text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy

Original requests for arbitration:

Involved parties

 * User:Researcher99
 * User:Nereocystis

 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

notification of Researcher99

 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 * 6 June 16:40 Nereocystis requested 3rd opinion.
 * 18 June 10:29 Hawstom suggests forgetting past conduct, starts poll on resolving differences.
 * 16 August 13:54 Uriah923 attempts informal mediation.
 * 7 October 19:14 Requests for comment/Researcher99
 * 13 September 23:14 Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis Researcher99's AMA advocate started the mediation, then Researcher dropped out of mediation. 13 September

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Researcher99 has repeatedly refused attempts at resolving differences with User:Nereocystis on the Polygamy and Group marriage pages.

Most recently, on 30 September, Researcher99 refused mediation if it included a discussion of the text of the polygamy article.

Previously, I filed an RFC about Researcher99's behavior. Only Researcher99 and his advocate supported his version of the results. Requests for comment/Researcher99.

Researcher99 did not agree to attempts at resolving differences in the following edits:
 * 18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative
 * 18 July Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99
 * 28 July Nereocystis suggests mediation]. No response from Researcher99.

Researcher99 refused to discuss the article and insisted that we discuss past actions:

 * August 5 Researcher99 suggests resolution, insists that Nereocystis defer to Researcher99's proven expertise.

Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis.

 * 16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
 * 29 September Researcher99 states that being polite is abusive here:

 * 7 September Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist

 * 29 September Mediator asks question about what Researcher99 wants; question is unanswered

 * 30 September long rambling post by Researcher99 accusing Nereocystis of fake graciousness, refuses to discuss content]

 * 1 October Mediator asks Researcher99 question which is not answered

Researcher99 is a Christian polygamist. His edits about Christian polygamy are POV, and he refuses to consider writing them in an NPOV format. He insists that his Christian polygamy group is the only such group, though there are others. See Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4 for my research, and his response.

He engages in link spam. Researcher99 posts many sites which are hosted by standardbearer.com, which is a Christian polygamy group which I believe is run by Researcher99:
 * 1) http://www.pro-polygamy.com Pro-Polygamy.com
 * 2) http://www.lovenotforce.com
 * 3) http://www.christianpolygamy.info
 * 4) http://www.truthbearer.org
 * 5) http://www.anti-polygamy.com
 * 6) http://www.2wives.com

Researcher99 removes links to Christian polygamy sites which he disagrees with:
 * removed 2 links to Christian polygamy groups
 * Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4

Nereocystis 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

 * Accept and merge Fred Bauder 21:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 04:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge. Kelly Martin 15:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * User:Researcher99 (initiating party through official AMA advocate User:Imaglang aka Neigel von Teighen)
 * User:Nereocystis

Nereocystis has been informed
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 * Requests for comment/Researcher99
 * Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis (mediation failed)

Statement by advocate of party 1
Statement by User:Researcher99's advocate Neigel von Teighen as it can be confirmed by

User:Nereocystis has incurred in a long term abusive behaivor against User:Researcher99 (aka Researcher) in the Polygamy page and, specially, in Talk:Polygamy. This user believes that Researcher has been doing POV edits in the article and so it does think my 'client' about Nereocystis, but that is not the main point of this case. The discussion of either the content is POV or not has been totally displaced by abuses performed by Nereocystis as it can be shown by the list of diffs at the bottom of the statement. Thus, we're seeking the Civility policy to be applied.

Preliminary evidence:
 * (Sorry, this diff is an edit made by another user not involved in the dispute! --Neigel von Teighen 22:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC))
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

I have contacted User:Researcher99 by mail so he can send his statement soonly. Thank you. --Neigel von Teighen 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1
Please limit your statement to 500 words

