and Christmas holidays.

Equipment
Currently excursions are operated using an Alco S-2 once owned by the Los Angeles Junction Railway, a former Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway Pullman car, an open-air car, and one or two cupola cabooses of Burlington Northern heritage. Upon leaving Yacolt, the train operates in reverse to Lucia, allowing passengers in one of the two cabooses to have a forward-facing view.

The Chelatchie Prairie Railroad owns one steam locomotive, former Hammond Lumber Company 2-8-2T steam locomotive built by the American Locomotive Company, currently running under its original Crossett Western #10 designation. It is currently out of service awaiting fundraising for an overhaul.

In addition to the Alco 2-8-2T the Battle Ground, Yacolt and Chelatchie Prairie Railroad owns a number of diesel locomotives (notably a number of Alco S-1, S-2 or S-4 locomotives) that are in storage.

History
Construction of the Chelatchie Prairie Railroad began in 1888, as the Vancouver, Klickitat, & Yakima Railroad, founded by a group of investors led by L. M. Hidden. In spite of the group's aspirations to run the line through the Cascades, the operation was bankrupt by 1897, after completing the line only as far as Brush Prairie, Washington.

The railroad was sold, and by 1903, the line had been extended to Yacolt, Washington. The line was then sold to the Northern Pacific Railway, which began daily passenger service to Yacolt. The line also served as an important freight link for the area's booming timber industry.

Harbor Plywood extended the tracks northeast to Chelatchie, Washington by 1948. The International Paper Company constructed a mill there in 1960, which was serviced by the line until its closure in 1979. The line was purchased by investors in 1981 with the intention of abandoning operations, tearing up the tracks, and selling the rails, ties, and right-of-way. However, Clark County, Washington purchased the line and leased it to the Lewis and Clark Railway before this happened.

Since 2004 Clark County has leased the line to Chelatchie Prairie Railroad to the Portland Vancouver Junction Railroad (PVJR), although the northern portion of the line's functionality has been heavily dependent on volunteer track maintenance.

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

title: Chelatchie Prairie Railroad


text:
Pietro Castelli

Pietro Castelli (1574–1667) was an Italian physician and botanist.

Born at Rome, he was graduated in 1617 and studied under the botanist Andrea Cesalpino (1519–1603). He was professor at Rome from 1597 until 1634, when he went to Messina. He laid out the botanical gardens at Messina in 1635, where he cultivated many exotic medicinal plants (now the Orto Botanico "Pietro Castelli" of the University of Messina). The botanist Paolo Boccone studied under Castelli there.

Castelli was equally distinguished as a botanist, chemist, and surgeon. He maintained the necessity for all physicians of studying anatomy, and declared in 1648 that he had dissected more than one hundred corpses.

The Dane Thomas Bartolinus (1616–1680) was led by Castelli's fame to visit him in Messina, in 1644, and speaks of his activity as a publicist. Castelli wrote no less than one hundred and fifty pamphlets. Among these there is one written in 1653 in answer to inquiries by Hieronymus Bardi of Genoa, wherein Castelli speaks of the cinchona plant and its curative properties in cases of malaria.

Paolo Boccone's pupil Charles Plumier (1646–1704) later perished on his way to South America to learn more of the cinchona.

Castelli seems to have had but little knowledge of the cinchona, and no experience in its medicinal application. Still, the pamphlet is noteworthy as being the first Italian publication that mentions the cinchona.

Castelli died at Messina.

title: Pietro Castelli


text:
User:Charles Matthews/Steiner

A
Luigi Alamanni - Vittorio Alfieri - B. Allemann - Maxwell Anderson - Melville B. Anderson - Pavel V. Annenkov - W. Anz - Arnaut de Mareuil - Astydamas - Emile Augier

B
Emmon Bach - M. Badolle - Jean-Antoine de Baïf - Pierre-Simon Ballanche - A. Banfi - Julia Bartel - Jean-Jacques Barthélémy - Jean Baruzzi - Francesco Basili - Jean Beaufret - F. Beissner - Norman Bel-Geddes - Belinsky - M. Bense - Max Bense - Benserade - Eric Bentley - Seth Bernardete - S. A. Bers - Ferdinando Gasparo Bertoni - Marius Bewley - Francesco Bianchi - G. Billeter - W. Binder - P. I. Biryukov - Boeckh - Philip August Boeckh - A. A. Bogdanov - Arrigo Boito - A. Bonnard - André Bonnard - Jean Boorsch - Rudolf Borchardt - E. B. O. Borgerhoff - Bernard Böschenstein - F. H. Bothe - V. P. Botkin - Vasili Petrovich Botkin - J. Boyd - Claude Boyer - Restif de la Bretonne - L. Brilliouin - Charles-Joseph-Paul Bourget - Pierre Boutang - William Lisle Bowles - Andrew Cecil Bradley - Robert Brasillach - Reginald Smith Brindle - W. Bröcker - E. Bruhn - Pierre Brumoy - R. F. P. Brunck - Ferdinand Brunetière - R. W. B. Burton - E. M. Butler -

C
Etienne Cabet - H. Cady - W. M. Calder III - Lewis Campbell - Can Grande - J. Carrière - Carl Gustav Carus - Giovanni Batista Casali - Lodovico Castelvetro - Liliana Cavanni - S. Cavell - Giovanni Cerri - J.-M. Chassaignon - Charles Chaulmer - Marie-Joseph Chénier - Boris Chicherin - R. F. Christian - Christine de Pisan - Thomas Churchyard - Giraldo Cintio - M. L. Clarke - Ernest Collings - Marco Coltellini - Edward Cone - Gianfranco Contini - George Frederick Cooke - Thomas Corneille - M. Corssen - Fustel de Coulanges - John Cranko - Astolphe de Custine - Tirso de Molina -

D
Rae Dalven - Richard Henry Dana - J. Danielou - Jean Daniélou - Danilevsky - R. D. Dawe - Charlotte Delbo - M. Delcourt - Kemal Demirel - J. de Romilly - Jacqueline Worms de Romilly - M. Détienne - G. Devereux - Ludovico Dolce - Donal - Corso Donati - J. J. C. Donner - Piet Drescher - Maurice Druon - L. Dupuy - Ami Dykman

E
E. Eberlein - Johann Peter Eckermann - M. Edwards - V. Ehrenburg - Ilya Ehrenburg - Gerald F. Else - Robert Escarpit - Eusthathius of Salonika

F
Robert Fagles - B. Fairley - M. B. Fant - Maureen Fant - Franklin Fearing - Nicholas Fedorov - Henning Fenger - Afanasy Fet - Hellmut Flashar - Richard Flecknoe - M. Flügge - Eduard Fraenkel - Simone Fraisse - Karl Emil Franzos - P. Freidländer - W. Frohne - Athol Fugard - R. Fülop-Miller

G
H.-G. Gadamer - Pierre Gascar - J. Gagnon - Baldassare Galuppi - Robert Garnier - Gavarni - Sulpice-Guillaume Chevalier - G. H. Gellie - Mikhail Gerschenson - Gabriel Germain - Henri Ghéon - George Gibian - Helmut Gipper - Giraudoux - Joseph Glanvill - R. F. Goheen - Góngora - J. Goth - Loren R. Graham - J. Glenn Gray - J. H. Greenberg - E. Grumach - Romano Guardini - Guinizzelli - Gyp - Comtesse de Martel de Janville

H
Ken Hale - Alexandre Hardy - R. B. Harrrison - Walter Hasenclever - Gerhart Hauptmann - E. A. Havelock - Haydon - Hebbel - Pierre Hélie - Erich Heller - F. W. J. Hemmings - D. A. Hester - Archibald Hill - H. F. W. Hinrich - Emanuel Hirsch - R. Hirzel - Hockett - J. Hoffmeister - J. d'Hondt - E. H. Hong - H. V. Hong - H. Höppener - Humphry House - Robert Howard - Irving Howe - William Dean Howells - Hyginus

I
Vyacheslav Ivanov

J
August Ludwig Jacob - Jens Peter Jacobsen - W. Jäkel - R. C. Jebb - R. Jenkyns - W. Jens - Jodelle - John Damascene - André Jolivet - G. Jondorf - John Jones - G. Joseph