I am out of time, today, to completely respond here, but I will come back and do so in the next day or so. I am also aware of the great difficulty for me to try to present this abuse situation in under 500 words, which I am not sure can really be effectively accomplished in this very comprehensive problem. One recent post I made does give a very brief insight into the abuse problem, this DIFF here. But there is so much more to report. Until I can come back and specify more, this situation still has mountains of evidence of the abuse to read, about the "running right over me." A serious chronology is provided in My Response to the RfC that was made against me. Please also see that RfC's TALK page. After that, please see my posts in the subsequent RfM. As one of my latest posts there  comprehensively shows, no matter how many times I explain something, they "run right over me" anyway and even make outright false statements against me. There is so much abuse to report that I do not know how else to say it without laying down all the mountains of evidence. If deemed preferable, I would be glad to proceed on a step-by-step basis of smaller digestible chunks if that helps. While waiting for my subsequent reply here, understanding the situation all begins with the chronology given at My Response to the RfC. Researcher 20:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I am back to add more now. I will do my best to add what I can. Since a week ago Wednesday, the only contact I have had from my AMA advocate, Neigel von Teighen, has been one email they sent to me a couple days ago. It was only to let me know that Neigel von Teighen had made this RfArb. So, without their help at this particular moment, I will still try to offer some background and purpose for this RfArb.

I am not the kind of person who came to Wikipedia to practically live here. Instead, I am a different kind of user, I come only to provide expert knowledge of years of research into a little-known topic called polygamy. Unlike Nereocystis who seems to spend every waking moment at Wikipedia and cleverly knows how to manipulate the Wikipedia procedures to abuse me, I am not a Wikipedia expert. I am only a topical expert/researcher.

The polygamy article rarely gets much editing attention actually. The most attention it ever got at any one time is only when Nereocystis creates a controversy to call for others. They know that finding other anti-polygamists to join them is easy to do. They bring others to the article by creating things such as the RfC against me and previously inciting a very suspicious AfD of the anti-polygamy article I had tried to create as a resolution possibility. As we proceed here, I have many DIFFs to show the hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda and reasons why these suspicions are not unreasonable to ask.

I first encountered Nereocystis in the debate they created on the polygamy TALK page from 09:36, 29 December 2004 through 20:10, 13 January 2005. It was regarding their edit and my corrective adjustment while I was also trying to still accomodate some of what they had added. As the debate shows, while I was trying to accomodate them but with accuracy, they would have none of it. Finally, they "left" fo a few months.

Eventually, a "new" user showed up, called Ghostintheshell. (As I will show later, I believe that "new" user is the same as Nereocystis.)   Pretending to be a "pro Muslim polygamy," Ghostintheshell  instead was a sneaky anti-polygamist who deliberately pushed me into an edit war. As one who is not a Wikipedia expert, I mistakenly fell into my first and only error of WP:3RR. The only thing I had been trying to do was to return the article back to the STATUS QUO so that a discussion could then be had. Ghostintheshell would have none of it. They used outlandish obfuscatory tactics calling false things true and vice versa. On May 7, I posted a lengthy evidence of the chronology of the events, called, The Ghostintheshell Situation.  The outline of that evidence may be read first by starting at the top of the Archive page here.  In it, I explained the call for the Wikipedia Guideline to restore any contorvesial article to STATUS QUO and then to TALK, when things like that happen. In Section 1.2, I very clearly spelled it out, "Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed."  That section there provides the principles of the "Don't Be Reckless" Wikipedia Guideline.

That "Don't Be Reckless" Wikipedia Guideline is the entire premise of what I have been calling for ever since.

Just as the TALK page was in that situation on May 7, 2005, Nereocystis came "back" on May 10, 2005.

The next day, Ghostintheshell made their very last post, admitting they had violated the WP:3RR by creating a new account to circumvent the temporary suspension. Later that very day, Nereocystis made their first edit again.

It is is very necessary to understand what Nereocystis knew was going on at that very moment. They knew that I was still in that situation with Ghostintheshell on the TALK page. They knew that the very lengthy The Ghostintheshell Situation was on the TALK page there and that I was still involved in solving that. Most importantly of all, Nereocystis knew that I was calling for the "Don't Be Reckless" Wikipedia Guideline to be followed, for us to first restore the article to STATUS QUO in order to then TALK about any changes.

Nereocystis ignored all that and began an editing rampage to the article. Since Nereocystis's first return back to the polygamy TALK pages and first editing the next day, they have been on a very aggressive strategy of "running right over me" and undermining every single thing I do. I came to spend my time helping Wikipedia on the topics I am an expert/researcher, but instead Nereocystis has so sabotaged everything I do that I have not been allowed to do anything but deal with this abuse, for almost six months now. It has so destroyed the fun of the Wikipedia experience for me, which is only to share my knowledge.

On May 16, I posted the evidence to TALK, Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals. On May 27, I explained how these were clearly anti-polygamists, with Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki.

Throughout, Nereocystis has undertaken an enormous effort to abuse me, by constantly "running right over me."

In my attempts to follow the Wikipedia Guidelines to restore to STATUS QUO so that we could then TALK, Nereocystis destroyed everything I did.

 * My 13 edits of 19:09, 6 June 2005 to 20:20, 6 June 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 22:09, 6 June 2005.
 * My 18 edits of 14:24, 30 June 2005 to 16:38, 30 June 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 17:05, 1 July 2005.
 * My 11 edits of 16:42, 8 July 2005 to 16:58, 8 July 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 16:59, 8 July 2005.

As we proceed, here's a list of just some more of things which they did:

 * Sneakily sabotaged the creation of the anti-polygamy article, a resolution possibility I was offering. (Eventually, that wrongly deleted anti-polygamy article will need to be undeleted.)
 * Refused the completely NPOV resolution offer I made on group marriage TALK page (DIFF here).
 * Refused the smallest of efforts for a WIN-WIN in a resolution in August I had offered, which we almost achieved (until interrupted.) See: Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION 5 August 2005.
 * After a newcomer, Uriah923, interrupted that August resolution with a possibility to help, but when Uriah923 also "ran right over me" before I had even had a chance to really decide anything about it, Nereocystis tried to accuse me of refusing it and so they "ran right over me" anyway.
 * They made the outrageous RfC against me.
 * When my AMA advocate made the RfM, Nereocystis refused the only declared purpose of it that the AMA advocate had stated, but then sneakily tried to say that "I" was the one supposedly "refusing Mediation."
 * Misrepresents what I say.
 * Makes me answer issues several times, even forcing me to say the same thing numerous times more before they might listen.
 * Has used the identical obfuscatory tactics as Ghostintheshell.
 * Has called NPOV as POV and called POV as NPOV.
 * Has lied more than once.
 * Has acted extremely aggressively.
 * Has abused me with an extreme double standard.
 * Has had the agenda to always look to see if they can falsely accuse me of "refusing resolution."
 * Keeps doing the hypocrisy of trying to say I am some public figure in polygamy while they simultaneously deny hearing my proven knowledge of the topic which they do not know much about. If I was that person, then they are actually admitting that that I have that much knowledge, while they target me with their abuse.
 * In their vindictive copied RfArb, they introduce a new idea of "link spam." They do that while knowing the proven-quality and reocgnized sites are using a community webhost, and knowing that they are inventing "groups" out of previously-explained rejected lunatic-fringe one-man sites. That proves they are the ones trying to fill the article with spam, not me.

I know there are more things to point out, but the list is starting to become overwhelming. I also need to be as brief as possible. I can come back and Wikify this more. I can also provide DIFFS as we proceed.

As I have only just recently learned the term "sockpuppets" here (the DIFF is here), I do believe a serious question of sockpuppets does very seriously apply to Nereocystis. While I may have only just learned the term, I have long been saying that I think Nereocystis might be others. I do believe an investigation needs to be made into the very suspicious similarities and behaviors of 63.167.159.194, 209.33.198.237, Ghostintheshell, Spatfield, and possibly even Kewp (from here and here) and other easily-found anti-polygamists ready to gang up on a minority expert.

All I have sought is the STATUS QUO according to the Wikipedia Guidelines, especially the "Don't Be Reckless" guideline. So, I have never refused anything. I simply want the Guidelines followed and the abuse to end. Instead, though, I have been the target of hostile anti-polygamists' abuse of "running right over me" and trying to make my experience so miserable that I eventually leave Wikipedia. I am hoping this can be resolved once and for all. I only want to get to the NPOV content-writing of the polygamy related articles, as that is what I know about.