K
J. C. Kamerbeek - Peter Karvaš - Katkov - W. Kaufmann - W. Keller - A. Kelletat - John Philip Kemble - Khlebnikov - F. Kinwelmarsh - H. D. F. Kitto - Robert Knox - Komarovich - W. Kranz - Masaaki Kubo - Shigeishi Kure

L
J. M. Lacan - Selma Lagerlöf - Jean Lalamant - Antoine Houdar de La Motte - M. Landowski - G. Lasson - Richard Lattimore - Reinhard Lauth - M. R. Lefkowitz - Gabriel Legouvé - E. H. Lenneberg - Jakob Michael Lenz - Constantine Leontiev - A. Lesky - M. Leube - Harry Levin - George Lillo - T. S. Lindstrom - I. M. Linforth - Littré - H. Lloyd-Jones - Edgar Lobel - K. N. Lomunov - P. Lubbock - Percy Lubbock - Lucius Accius - S. Luneau - G. L. Luzzatto

M
Alec McCowan - Donald MacKinnon - William Charles Macready - A. Maddalena - David Magarshack - Judith Malina - Edmund Malone - R. J. Manheimer - D. Marmeliuc - M. L. Martensen - I. Martinov - A. Massolo - R. E. Matlaw - Hugh Matthews - Thierry Maulnier - Thomas May - E. C. Mayne - Paul Mazon - G. Méautis - C. Meillier - D. S. Merezhkovsky - L. Mesk - Abbé Metastasio - Pietro Trapassi - H. J. Mette - Josephine Miles - Cesare Molinari - P. Møller - William Thomas Moncrieff - J. Monod - Michele Mortellari - Mounet-Sully - A. Mousset - Thomas Müntzer

N
F. G. Nauen - Gerhard Nebel - A. Negri - Caspar Neher - Nemirovich-Danchenko - P. H. Neumann - Désiré Nisard - H. Nohl

O
J. V. O'Brien - R. M. Ogilvie - John J. O'Meara - Martin Opitz - Carl Orff - Giuseppe Maria Orlandini - M. Ostwald

P
Denys Page - P. J. Parsons - Pierre Pascal - Benedetto Pasqualigo - M. Patak - H. Patzer - Mark Pattison - A. C. Pearson - A. T. B. Peperzak - G. Perrotta - Louis Perroy - U. Petersen - Petrashevsky - Giorgio Petrocchi - Rudolf Pfeiffer - Gilbert Phelps - Charles-Louis Philippe - T. I. Philippov - Alexis Philonenko - Joshua Pickersgill - M. Pintacuda - Pissarev - O. Pöggeler - R. Poggioli - S. B. Pomeroy - R. Poole - Paul Postal - Praz - Ptyx - James Purdy

R
Gilles de Rais - Otto Rank - Martin Raschke - Sidney Ratner - Pauline Réage - Jean Reboul - Walter Rehm - Karl Reinhardt - O. Ribbeck - O. Ribbek - Philip Rieff - Yannis Ritsos - Jacques Rivière - Gaetano Roccaforte - Johann Friedrich Rochlitz - Edouard Rod - Fernando de Rojas - G. Ronnet - Jean de Rotrou - P. Roussel - Vasili Rozanov - Vasili Vasilyevich Rozanov - Giovanni Rucellai

S
Antonio Sacchini - M. S. Santirocco - Victorien Sardou - Salvatore Satta - Giuseppe Scarlatti - Wolfgang Schadewaldt - E. Schlesinger - B. de Schloezer - Gerhard Schultze - Eugène Scribe - L. Séchan - Charles Segal - Léon Shestov - Leon Shestov - B. Sibbern - L. Sichirollo - Ernest J. Simmons - J. D. Sinclair - Charles S. Singleton - Ernest Sirluck - Paul Sirven - Dominik Smolé - P. E. Slater - Vladimir Soloviev - St Isaac the Syrian - E. Staiger - stasimon - George Steevens - J. Stenzel - Strakhov - André Suarès - Alexander Sumarakov - A. S. Suvorin - Peter Szondi

T
J. Taminiaux - Juan Tenorio - Niels Thulstrup - Mikos Theodorakis - Fyodor Tiutchev - P. N. Tkachev - Tournelle - Tommaso Traetta - Giovanni Paolo Trapolini - H. Trevelyan - Jost Trier - Trissino - Henri Troyat - Turenne - George Tzavellas -

U
Anton Ulrich, Duke of Brunswick - M. Untersteiner

V
J.-P. Vernant - N. Viallaneix - F. Vian - Vicomte de Vogüé - P. Vidal-Naquet - Villani - F. T. Vischer - Vsevolod Vishnievsky - K. Völker - Kurt von Fritz - Norbert von Hellingrath

W
Adolf von Wilbrandt - Peter von Winter - Peter A. Vyazemsky - A. J. A. Waldock - Walter of Chatillon - J. Watson - T. B. L. Webster - E. Wedel - Helene Weigel - H. Weinstock - Leo Weisgerber - L. G. Wells - C. H. Whitman - N. G. Wilson - R. P. Winnington-Ingram

X
G. Xanthakis-Karamanos

Z
Tikhon Zadonsky - Tikhon Zadonskii - A. L. Zander - Vera Zasulich - Niccolò Antonio Zingarelli - W. J. Ziobro

title: User:Charles Matthews/Steiner


text: User talk:167.93.8.224

title: User talk:167.93.8.224


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nabla

 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Nabla
[ Vote here]  (24/0/1) ending 18:09:21, 07 October 2005 (UTC)

– (Self-nomination) I'm a registered user since 2004-07-31, after a long break I've been here regularly since 2005-04-24. I have 3314 edits at the moment I write this, more or less 2600 of them since April. (see kate's tool for distribution and updated numbers). Take a look at my page for some more info.

Why do I want to become an admin? I like encyclopedias ever since I was a young boy, I have read some in full and still do. Helping to build one interests me even more than the possibility to write about some subjects of which I know something useful of. I think that being an admin will allow me to give an extra help to build a better encyclopedia. So here am I, proposing my self for that task.--Nabla 18:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support, I believe from what I read and looked at that, you should be qualified enough. So there, you have my support. Private Butcher 18:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support —but need more usertalk edits. Why dont you join the Welcoming committee, you can make many new friends! →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  19:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeeeeaaaahhhh! Fir  e  Fox  T  C 19:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. This user has demonstrated a wide range of abilities in a number of areas, and has done a lot of good work in article editing. This user has shown good civility on talk pages, and a definite desire to collaborate within the community. (Also, having a native Portuguese speaker around is always useful!) I am certain this user will make an excellent admin. --NicholasTurnbull 20:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support high enough edit count and been here a while. I see zero controversy. freestylefrappe 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) EXTREME JOHN KERRY SUPPORT WITH EXTRA VIETNAM VETERANS!!! Low-key candidate :) Ryan Norton T 20:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support!. Excellent editor and well rounded. Great janitorial work. We need more like him ≈ jossi ≈ 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, good editor with many edits. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) As the rumbing increased in intensity, bystanders were amazed to hear it slowly form into a monolithic, monosyllabic, all-encompassing YES!!! Grutness...  wha?  05:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support— enceph alon  05:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Good editor--Rogerd 07:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Merovingian (t) (c) 05:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Very fine contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support seems like a good nomination. Alf melmac 22:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, will make a good admin. --Angr/undefined 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Extreme NAMBLA support! Ral  315   WS  17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support.  Applaud the modesty, which we need more of here.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support for the standard and obvious reasons. --Gmaxwell 18:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support good all-round contributions.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   22:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong Portuguese support Molotov (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 05:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Cool. --JuntungWu 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) I want you! to join the W.P. Cabal! Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|12px]]  smile!  14:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Should make a good admin. Plus, how could I not support when even Boothy443 does? Carbonite | Talk 13:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral
 * 1) On the fence although user has the time, and edit count, I generally dont like self nominations... but thats not the reason i'm on the fence. Perhaps it is just me, but this username makes me think of NAMBLA I know this is odd, but I think it could be a future issue. Would only support with a username change.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 07:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nabla is simply a mathematical operator. Nabla 18:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you at least consider adding the ∇ to your sig? I think that would be an acceptable compromise.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 00:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Requesting that someone adopt a peacock sig to gain your support seems really weird to me.  Un  focused  21:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thank your warning and advice but my username has never been controversial (I've never read of NAMBLA before...), plus I like a plain sig and the symbol - ∇ - shows up as a plain square to me and probably others. Also the first thing you'll see on my user page is a $$\nabla$$. Anyway when/if such is needed I'll consider it. Nabla 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Could You give some examples of articles You started? feydey 23:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have only started a few articles, please follow the link at the answer to question 2 bellow. Other from those you can find there, I've started only a handful out of copyvio's or as short translations of Portuguese language articles. Nabla 00:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * Being an admin is about (un)deleting and protecting pages, reverting vandalism and blocking vandals Right now I see myself as more useful helping on 'house cleaning' duties: closing AfD discussions, also at other *fD pages. Also to keep an occasional eye at New Pages and Recent Changes, although I spend more of my time there wikifying/copy editing than reverting or requesting speedy deletes that would be handy too. As to the rest only time will tell.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * The expansions at Gerês and Pedro Nunes, because I had to learn more about something I like. The same goes for most of the few I still keep an eye on. Yet most of the times I add/remove something I keep it on my watchlist for a while, to check for reaction and then I let them go. This is a wiki, not much use in trying to keep track of everything I wrote.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * Not really. On occasional differences of opinion I stated mine and tried to understand the other(s). In my opinion most edit/revert wars are a rather foolish waste of time and energy. They could be avoided if all involved kept cool, which is relatively easy to do in the 'net', if you wish to. Just do something else or log out - there's life beyond WP... -, and get back to it some time later - that's day(s), not hours - others will support your opinion, or not... If they don't... you don't have to force your's onto others. The future? Who knows about the future? I don't... still I don't see why, or how, I would change myself much.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nabla