I hope to hear from my AMA advocate soon. I hope I have done correctly here what I am supposed to do. - Researcher 20:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Another quick update of additional information.

Here is another example of what Nereocystis does to me. They tacticly overwhelm a situation with multiple issues or "questions" all at once and then unreasonably expect me to have the time to immediately answer all of them, knowing it is not possible for me. Then they turn around and misrepresent my inability to have the time to answer everything they as if it means I somehow ignored or rejected it. Here's an example from their Statement on this RfArb. They accuse me of supposedly "dropping out" of the Mediation request (when it was they who rejected the only one valid basis of the RfM.). As my edit-comments on a recent post I made to the RfM, explained, it is "Impossible to say I 'refused mediation' when I said SEVEN TIMES what this RfM is about."  Despite that, they still "run right over me" even here and continue to make the false accusation again on this RfArb.  They know that I can only respond with limited time availability. So, they cleverly accuse me of "dropping out" because I allocated my limited time to reponding here on this RfArb rather than on the RfM. If I had instead allocated it to replying to the RfM, then they just as abusively turn around and would accuse me of not answering the RfArb here.

The anti-polygamists have been "outed" despite their claims to the contrary. It is necessary to read the entire section of the evidence-piece, titled, Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki. Before reading it, please review its entire outline of subheadings at the top of the page there. It is Section 3 there. Second, it will be necessary to see the entire activity of how the anti-polygamy article was sneakily deleted immediately from very suspicious means. The suspiciously deleted anti-polygamy article, its TALK page, and the VfD discussion are all archived here. (By "suspicious," I refer to the whole issue of its being called for deletion, not just that it got deleted.) Third, for additional data on the suspicious maters surrounding the deleted anti-polygamy article, it is also essential to read the entire evidence piece, title, Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof.  Like the above piece, it will be helpful to first read the outline of subheadings at the top of the page there.  It is Section 1 there. As those all show, it is a common tactic of anti-polygamists to pretend to be "pro-polygamy" specifically with the purpose of attacking polygamy. In addition to those necessary pieces of evidence to read, I will be able to provide additional DIFFs, proving anti-polygamists.

At this point, I have run out of further time to add any more here. I might possibly have more time later today. If not, then I will try to come back after the weekend, at the start of next workweek. (Weekends are always tough for me.) Researcher 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am back again, with more information. I hope I am doing this right.

In addition to those necessary pieces of evidence to read about the anti-polygamiosts proven, I will be able to provide many additional DIFFs, proving anti-polygamists. For now, here are some more quick examples of even more that I will be able to provide as we proceed. Only two hours after I had pleaded for Admins to help in that situation, in my polygamy TALK post, "I am being oppressed by Anti-Polygamists," and only a half hour after I had fully explained "Tom Haws, you seem to approve my idea, when understanding what I actually created," then User:Nereocystis did what only an anti-polygamist would do. They announced "anti-polygamy up for deletion" on the polygamy TALK page. They did that fully knowing that, despite their clever fake graciousness, such an announcement would likely get more easily-found anti-polygamists to vote against the anti-polygamy article. So, obviously, no one who would genuinely "support the legalization of polygamy" would ever have responded to the previous two posts I had made that day by ignoring them and instead making that announcement to help the anti-polygamy article get deleted. (Truthfully, it does not take a genius to realize that anyone who truly "supports the legalization of polygamy" would never been involved in helping the anti-polygamy article get deleted anyway. They certainly would never have made this anti-polygamy edit here, calling obvious NPOV as POV, and sabotaging the anti-polygamy article with it. )  In addition to this example, I will be able to provide further proofs as we proceed in this RfArb. It is for these reasons that I have warned that Nereocystis has been a "sneaky vandal" who acts like they are supposedly pro-polygamy in order to sneak in their hostile POV misinformations and attacks as if "justified." Another post where I had pointed this out may be observed in the July 8 evidence-post I made to polygamy TALK, labelled, The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN. (It is Section 3 when using the outline at the top of the page there.) Also,  by Nereocystis's claiming that they are "not an anti-polygamist" and that they "support the legalization of polygamy," when they very obviously are an anti-polygamist who opposes polygamy with a hostile POV, all provides more proof that they definitely lie, even right here on the RfArb. -- Researcher 19:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As I await for further assistance here (and have only heard from my AMA advocate a couple times this last week), I am sorry that it has been absolutely necessary to list out so much evidence. Unfortunately, Nereocystis has learned to exploit the fact that most other users are not willing to really read through all the mountains of the evidence so as to instead just support whatever Nereocystis tells those other users to believe. That places me in a no-win situation. I am attacked either way. For example, on this RfArb, when I had made my initial small Statement that was under 500 words, another hostile user was quick to exploit it by saying this RfArb was "completely frivolous." But when I then added more of the mountains of the evidence here, that same hostile user came back and attacked me for "exceeding the 500 word limit." The mountains of links I have provided lead to numerous DIFFs. If I were to re-post everything in those evidences here, then I would be further attacked for then posting 10s of thousands of words. Such attacks allow me no way to get the information across one way or another, if they were so correct about me. Of course, I do understand that many people do not have time to read everything and I do not enjoy spending this time putting it together either. However, if anyone is not willing to read all the mountains of evidence that are essential to seeing the whole situation honestly, then they are not really able to be fully informed enough to make any opinion in the first place. But that doesn't seem to stop some users from doing that anyway. Nereocystis cleverly knows and exploits this fact about other users, though, especially in easily enlisting biased anti-polygamists. I am so hoping that there will be a true and honest analysis of the mountains of evidence of the overwhelming abuse that Nereocystis has heaped upon me, and that true NPOV content editing in my topic expertise can be the basis of my time spent at Wikipedia from then on. I am so exhausted from all this abuse, when all I want to do is share my expertise and knowledge in NPOV. -- Researcher 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words

AMA advocate preliminary evidence #6 (currently visible as [7]) is stated a bit stronger than I usually prefer, but Researcher99 consistently refuses to answer direct questions and often refuses to provide references.

AMA advocate preliminary evidence #8 (currently visible as [9] shows that I suggested mediation, and many other steps for resolving our differences.

Unfortunately, I don't know quite what I am being accused of.

We did try mediation in Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis. However, the mediation fell apart when Researcher99 refused to allow a discussion of the content of the polygamy article, as suggested by the mediator.

Researcher99 did not agree to attempts at resolving differences in the following edits:
 * 18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative
 * 18 July Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99
 * 28 July Nereocystis suggests mediation]. No response from Researcher99.

Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis:

 * 16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
 * 29 September Researcher99 states that being polite is abusive here:

 * 7 September Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist

Nereocystis 08:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not an anti-polygamist; I support the legalization of polygamy. I consider Researcher99's claims otherwise to be a personal attack, though perhaps a mild one if it weren't repeated so frequently.

I don't use sockpuppets. I once made an anonymous edit, though it wasn't on a polygamy-related article. I'm willing to check specific edits to determine whether I accidentally made other anonymous edits. I am not Ghostintheshell, Spatfield, or Kewp. I have communicated with 2 out of the 3 of these and each has verified that they are not me. Researcher99 seems to believe that everyone who disagrees with him is one of my sockpuppets.

I am not sneaky. I make my edits publicly.

I did revert many of Researcher99's changes, and requested that he explain the changes on the Talk:Polygamy page:

 * 6 June 16:38
 * 1 July 11:03
 * 1 July 10:12
 * 8 July 10:30

I discussed deleted the anti-polygamy article, but I did not vote on the deletion of the article; I preferred to leave the vote to people not involved in the polygamy dispute. I was not sneaky. `

Statement by uninvolved third party PurplePlatypus
I am a relatively new user going over the RfA page basically just to see how everything works. I have not edited any articles related to polygamy or otherwise interacted with Nereocystis, Researcher99 or anyone else who I am aware of being involved in this dispute in any way.