text:
User talk:Peterrodenburg

This is the Peter Rodenburg article.

title: User talk:Peterrodenburg


text:
Tainia

Tainia, commonly known as ribbon orchids or 带唇兰属 (dai chun lan shu) is a genus of about thirty species of evergreen, terrestrial orchids in the (family Orchidaceae) distributed from India, China, Japan, Southeast Asia to New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Queensland.

Description
Orchids in the genus Tainia are evergreen, terrestrial herbaceous plants with upright, crowded, thin fleshy pseudobulbs. Each pseudobulb has a single, smooth or pleated leaf. The flower stalk emerges from the pseudobulb on the top of a leafless shoot and bears resupinate yellowish, brownish, red or purple small to moderately large flowers. The sepals and petals are similar in size and shape to each other and several flowers open simultaneously. The labellum is sometimes lobed but always has prominent ridges on its upper surface.

Taxonomy and naming
The genus Tainia was first formally described in 1825 by Carl Ludwig Blume who published the description in Bijdragen tot de flora van Nederlandsch Indië. The name Tainia is an Ancient Greek word meaning "ribbon", "fillet", "band" or "stripe" but Blume's reason for giving this name is not known.

Species list
The following is a list of the species of Tainia currently accepted by Plants of the World Online as of November 2023:

 * Tainia acuminata Aver.
 * Tainia bicornis (Lindl.) Rchb.f.
 * Tainia cordifolia Hook.f. - Vietnam, Taiwan, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan
 * Tainia cornuta Aver.
 * Tainia crassa (H.Turner) J.J.Wood & A.L.Lamb - Peninsular Malaysia
 * Tainia dunnii Rolfe - Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hunan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Taiwan, Zhejiang
 * Tainia dunnii var. caterva (T.P.Lin & W.M.Lin) T.P.Lin
 * Tainia elliptica Fukuy
 * Tainia hohuanshanensis S.S.Ying - Taiwan
 * Tainia hualienia S.S.Ying - Taiwan
 * Tainia latifolia (Lindl.) Rchb.f. - Assam, Bangladesh, India, Bhutan, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Hainan, Taiwan, Yunnan
 * Tainia latifolia subsp. elongata (J.J.Sm.) H.Turner - Sumatra, Java, Borneo
 * Tainia latifolia subsp. latifolia - Assam, Bangladesh, India, Bhutan, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Hainan, Taiwan, Yunnan
 * Tainia latifolia subsp. subintegra P.O'Byrne - Assam, Bangladesh, India, Bhutan, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Hainan, Taiwan, Yunnan
 * Tainia laxiflora Makino - Japan, Taiwan, Izu-shoto, Nansei-shoto (Ryukyu Islands)
 * Tainia longiscapa (Seidenf.) J.J.Wood & A.L.Lamb - Yunnan, Thailand, Vietnam, Hainan
 * Tainia macrantha Hook.f. - Guangxi, Guangdong, Vietnam
 * Tainia maingayi Hook.f. - Java, Borneo, Malaysia, Sumatra
 * Tainia marmorata (J.J.Sm.) J.J.Wood & A.L.Lamb - Sulawesi
 * Tainia megalantha (Tang & F.T.Wang) ined. - India, Bhutan, Assam
 * Tainia minor Hook.f. - Assam, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Yunnan, Tibet
 * Tainia obpandurata H.Turner - Sumatra, Borneo
 * Tainia papuana J.J.Sm. - New Guinea, Solomons
 * Tainia paucifolia (Breda) J.J.Sm. - Thailand, Vietnam, Borneo, Malaysia, Java, Sumatra
 * Tainia ponggolensis (A.L.Lamb ex H.Turner) J.J.Wood & A.L.Lamb - Sabah
 * Tainia purpureifolia Carr - Borneo
 * Tainia scapigera (Hook.f.) J.J.Sm. - Borneo
 * Tainia serratiloba Ormerod - western New Guinea
 * Tainia simondii (Seidenf. ex Aver.) ined. - Vietnam
 * Tainia speciosa Blume - Thailand, Malaysia, Borneo, Java, Sumatra
 * Tainia trinervis Blume Rchb.f. - Maluku, New Guinea, Solomons, Queensland
 * Tainia vegetissima Ridl. - Malaysia, Borneo
 * Tainia wrayana (Hook.f.) J.J.Sm. - Sikkim, Bhutan, Assam, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Sumatra

Distribution and habitat
Orchids in the genus Tainia grow in high rainfall, shady forests. They are found in Sri Lanka, India and Japan, then south from Myanmar to New Guinea, Australia and some Pacific Islands. Thirteen species, of which two are endemic are found in China. The only Australian species, T. trinervis also occurs in New Guinea and some Pacific Islands.

title: Tainia


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIM Productions

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 23:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

HIM Productions
nn. 202.156.6.62 18:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, reads like an ad. Might want to protect it, as the author removed the AfD tag. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  18:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE, yeah it has to be an ad. And yes I did use all caps, you got a problem with that? Private Butcher 19:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Talk:KOKU

title: Talk:KOKU


text: User talk:209.167.234.2

title: User talk:209.167.234.2


text:
Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 18

Anti-Every country?
To respect true NPOV, the only way this page would be acceptable would be to creat an anti-country page for every country. Although I suspect that those pages would become just as dubious as this one. It could realistically NEVER come to a NPOV. SD6-Agent 14:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. As has been repeatedly noted in discussion, prevelance is the critical criteria for inclusion not this or that justification (or rejection) of the idea. That is, you may think the notion of Anti-Americanism over-blown or dubious personally, but it is often discussed and has become a part of political discourse to the extent that, say, anti-Swedish or anti-Ghanian sentiment has not. Put another way, even if anti-American sentiment doesn't exist as the dangerous prejudice it is sometimes made out to be, the idea of anti-Americanism certainly exists or we wouldn't have 13 archives of discussion on the topic. Over time, perhaps the consensus will emerge that anti-Americanism is largely a fiction created by conservatives and the article will come to reflect that.