Having said that, it appears to me that this case (unlike the immediately above one, against Researcher99) is completely frivolous. At the moment, the "preliminary evidence" links above are visible as 3 through 10. I don't see the slightest evidence of abuse by Nereocystis toward Researcher99 in any of them, and in fact several of them point to evidence of the reverse. It is not at all clear what Neighel or R99 thinks is inappropriate about any of them. I see good-faith edits, wholly appropriate requests for references, and quotes of abusive statements by R99. (It seems like a lot of disruptive or otherwise low-quality editors take being asked for references as a personal attack, which I find mind-boggling.) Only the one currently labeled #7 seems slightly questionable (in general, I strongly feel non-lawyer editors, which I assume all parties are, should not take positions on legal disputes in article space - note that the version Nereocystis was replacing was no better in this respect). One slightly iffy edit hardly seems grounds for an arbcom case.

This being the case, I would be interested in the reasons why two arbcom members so far have accepted the case; personally my instinct would be to reject it on the grounds that no evidence of wrongdoing has been presented and that the whole case is almost certainly retaliatory in nature. Obviously everyone on the arbcom knows vastly more than I do about Wikipedia arbitration, and so there could easily be something I am overlooking. If this is the case, I look forward to being educated on it (in some venue such as the RfA talk page, or my own talk page - this page is not for discussion, though I notice there is some here and there anyway). PurplePlatypus 07:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I posted the above before R99 posted his statement. However, it would have changed little had this not been the case. R99 has not, as far as my admittedly incomplete check could determine, actually pointed to any abusive behaviour towards him, and has in fact arguably pointed to some by him. Most of his links are not to actual evidence of abuse, or indeed even to other people's edits at all, but to lengthy and nearly incoherent rants written by himself. If there were abuse, he could point to the actual abusive edits and they would speak for themselves. Where's the beef? While R99 has exceeded the 500 word limit by a factor of nearly four (update: now closer to five), he does not appear to have actually said anything. PurplePlatypus 05:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

While I assume this will be obvious to all, I will state for the record that R99's characterization of my statements here is entirely false. I have checked many of the links he and his advocate have provided, and not one of them pointed to clear abuse of R99, while several pointed to clear abuse by him. That is the entire basis of my complaint; he has not posted mountains of evidence, he has posted mountains of text in which he claims to have been abused, but the diffs he and his advocate have given don't bear out his claims. I have checked out far more of the links he has given than he seems to realize - all of those of his advocate, of which zero point to anything outside the bounds of acceptable Wikipedia activity, and about half of his own prior to today.

It must be admitted that R99 does seem to have great difficulty stating his case clearly and concisely. If he thinks this has unfairly tainted my or anyone else's judgement of him, I suggest that he
 * Sum up in a couple of sentences specifically what abusive behaviour he believes he has been subjected to
 * Provide a simple list of diffs that point to clear examples of abusive behaviour toward him by other uses
 * Stop editorializing about how he is being persecuted and let the evidence - if it exists, which I see no sign of thus far -speak for itself. If it really is anywhere near as bad as R99 claims, this should be easy. PurplePlatypus 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Outside party Kewp

 * I have been involved with the dispute on the Polygamy page for almost two months. From what I have seen, Researcher99 is a very difficult person to work with, he is disingenuous about his actions and extremely dismissive of other editors (not limited to Nereocystis) who come to the polygamy page.

 * Particularly disturbing is his edit to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Researcher99 on September 15 . In this edit, Researcher99 responded to separate comments that Nereocystis  and I  had made expressing our concern over this edit  that Researcher99 had made refusing mediation and comparing other users to a rapist and a terrorist. In his response to my concerns, Researcher99 whitewashes the fact that he had made an incredibly offensive post by choosing to ignore it and instead accusing me (and Nereocystis) of "lying" because Researcher99 had made a subsequent post  in which he said he was "open to mediation," a statement which I hadn't seen, due to my carelessness and anger at the fact that he used the words "rapist" and "terrorist" to describe another user, an action for which Researcher 99 has never apologized.

 * In his same September 15th comment, Researcher99 wrote "Could it be that Nereocystis is Kewp?" and alleged that I was a sockpuppet of Nereocystis.  He repeated this baseless accusation here .  Researcher99's advocate, Neigel von Teighen also alluded to my being a sockpuppet here .  Researcher99 never amended or withdrew his comments about my being a sockpuppet.

 * When Neigel von Teighen posted the Rfa against Nereocystis his first piece of evidence against Nereocystis, was, in fact, the same post that I, Kewp, had made earlier concerning Researcher99's comment comparing other users to rapists and terrorists. I requested that Neigel von Teighen clarify this matter, but he has so far ignored me. It seems to be another attempt to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, and a disingenuous attempt at obscuring the matter at hand. Nereocystis  has already mentioned this above, but I wanted to comment on the matter since my actions were listed under "abuses performed by Nereocystis," which is totally incorrect. --Kewp (t) 09:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Neigel von Teighen has subsequently removed my edit from the list of alleged "abuses performed by Nereocystis." However, Researcher99 has just repeated the allegation above, again with no real proof.--Kewp (t) 06:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

 * Accept and merge Fred Bauder 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 13:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge. Kelly Martin 15:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Further comments
I do not want to become involved in this case, but let me just say that as a mediator between Researcher99 and Nereocystis, I found Researcher to be the more uncooperative. He would not participate in the mediation except to make repetitive accusations of abuse on the part of Nereocystis.  Andre  ( talk ) 21:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that  Andre  had tried to help in the Request for Mediation that my AMA advocate requested.  I ask all Arbitrators to read it thoroughly through to see what actually happened.  We had asked for Mediation, repeatedly describing the only valid basis that we were asking it for. We needed the abuse to be dealt with.  Nereocystis sabotaged the process in using their Wikipedia-process-expertise by trying to turn the Mediation into something that we had not asked.   It was another example of how Nereocystis abusively "runs right over me."  Since Nereocystis actually refused the Mediation we had specifically asked for, they deliberately made it impossible to go forward.   Nereocystis did that while cleverly trying to invent the idea that I was somehow refusing the very mediation that I, through my AMA advocate, had requested.  In the last post at the RfM there, my DIFF,, said in the edit-comment, "honestly, not trying to be uncooperative."  In the next post I made just prior to that last one, my DIFF, , said in the edit-comment in response to Nereocystis, Impossible to say I "refused mediation" when I said SEVEN TIMES what this RfM is about. That proves it is THEIR lies, it is THEIR "refusal," and proves how they gang up to "run right over me.)  Because we were never ever allowed to get to the point of the Mediation in the first place because of Nereocystis's clever tactics, I do not know how it is accuarate, fair, or unprejudicial to view me in that situation as anything but trying to find a fair process for resolving a situation of abuse I have been enduring for about 6 months now.  Honestly, I am not about trying to make accusations of abuse. Instead, I am only trying to get it resolved so that it stops.  I am only a topic expert/researcher who wants to share their knowledge, but instead I am routinely being "run right over" by the clever tactics of Nereocystis's Wikipedia-process-expertise.  I am hopeful that, after I have successfully figured out how to correctly compile the evidence here in the right way, that this will eventually lead to an end to the abuse. Researcher 19:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Tswindall

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

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

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

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

title: User talk:Tswindall


text:
Talk:Battle of Fancheng

A Broken Alliance
(From the Novel's P.O.V.) As always, Cao Ren, who I have much respect for, stood boldly against the border lines of Shu and Wu; however, after Cao Cao wishes to destroy Liu Bei, Sima Yi presents to him a plan of getting Shu to attack Wu.

"Sun Quan's sister is wife to Liu Bei, but Sun Quan has found an occasion to steal away the bride. Liu Bei is in possession of Jingzhou, and he and Sun Quan are bitter enemies. Therefore send some able speaker with a letter to Wu to presuade the Marquis to send an army to recover Jingzhou. That will draw hither all the armies of Shu, when you can send your army to Hanzhong. Liu Bei will be helpless, and his strength will be wasted." Quote from Sima Yi.

In turn of this event, it was Cao Cao who used Sun Quan's anger over Jing to break the alliance of Wu and Shu; however, Sun Quan and his advisors did take note to the fact of Sima Yi's plan even though it ended with them aiding Wei. (But of course, this is from the novel. As far as real life goes, Sun Quan may have mentioned to Cao Ren that he should attack Guan Yu.)