 * I do think a few more anti- pages make sense (if they don't exist already). For instance, Sino-Japenese attitudes toward another, anti-French sentiment, anti-Russian sentiment in the West and former S.U., historical anti-British (Empire) attitudes etc. Marskell 06:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * But to what extent? Which countries deserve such a page and which don't? SD6-Agent 03:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As a sidenote, one can note that there at this time actually exists an embryonic (sort of) anti-Swedish article at Finnish-Swedish relations. It will, however, surely develop in a slow pace and without the passions typical for this article. :-) --Johan Magnus 14:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Re. which countries: those that have (or historically had) hegemonic economic, military etc. power. As noted, I certainly think Russia and Japan are justified (see recent news on the latter). I don't think we need a hard and fast definition but if you can think of any that seem justified add them and see how they fly.

 * I think a critical distinction is between one-to-one resentments (Khazikis don't like Tajikis) and international phenomena (a significant percentage of the global pop has a problem with the U.S.). Finnish-Swedish relations, for instance, is bilateral not international and thus isn't really an "anti-" article. To justify an article in the style of this one, the resentment or prejudice ought to be present in different global spheres at different times. For Japan say, you have the economic resentment that was so widespread in the West in the 80's and 90's, the still lingering antagonism of its WWII conquerees plus a thousand odd years of conflict with China and Korea. With Russia there's centuries of ambivalence among Western Europeans, American attitudes during the cold war and, of course, the obvious mistrust amongst East Europeans and Central Asians. As it stands, the only other article that I know of is Anti-Australian sentiment which is quite weak and hard to justify. Anti-French sentiment in the United States needs to be edited and pared down to Anti-French sentiment (you can see my comments there if you want to try :) Marskell 20:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BUSH
I find it ridiculous how when many Americans are confronted with anti Americanism, they simply point the finger at Bush, but what they dont realise is that its not just Bush. There are all aspects about American culture and people that the world doesnt like. Bush is not someone that has always been around. People hated Americans long before Bush surfaced. Besides, the American people are a direct reflection of Bush and his regime. There are many people who voted him into power. Some may even say that Bush might be moderate compared to some other Americans who are much more conservative and ruthless than Bush. One of the reason why there is so much anti Americanism is because of the American imperialist attitude.

 * Who has the right to determine a foreign culture's culture? If you don't like American culture or society, then ignore it. There are too many people who want to control the lives of others, and hate anyone who lives or thinks differently. This is simple prejudice and chauvinism in my view, ie. "my own s--- don't stink!". The root of irrational anti-Americanism is, IMHO, cultural chauvinism, ie. anyone who thinks or lives not according to your rules is stupid, wrong or just evil. In europe, this view is something of a venerable tradition, since in the past native peoples and Jews and gypsies were the "barbarians". After a 1000 years of genocide, pograms and conquistadors, you would think Europeans would have learned to question their own prejudices and xenophobia.

NO! Most people in the world do not hate Americans as individuals! Why do you insist on disgracing your continent by giving people the impression that they hate Americans as individuals? Hating Americans is just as wrong as hating Jews or blacks! I mean, people do not choose to be American - so why should they be hated for it? As a matter of fact, some people hate being American - because they hate being hated for being American.

Thier is a find boundry between hating americans like one would hate jews, blacks, italans (sp?), and that of dislikeing the way we run our political, military, and cultur in the line of feeling that we are superior to everyone else. I don't dislike individuals (unless they do something so stupid like kill innocent people and animals), but as a collective, we are vary dangerous. Ever heard of "collective thought"? It is like a mob, when one or some start tossing stones at others and pluder houses and business, the "mob mentality" takes over. I find that prominate here in my homeland.

--Admiral Roo 13:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I hate Bush and I am an American, and frankly I'm a little bit tired of people calling ME anti-american--172.162.211.22 03:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the US has fallen into the same trap as Nazi Germany. Disagree with Bush, and you're suddenly a traitor, unpatriotic, liberal and anti-American. It's easy to say "ignore American culture if you don't like it" when it is being shoved in your face on the TV, in the magazines and on your computer 24/7. I do choose to ignore American "culture" when I can - I use Linux, eat in Kochlöffel and watch more European films than I do American. The American film industry is capable of occasional flashes of genius in what seems to be a stream of moronic, brainless films, but many of these never leave the United States, because there's simply no money to be made in doing so. True American culture is not exported - the proper cowboy culture in the South, New Orleans, Independence Day celebrations as examples are what American culture means to me. McDonald's and such like does not constitute culture, just the desperate pushings of some desperate übercapitalists who seem to believe that money makes the world go round and pushing their substandard goods as "American" makes them a cultural icon. Unfortunately, they seem to have succeeded in making it appear that way. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above User (Jamyskis), who I believe to have brought to light something that bothers me to the extreme in America. A major supporting pillar to todays politics in the USA is the blind, stupid, questionless patriotism. Yes, I do mean it in a bad way, as there are "healthy " ways to promote and love one´s country. American governments in the past half century (actually even more) have been fueling its society with the idea that everything America does is the best, from goods production to movies produced and of course extenal affairs. "America does whats best for the world", and American scientists are the smartest, its military the bravest, strongest and best equipped. Point out that America has shortcomings and you are anti-American. Try to show dead or injured american soldiers in Middle East and youre a traitor. Publish some anti-war articles and you are the scum of the society. You dont agree to the military taking of Afghanistan? (Insert any other country bullied by the USA in the last 50 years here) So youre a traitor. The situation is such that it resembles musch of the paranoia created in the Cold War days, where americans accused of "comunnism" (as if it were a crime) were hunted in a legal witchhunt.

This ultrapatriotism, so common in all the facist states this planet has witnessed so far, leads to the idea that its people are superior to others; that its "culture" is better than others, its "historical importance" is greater than others, thus creating a sense that "its just fair" and "its natural and obvious" that such country should be te worlds Sheriff. Unfortunately for all that do not share that view (note I didnt mean "not americans"), history is written by the winner. The most perverse example I can remember is the bombing of Japan. While USA points the Holocaust and the millions killed by Stalin as the worlds most unhuman acts, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is completely left aside. As if millions of people, mostly civilian, and lots of elderly, women and children, hadnt died horrible deaths. Not to mention those who survived, who lived in a horrible contaminated, mutated live. Not to mention lives of those yet unborn, forever changed by that cowardly attack (The Pearl Harbor strike, counted and accursed for its "vileness" and "cowardice" was nothing compared to the amoral bombing of the cities). The USA is, undisputed by far, the country who has killed the most foreingners in other countries, and the country with the most military interventions in other sovereing nations. As a bonus, is also the country who has most times defied the UN in worldwide scenarios, such as peacetasks, invasion forces, economic embargos and such. It does such things below the flag of "democraticising the world", bringing freedom and liberty and justice for all that cant fight for themselves. First, however, we should ask: Do these people WANT the system you plan to shove down their thoats? (some countries have millenia-long cultures and costumes that MIGHT be different from what you want them to become. Is it right to destroy that, calling it obsolete?) What makes americans think that THEY should do it? And what makes them think that what they want is best?

The prison camp in Guantanamo, the treatment of prisioners in Abu Graib, the civilians killed in Vietnam (and many other countries), the lack of commitment to the Kyoto protocol, thousands and thousands of nuclear warheads are just some of the reasons why the anti Americanism gains numbers everyday.

America comes out as an arrogant, ignorant, stupid, "big bully" type. And also as the "ball´s owner"...disagree with him and you wont be playing. Of course, as already stated in previous conversations, these are overall impressions of a nation, and not necessarily the presentaions of individuals. LtDoc

 * I understand where you’re coming with your points. However I don’t think disagreeing with Bush especially makes you a traitor. In certain circles of ignorant people criticism of your country is seen as “helping the terrorists” or what not. This is only because to these people the threat of terrorism is very real, and for these same people they would rather sacrifice personal freedom for a chance at better security. I being a libertarian myself do not agree with this but at least understand where you are coming from.

 * One thing about your article that really angered me though was you drawing a parallel between the US dropping the A bomb on Japan and Nazi genocide. The two are so distant I can’t even begin to wrap my head around what you were thinking. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a death toll of about 240,000, the Nazi genocide systematically and mercilessly killed at least 11 million people! Not to mention while the holocaust was done for no reason other than some radical ideology, the Atomic bomb saved the lives of thousands of American solders who would have been thrown into a battle “that mirrored if not greatly exceeded the casualties of the Normandy invasion”.

 * “I think part of the problem is that the US has fallen into the same trap as Nazi Germany.”

 * Look out now George Bush is going to usurp power from free elections just like Hitler. Sorry again, but I know America and while the southern states are his biggest supporters if he even tried anything like that so much of America would mobilize instantly against him it would make the UN’s collective head spin.

 * If you feel like your being labeled as an anti-American for being against Bush, you must be trying really hard to find that small percentage of people who like Bush and like him so much that they’re going to label you an anti-American. Besides even if everyone who voted for Bush did that (Which of course they don’t) remember fifty percent of America agrees with you.

 * “The USA is, undisputed by far, the country who has killed the most foreingners in other countries, and the country with the most military interventions in other sovereing nations.”

 * This is brilliant too, you must have got this from that new website www.statsoutofthesky.com. Sorry but until there’s some way you can prove this I’m going to have a hard time believing this given the extremely lengthy colonization period of Europe where systematic extermination of native inhabitants was common place.

 * You cite so many examples of what America has done wrong, but I myself look at America and see so much it has done right. While Europe sits in the hang over of two world wars losing all taste for exerting itself in what seems like almost any effort(Opinion) America bustles with economic prosperity and technological advances at a rate never before seen in history (FACT).

-Robtastic 8-12-2005

 * You seem to be a bit confused, since your first paragraph is an answer to the user who posted before me.
 * Anyways; yes I can set a parallel between the atomic bombs on Japan and Stalins USSR. Im sorry if it angers you, but they were both killings of innocent civilians in a completely unnecessary way. Also, I find it proposterous that you would imply that since only 240 thousand were killed, it wasnt "such a big deal" as the Nazi killings. Were are talking about human lives, for crying out loud! It was a deliberate bombing with a weapon of mass destruction in civilian cities!! Also, the killings by nazi germans were based on the eugenic theory of the arian race, which was enough reason (for them) to justify the murders (surely, Im against it as much as the next guy, but at the time, in Germany, it was enough). And by your comment of "the Atomic bomb saved the lives of thousands of American solders who would have been thrown into a battle", it leads me to the brink of exhasperation. Isnt it a soldiers job to go to battle?!? And why,(oh why!) you think that the lives of thousands american soldiers are worth more than those japanese that were killed?? What had the civilians had to do with that? And mind you, the official death toll from direct effects of the bomb reaches 240,000. Lets not forget that we are also talking about a radioactive bomb, in which there is damage done to generations and generations of people.
 * And you got me wrong. The trap I mentioned is the ultrapatriorism that US citizens so proudly present; the blind, unquestioning acceptance that many adopt while their supreme governor holds the largest military force on earth and does as he pleases. As for power questions, look in the recent history in the US and you will see that the Bush election against Gore is highly controversial, and its highly suspected that there has been some kind of fraud in the process. Aside from that, I did not claim that Bush is a new Hitler.
 * You are going to have a hard time believing that the US hold the world record for military interventions? Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion...but you might check a wiki page that goes by the title of "list of US interventions" (or something like it, dont remember the exact name of the page). Alternatively, you could consult books on recent history and read about Japan, Korea, Germany, Guatemala, Vietnam, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Laos, Cambodja...(the list goes on and on) and you will see the ever present US military. No, it has defidively not been taken out of www.statsoutofthesky.com. You raise a good point tho, the kilings of native americans. Actually, the killings werent made by a single group ("Europeans" cover a lot of nations) but rather by spanish, portuguese, dutch, french, british and also citizens from the US, while also not forgetting  amongst themselves (native americans) as well. Also, some of these might not have been intentional (as with the case of bacteria and other microorganisms brought by the exploradores), even if the vast majority was.
 * "You cite so many examples of what America has done wrong, but I myself look at America and see so much it has done right". Well, everybody is entitled to an opinion. Just be aware there are unkind words for describing either of the positions above. And while "America bustles with economic prosperity and technological advances at a rate never before seen in history" is indeed a fact, dont be so naive as to believe that it comes solely from the "righteousness" or "intelectual superiority".LtDoc 21:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

B-52
Could someone please clarify the statement, "a single B52 Stratofortresses costs more than the entire United Nations budget for a whole year?" The numbers I've dug up seem to imply otherwise. -Weltall

That must be a mistake. Perhaps the author of that sentence meant a B-2 Spirit. Though the author might mean that a B-52 costs more than the US budgest expenditures on the UN every year. I don't care to go doing the research but my guess is that it's a lot closer, but the real point is that the United States spends far more on its military that is required for self-defence and often bemoans its "unfair" dues in international bodies like the United Nations. Sentence might be factually inaccurate, but living in Canada I can tell you that I've had more than one conversation over the years about the US debt to the UN and how it's been played like violin by the US government. While this far from sums up the range of other opinions and reasons for anti-Americanism it's visible actions like non-payment of UN dues (and most especially the fact that many Americans have gone on the record supporting this behavior) that have driven the wedges into the natural cracks that are present in any relationship.

To a world that values internationalism and has bought into the vision of one planet united, even if it is just a fantasy the United States often seems very out of step with the rest of us. Certainly there are others, but if you lined up the major western powers and played that sesame street game "one of these things is not like the others" most non-Americans, and probably most Americans for that matter, would pick out the United States without much trouble, the only difference would be the reasoning why. Gabe 18:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I've removed the line as it's definitely an error--I've read 74 million in three places which is 1.5 orders of magnitude less than the U.N budget. Even the B-2 Spirit at 2+ Billion is less than the U.N. budget. I have encountered somewhere around 3 Billion for the U.N. a few times but this reflects the core functions and staff and doesn't include payouts for peacekeeping shouldered by individual member states. I also thought the comment was a little disingenuous. "In Great Britain, a comparison is frequently made to demonstrate US military excess..." If you tracked down the figures for British nuclear subs, its own airforce etc. I'm sure you'd find some pretty hefty figures.

 * Removed: "In Europe, frequent comparisons are made between militaristic American society and the militant Third Reich." This is an exaggerated throw-away line (too much of this article is, alas). Marskell 23:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

About the article itself...
Since this is supposed to be a talk page about the article on Anti-Americanism, rather than the never-ending vomit war that actually debating what anti-americanism *IS*, I would like to bring that in and of itself up.

I think that, honestly, that page is not remotely neutral for the following reasons:

1) There isn't near enough talk on the page about the debate itself, which honestly, is a bit of a point of contention between the various sides on anti-americanism debate anyways.

2) The use of statements like "the percieved hypocracy..." To those of us who are rather disenfranchised, the phrasing is such that it indicated that our opinions are invalid.  (It is not real, only percieved.)

3) There is also a great lack of discussion about the ambassadorism of americans themselves. Any individual who goes to a forieng country is, in essence, an ambassador for his own.  The "percieved" oulook by a good chunk of the world is that americans are rude, and a lot of that comes from thier tourists.  Where is the discussion, (for both sides!) on that element?

4) Other statements within the document such as "The War on Drugs is also considered an oppressive activity by many who are socially liberal," are both overly broad, and come from an american point of view. To wit: very few are against the so-called "war on drugs," but many *are* against it's universality.  Pro-marijuana movements, both within and without America are examples of people who are not against the war on drugs, they simply don't view marijuana as an item that should be a controlled substance.  Beyond that "those who are socially liberal?"  That absolutely scearms bias.  To a resident raised in a socialist country, the view that the so-called "war on drugs" is misguided or inappropriate may not *BE* a libral view.  Discussions about what is liberal or not in the context of americanism are simply always going to illicit cries of "this article is not neutral!"

5)Other examples of complete bollocks are the broad spectrum comments that say people are anti-american because of any one belief. An example: "American free speech law has also become an international issue ever since the rise of the Internet as a medium of communication. Since the United States has far reaching free speech protection (under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution), Internet service providers based there can be used to spread messages to other countries where these are banned for moral, religious or political reasons. From the U.S. perspective, many Americans dislike attempts by other countries to extend their jurisdiction to American defendants whose alleged defamatory speech acts occurred over the Internet and were not targeted only toward those countries." Well, frankly, that is very narrow, and makes america look like the hero for standing up for free speech. What many of us dislike about america is that it HAS laws like this, makes a huge international issue out of other countries pulling stunts like censorship, and then goes and pulls crap like this: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21256.

Simply put: the sheer diversity of complaints against america means you can not possibly sum it up in a nice neat little package. The article should talk about THAT fact, rather than try to delinate them. To be neutral, the article CAN'T delinate them, because it's virtually impossible to do so without sounding as though you are taking sides.

Anti-americanism is disliking america for any of a great number of reasons. It is used by all sides of the debate for propaganda purposes and is so controversial we'll never get a secure definition of what anti-americanism IS, without bieng drawn intot he fight itself.

My view on the article
I myself am an "american". However, I have longed to move to another country because I agree with alot of the stuff in this article. I don't think that this article is "non-neuatral". I live in america, and I can tell you that this is a land of intollerance. Many times have I been accused of things because I am "diffrent". I also see many who are americans in america are in fact not vary knowledgeable about other cultures. I am sure my statements may seem "non-neuatral", but having the background I have, I have seen irrogance in both the government and in may citizens run rampent (sp?).

And again I forgot my sig. --Admiral Roo 13:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * As an American I apologize for any intollerance you experienced. Now read that first sentence and see how ridiculous it is...I as a single person can not apologize for the actions of my fellow countrymen.  I don't know you or your problems but can tell you that just because you have encountered bad PEOPLE in your life does not mean that the country itself is at fault.  Try moving to France or Germany and you will encounter bad PEOPLE that live in beautiful and culturaly rich areas as well.

 * This entire article is sick and overwhelmingly prejudiced against a group of people who only share a common land-mass and desire to make the best for themselves, but we represent the cultures of the entire world. I would argue that of any country to ever exist, America is the culmination of every kind of person whether you be gay or straight, white, black, indian, etc, etc.  People in other countries may dispise us and have unmitigated hatred for who we are but it doesn't mean that US individuals should have to put up with this when they travel to foreign lands.  Frankly all of this talk about the american tourist is total BS as far as my personal experience travelling the world has shown me.  I encounter this Anti-Americanism when I travel and it is totally hypocritical and wrong but the majority of my encounters are fun and enjoyable.  I don't blame the country I'm travelling through for the jerks that hate me b/c I'm American. Stop the blatant sterotyping! JShultz

 * I'm sure that very, very few people in the world actually dislike all Americans. If anything, I think it's a lie propagandated by the American right-wing media. As an American, I dislike many things about this country - and I really would like to move to Canada, someday. Right now, I have to say that I'm rather ashamed to be an American. However, I am trying to think positively, and I'm sure that less than 10% of the world actually hate every single American citizen. Perhaps, less than 1%, even. Anyway, I'm quite positive that this whole rhetoric about Americans being hated is just a lie fabricated by the American right-wing media.

68.117.18.6 16:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Having lived around the world, I say that people are essentially the same with regard to intolerance and selfishness. Accusing Americans, as if they are a unique human category, is ridiculous. And believe me -- intolerance is widespread, in every culture. Blaming only Americans of this seems discriminatory. Imagine 10 people are committing crimes, but the only one arrested is the black or Jewish or Asian one? What would you say? Fair???????
 * Not really that fair. But I would say in america, intollerance is more widespread then in any other part of the world.  We are the largest place of capital punishment, have the largest prison population due to putting non-violent criminals behind bars rather then trying to rehabilitate them, and we are one of the few who ban gays from any sort of legal bond.  Also, we are one of the few that disregard the environment, just look at us not signing the Koto (sp?) teraty.

 * Take a look at Iran/N. Korea and tell me they rehabilitate people or tolerate gays! Ridiculous to say America is the biggest offender or has the most widespread intolerance.  We are a country composed of other countries and cultures, so people get in fights occaisionally over this stuff.  Intolerant people are all over the globe, but rarley do you find such a diverse group in one place as in the US.  Elsehwere you have a uniform mass of bigotted people living together and denouncing the "great satan" together.  They may be idiots, but they do a good job of sticking by their guns as a group and of course they love each other because they all feel the same way about their uniform hatred of America.  Anti-American feelings should be grouped under the subheading - Ignorant.  As far as the environment goes, I think we have a ways to go here as well but you can't just put the breaks on the largest industrial super-power in the world.  There are complexities far more subtle than simply failing to sign the Kyoto treaty, namely the millions of workers and their families who work in big business that are at the heart of the American economy (BTW, the senate rejected the treaty 95-0, so don't put all your misplaced blame on the Bush administration as many have been known to do).  That is however typical of the uninformed who rant on and on about the US as the heartless overlord of the world...J Shultz 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, and Iran and North Korea are part of the "axis of evil" if I remember, so America is striving to be just like them? I think the culture of intolerance in America stems from the same source as it does in some Middle Eastern countries - religious extremism. This is a subject that America has been trying to come to terms with for decades now, particularly since the hey-day of the KKK. The subject died down and Christian extremists were labelled as insignificant nutjobs in the 80s and 90s, at least until Bush came along, and suddenly the extremists had influence over the Senate and the White House. You are right, of course, in one respect - every country has its problems with bigots. Here in Germany we still have problems with Nazis (a minority, however, as laws are in place to keep them down). The Israelis in the past few years have had issues with extreme Zionists, although the Zionists have been weakened ever since Sharon decided to start taking other points of view into account. I don't think we need an introduction to Islamic Extremism. America, however, has done little to address the point of religious extremism in their own country. With regards to the environment, well, there's little to say about that. A population half the size of China, the world's second largest polluter, producing eight times as much pollution as them, says to me that something is wrong. As you say, the Senate rejected the treaty unanimously, suggesting that the problem with America is a much larger one that goes beyond the Bush administration - the problem that in the past 2-3 decades, America has turned from a democracy into an oligarchy. America's help would be welcome in producing a better world, but how much cleaning the muck off your own front door by being an example to the rest of the world instead of forcing ideals on other countries that America itself doesn't really appear to follow? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * A good response with several valid points Jamyskis. Extremist religion really is a the heart of it, and I know that will just fire up more people in this debate.  There is, of course, no way to ever wipe the religous biggots away, they are too entrenched.  I was just discussing this with a friend, the cults evolve to religions and everyone thinks they are correct while at the same time hating (without thought) those who were not brainwashed as they were (my parents taught me about my God in his cloak and he must be the real deal, but your parents and their God with his robe are just wrong so I hate you).  Blah!  Extreme Christians hate Extreme muslims and there will be no thoughtful discussion, ever!  Best the rest of us can do is work and think like logical people trying to make the best out of it.  My original point with it all is that this article is totally crap and I was responding to the first poster who claims Americans are uneducated types.  My point is that elements of every culture are that way.  It's missing a good rebuttal that explains the fact that other countries feel this way because they MAY be misguided.  That would be considered a NPOV violation while simply stating all the reasons America sucks is perfectly a-ok.  I'm not saying the US is perfect, but some discussion of all the misplaced (religous) fanaticism would be nice. J Shultz 02:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religion
One thing which I have heard numerous times and which is not explicitely stated in the article is that the US "way of living" religion is often seen as Freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion: one can chose any religion he wants (preferably a variant of Christianism -- and preferably a variant of protestantism if one wants to have fair chances to obtain high positions), but atheism, or even agnosticism, are not well tolerated. This is especially observable when wealthy evangelists from the USA go on their "evangelisation" trip to Europe and start talking about religion to people in the streets, a subject widely regarded as very personal. I don't know how this could fit in the article though (I'd rather discuss this here before). Rama 13:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you American? I ask that because it sounds like you have the common "I've heard America is this way" idea. I'm an American, live in a nice city with many friends in different social classes and with different backgrounds and I would say that religion is totally on the back-burner with people choosing whatever they like and not dropping it on others. I personally feel religion is for the most part a crock, and when I discuss that fact I get a wide variety of replies and thoughts, but nobody is trying to convert me. If I see a televangalist on TV I just turn the channel, no big deal. Now as far as the midwest gos, I can't really speak from experience but my idea is that the US as a Christian fundamentalist factory is WAY overblown in the foreign press. We get sterotyped as a caricature of what we are...like when you get a charcoal sketch of yourself at the beach and the guy draws your ears really big and has your head all mishapen to highlight your features, way overblown! I could say that I don't like all the German shit-porn videos that I know they are really into and that I should include a section on the Germany page about fecal-defecater-porn because it is so prevelant in their society when really that is kind of a personal thing, but I realize that Germany really isn't THAT into filming themselves shit on each other and I know it is an overblown viewpoint of Germans in America. Does that go too far to make a point? Sorry if I offended any Germans, totally for explanation sake :) Anyway, we need a rebuttal section first that highlights the fact that some of this is misconception propogated by ignorance of Americans and religous extremism too J Shultz 02:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You just made one more anti-American, Mr. Shultz. Karoschne 23:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Rama is perhaps unwittingly revealing a major root of anti-American sentiment abroad. Ignorance. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't say that this is true exactly the way it is shown on some media. Just that lots of people percieve it this way, and that some traits in American Weltanshaung confort this perception. The "In God we trust", swearing on the Bible, religious proselytism abroad and other punctual details like this can give an overall impression which is the subject of the article. Rama 11:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great Quote
Recently, those who have criticized the actions of the U.S. government (myself included) have been called "anti-American." Anti-Americanism is in the process of being consecrated into an ideology.

The term "anti-American" is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely - but shall we say inaccurately - define its critics. Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they are heard, and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.

'''But what does the term "anti-American" mean? Does it mean you are anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to freedom of speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean that you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?'''

This sly conflation of America's culture, music, literature, the breathtaking physical beauty of the land, the ordinary pleasures of ordinary people with criticism of the U.S. government's foreign policy (about which, thanks to America's "free press", sadly most Americans know very little) is a deliberate and extremely effective strategy.

- Arundhati Roy from Come September TitaniumDreads 08:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is blatantly biased..
"Anti-American sentiments are further aggravated by the ability of the USA to intimidate other countries with its vast, unnecessary arsenal of nuclear weapons"

Come on... That is ridiculous.. Atleast put a giant "OPINION" warning on your rhetoric next time.

 * Ok, I can see where you're coming from on that. I wrote that bit and I suppose it is a bit NPOV, sorry. The term "vast" can't really be disputed - the US has around 10,000 nuclear devices, far more than any other state. And as for "unnecessary", I hold to the argument that since the collapse of the Cold War, the US doesnt need these weapons. If, as can be reasonably assumed, wars in the near future are going to be small-scale, localised conflicts, or campaigns against terrorists, how exactly are nuclear weapons going to be useful? Nuclear weapons are only useful in global conflicts, and as the likelehood of a global nuclear war is now unlikely in the extreme, it seems fair to refer to the USA's nuclear arsenal as "unnecessary". But please, do state your arguments! :)    Rusty2005 5 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

vast is fine, unnecessary is not. Who are you to say the arsenal is unnecessary? This is supposed to be factual, and saying the nuclear arsenal is "unnecessary" is far from being factual at present time. Maybe in a 100 years you can say "The United States still possessed a vast nuclear arsenal, which ultimately proved to be unnecessary as (insert future developments here)" It is just not appropriate for something that is supposed to be objective. elchup4cabra

Other countries probably do think that the U.S. arsenal is unnecessary, and that's what's important in this article. But in this context, it sounds as if the unnecessity is fact, not an POV of anti-american people, so it can be reworded to be more NPOV. (My own POV is that while it may help, the U.S. is extremely hypocritical about it, trying to disarm other countries while still holding the largest arsenal in the world.) Xunflash 03:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. arsenal is both vast and unnecessary, and that is an objective statement. It is vast b/c Earth can be destroyed many times over with it. It is unnecessary because it far exceeds the combined military might of USA's proclaimed worse enemies--the so-called axis of evil. USA claims that even the hint of Iran approaching PEACEFUL nuclear capability is dangerous to world stability; yet its own 10000 warheads (presumably NOT designed for PEACEFUL use) are somehow justified and necessary. I think it's time to add USA to the axis of evil, it should be No. 1 in the list... Vive l'UE

title: Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 18


text:
Eastview, Ontario

Eastview, Ontario can mean the following:

 * Eastview was the name of Vanier, Ontario before 1969. Vanier is now a neighbourhood of Ottawa.
 * Eastview, Frontenac County, Ontario is a community in the city of Kingston

title: Eastview, Ontario


text: User:Lexi Marie/topbar

title: User:Lexi Marie/topbar


text:
Talk:Memorial Stadium (University of Minnesota)

National Championships
The existing page refernced six "mythical" championships for the Gophers during the period of time the stadium was in existance. Considering all six are recognized by the NCAA (I added the link) I don't see how they are mythical. To indicate otherwise either invalidates all national championships prior to 1950 or 1997 depending on which change in how championships were decided/recorded you define to be non-mythical. It may be redundant or off topic to mention them at all let alone in the detail I added them in which case the entire reference perhaps should be deleted or moved to the University page. I didn't want to just erase the word mythical without explanation or justification either since whoever put it in in the first place would just replace it etc... 128.104.4.30 18:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)gvarsity

Attendance
It was my understanding that attendance actually increased upon moving to the Metrodome. I added the citation note. A cursory look at the University of Minnesota media guide for 2006 seems to validate that attendance was running higher.

Last five years at Memorial Stadium
1977

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/10 W 10 Western Michigan 7 29,619

9/24 W 27 UCLA 13 41,076

10/1 W 19 Washington 17 31,895

10/15 W 13 Northwestern 7 39,021

10/22 W 16 Michigan (1) 0 44,165

11/5 L 10 Michigan State 29 30,600

11/19 W 13 Wisconsin 7 30,742

1978

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/16 W 38 Toledo 12 31,223

9/23 L 10 Ohio State (16) 27 55,200

10/7 L 14 Oregon State 17 35,083

10/14 W 22 Iowa 20 51,381

11/4 W 32 Indiana 31 39,797

11/18 W 24 Illinois 6 25,388

1979

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/8 W 24 Ohio 10 33,435

9/15 L 17 Ohio State (15) 21 ESPN 43,515

9/29 W 38 Northwestern 8 33,998

10/6 W 31 Purdue 14 47,281

10/27 T 17 Illinois 17 46,449

11/17 L 37 Wisconsin 42 37,274

1980

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/13 W 38 Ohio 14 35,114

9/27 L 7 USC (5) 24 55,115

10/18 L 14 Michigan 37 56,297

10/25 W 24 Iowa 6 58,158

11/8 W 31 Indiana 7 NCAA* 30,092

11/15 L 12 Michigan State 30 30,329

1981

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/12 W 19 Ohio 17 40,086

9/19 W 16 Purdue 13 WLFI-TV 41,530

9/26 W 42 Oregon State 12 NCAA* 30,890

10/10 W 35 Northwestern 23 45,949

10/31 L 13 Michigan (15) 34 ON-TV 52,875

11/7 W 35 Ohio State (18) 31 WOSU-TV 42,793

11/21 L 21 Wisconsin 26 SNI 47,125

Move to Metrodome 1982-1986
1982

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/11 W 57 Ohio 3 56,168

9/25 W 41 Washington State 11 50,653

10/2 L 24 (19) Illinois 42 CBS 63,684

10/16 L 21 Indiana 40 61,865

10/23 L 16 Iowa 21 KSTP-TV 63,872

11/13 L 7 Michigan State 26 57,146

1983

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/17 L 13 Nebraska (1) 84 KETV-TV 62,687

9/24 L 20 Purdue 32 41,839

10/15 L 17 Wisconsin 56 WKOW-TV 62,689

11/5 L 23 Illinois (6) 50 WCIA-TV 35,514

11/12 L 10 Michigan (9) 58 WSTN-TV 40,945

1984

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/8 W 31 Rice 24 50,576

9/29 L 22 Ohio State (3) 35 WOSU-TV 47,543

10/6 W 33 Indiana 24 44,786

10/20 L 28 Northwestern 31 56,934

10/27 L 13 Michigan State 20 47,427

11/17 W 23 Iowa 17 CS-TV 63,479

1985

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/14 W 28 Wichita State 14 KMSP-TV 56,094

9/21 W 62 Montana 17 KMSP-TV 55,700

9/28 L 7 Oklahoma (3) 13 TBS 62,446

10/5 W 45 Purdue 15 TBS 59,503

10/26 L 19 (20) Ohio State (9) 23 64,455

11/9 W 27 Wisconsin 18 64,571

11/16 L 7 Michigan (8) 48 TBS 64,129

1986

Date UM Opp. TV Att.

9/13 W 31 Bowling Green 7 51,317

9/27 L 20 Pacific 24 50,270

10/11 W 44 Northwestern 23 58,177

10/18 W 19 Indiana 17 52,960

11/1 L 23 Michigan State 52 TBS 57,408

11/22 L 27 Iowa 30 TBS 65,018

A common tendancy in sports is to blame the stadium (or uniforms, or band and cheerleaders) on the woeful performance of the team. When the team is good, attendance is good. And it does not matter what the venue is.

 * That's fine. My point was that as the article says a selling point of the Metrodome was going to be increased attendance, but I do believe that "in the long run" (as I also added in the artcile) that it did not.  You are correct that after the move to the Metrodome the attendance increased.  But after the first few years in the Metrodome attendance returned to the depths of where it was in Memorial stadium.  The first 6 years of the Metrodome (1982-1987) were the 6 highest attendance years, until in finally 2005 broke throuht that.  Then in 1988 attendance dropped, and starting in 1989 it was once again very low and remained there for the next several years.  In fact, the years of 1989 - 1993 (years 7 - 11 of the metrodome) were the lowest 5 years in the Metrodome.  It's pretty clear to me anyway that 1989 - 1993 proved that the stadium alone was not the long term answer to increase attendance at the games (as the proponents said it would).  These particular years were about as bad as they had been in the final years of Memorial Stadium.

Attendance Rank by year

1. 1985 60,985 2.  1982 58,898 3.  1986 55,848 4.  1987 53,131 5.  2006 52,206 6.  1984 51,791 7.  2005 49,024 8.  1983 48,735 9.  1995 48,574 10. 2004 47,573 11. 2000 47,352 12. 1999 45,441 13. 1997 44,898 14. 1988 44,665 15. 2003 44,148 16. 1996 43,519 17. 2001 43,485 18. 1994 42,309 19. 2002 41,785 20. 1998 41,642 21. 1990 40,585 22. 1993 39,996 23. 1989 39,607 24. 1992 37,908 25. 1991 36,369

Gopher backer 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memorial Stadium (University of Minnesota). 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/20080910211737/http://www.gophersports.com/pdf4/40448.pdf to http://www.gophersports.com/pdf4/40448.pdf

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) 08:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Memorial Stadium (University of Minnesota). 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/20091005032616/http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=39277&SPID=3280&DB_OEM_ID=8400&ATCLID=275768 to http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=39277&SPID=3280&DB_OEM_ID=8400&ATCLID=275768
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909045839/http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/55900867.html to http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/55900867.html
 * Added tag to http://www.gophersports.com/pdf4/40449.pdf

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) 14:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
People's Alliance Party (Albania)

People's Alliance Party (in Albanian: Partia Aleanca Popullore) is a political party in Albania led by engineer Fatjon Softa, who was police chief in Tirana between 1992 and 1996. Softa became party president in 2002.

In the 2005 parliamentary elections, the party joined the Movement for National Development coalition. Softa stood as the coalition candidate in the single-member constituency Zone 34, Qarku, Tirana. From February 2007, he is member of the local council of Tirana and the president of the municipality for public order and civil protection in the local council of Tirana.

title: People's Alliance Party (Albania)


text:
User:Dpineaul

Dom Pineault's PAGE
Welcome to my Wikipedia user page

title: User:Dpineaul


text: Talk:Absolute monarchy in France

title: Talk:Absolute monarchy in France


text:
False Cape State Park

False Cape State Park is a 4321 acre state park located on the Currituck Banks Peninsula, a 1 mi barrier spit between the Back Bay of the Currituck Sound and the Atlantic Ocean, within the city of Virginia Beach, adjacent to the state border with North Carolina, and just north of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge.

False Cape State Park includes hiking and biking trails, a visitors' center, environmental educational and primitive camping facilities. The park can be accessed from the north on foot, bicycle, or seasonally available tram through Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, or from the south on foot or bicycle. Boat access is possible from any shoreline. Limited beach vehicular access remains for grandfathered permit holders.

History
The park is named False Cape because from the ocean it could be easily mistaken for Cape Henry, which lies about 20 mi to the north at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Ships and boats looking for Cape Henry instead sailed into the shallow waters, where they could easily run aground.

The community of Wash Woods, now abandoned, was developed by survivors of such a shipwreck in the 17th or early 18th century. The village's church and other structures were built using cypress wood that washed ashore from a wreck. In the early 20th century, False Cape was a haven for a number of hunt clubs taking advantage of the area's abundant waterfowl. The park's Wash Woods Environmental Education Center is a converted hunt clubhouse.

Undeveloped portions of the park were dedicated as the False Cape Natural Area Preserve in 2002.

At the south end of False Cape is a monument with "Va." on one side and "N Ca" on the other. Although it reads "A.D. 1728" on the top, it was more likely erected in 1887 when the boundary was surveyed again, since the original marker was a simple cedar post. "A.D. 1728" refers to the year the current boundary was first surveyed.

title: False Cape State Park


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flavio vento

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by DavidWBrooks. -Splash talk 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Flavio vento

 * non-notable dictionary term and incorrect translation too.Delete. SoothingR 18:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Kymara

Peter Robinson
I just saw the article and I like poetry. Plus it looked like it might need a tweak or two. Nice work. --DanielCD 18:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Heya, I don't edit much to on this, I don't feel I have the expertise, I did edit Dagnall a bit I think, and I edited some sections on Ontologies (which I actually need to do more on - I havent done much on the project for a couple of months so I haven't understood new stuff to add yet). It was odd on the ontology section it was explained in a terrible and confusing way (from my point of view any way!). I've been editing quite a bit on www.umsu.manchester.ac.uk/wikispectus The uni started a "WikiNode" (a few universities have "WikiNodes") so when it started I was entering some of the basic information in that. Its got 200-300 proper pages at the moment, which I think is cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickiRich (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bucks stubs
That page is quite old and very out of date - I should probably just delete it to be honest. I was at the Grange from 1986 to 1990 by the way, a wee bit before you attended the High... -- Francs2000 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman spear points
The "roman spear points" had gone unsourced for more than 7 months. That's plenty of time for someone to add a citation. If you have genuine references that prove it, feel free to add it to the article along with the citation. Andrew Levine 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Civilisations"
I see now that it is a variant mainly used in the UK. I did spent a minute or two trying to locate a definition for "civilisation" via the more popular online dictionaries, I even ran it through Google, but my attempt was not successful so I changed it. I wouldn't have any problem having it changed back, but I guess that would be contrary to the guidelines, heh. Haizum 12:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Psst
I'm trying to build support for this nomination in its last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

CAD
Thanks for your support on the disambig for Carol Ann Duffy. Guinnog 20:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Michelin Starred Restaurants
Thank you for your huge input to this new category - Best Regards, Trident13 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * You're welcome! Kymara 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Kymara, I am a chinese boy who come from Macao, China(which is a small city near by Hong Kong). You are interested in Maths and use British English, although I am not interested in Maths, I want to meet some British English user be my friend because I am interested in British English. Can we keep in touch? This is my e-mail: andrewtamkp@yahoo.com.hk Dr.Tam 12:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Galton_Blackiston Pics
Yallo, not a big issue but I noticed the copyrights on the two pics you got Image:Galton Blackiston.jpg and Image:MHAwards hallway.JPG are different, even though it looks like they have the same actual effect. And I wanted to say hi, hi :) --RickiRich 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Alison Watt FOLD.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Alison Watt FOLD.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Galton Blackiston.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Galton Blackiston.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Betty Trask Award

The article Betty Trask Award has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * No evidence in reliable sources of this being a notable prize.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kymara