Lu Meng's Plan for Jing
After arriving from Lukou by boat, Lu Meng brings forth the plan to capture Jing with assistance from a young scholar of Wu. (From the Novel) Upon the day Lu Meng feigned illness, Lu Xun came forth as the young, inexperienced commander who would watch over the province that Lu Meng held. After receiving word of his so-called illness, Sun Quan promotes Lu Xun to a Commanding General.

The Capture of Jing by Lu Meng of Wu
After Guan Yu receives word of Lu Xun's promotion, he felt no trouble would fall on him from the South Land. As Guan Yu made his charge for Fan Castle, Lu Meng with Sun Jiao led Wu soldiers towards the Jing Province dressed as sailors and merchants. After making short work of Jing's defenses, Wu now held complete control over the province without a hint of news reaching Guan Yu. Upon his arrival in Jing, Lu Meng showers his captives with gifts and rewards. With order now restored by Wu, Sun Quan had finally regained Jing with Gongan and Nanjun well on the way of being taken over. Although Guan Yu made speedy advance on Wei's Fan Castle, it would not matter once he heard reports come from the rear of his former provinces.--Zhang Liao 06:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

True Enough, Lu Xun was known as a "white-faced scholar" and so he became even more arrogant and thus caused this war. Mastertkw

Dong Zhao's suggestion
The unedited version told what's in the novel "The Romance of the Three Kingdoms" than what really happened in history. Therefore, I made some corrections on it based on Chen Shou's Records of Three Kingdoms. --Ekman230 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The strength between the two belligerents
The strength of Guan Yu's orighinal army was obviously not only 15,000. Guan Yu laid seize not only to the city of Fancheng but XiangYang also, and he had to make sure that he had enough soldiers to guard his supply line and retreat route so that he didn't get cut off. Actually, back at AD215, Guan Yu had already had control over a 30,000 strong army alone, when he faced Lu Su's 10,000 at Yiyang (益陽) for the ownership struggle of Jingzhou. Therefore, Guan Yu's moblie force was at least 30,000 strong (not counting the troops stationed inside cities to prevent Sun Quan's possible invasion), and during the middle of the battle, he called forth reinforcements from Jingzhou which increased his army size to about 40,000+. The question is how many soldiers Wei sent to resist Guan Yu. I don't have an answer for this question, but i have some useful information which may help to explain why Guan Yu was still hesitating to retreat when he already knew Sun Quan had sent army to attack Jingzhou.At the time Guan Yu surrouded Fancheng and the city's food supply was running out, there were only Xu Huang, Yin Shu, and Zhu Gai outside the city's wall to defend the flooded city. But the size of this reinforcement was not large. Xu Huang was given command of 10,000 soldiers during the struggle of Hanzhong, yet there is no record of how much soldiers did he have when came to Fancheng, but we should note that he was in fact not a very famous general BEFORE he defeated Guan Yu (he even couldn't gain advantage when facing young Ling Tong at the Battle of Jiangling with a numerical superiority).Yin Shu had been given command of 5000 surrendered soldiers from Ma Chao; the size of Zhu Gai’s army should be less or equal to Yin Shu’s, so the reinforcement leaded by them should be around 10,000 strong. Thus, their combined forces with Xu Huang should not exceed that of Guan Yu's, and that's what made Guan Yu hesitate to give up attack on Fancheng. --Ekman230 (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed
What about this article that requires attention? _LDS (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Did Liu Bei own the least of the Jing Province?
The Jing Province was divided into 9 commandaries, and right after the battle of Red Cliff, Cao Cao had control over Nanyang (南阳), Xiangyang (襄阳), Nanjun (南郡) and part of Jiangxia (江夏) commandaries, Liu Bei seized Lingling (零陵), Guiyang (桂阳), Wuling (武陵), and Changsha (长沙)commandaries, while Sun Quan only owned a portion of Jiangxia (江夏) commandary. But in AD 209, Zhou Yu defeated Cao Ren and gained Nanjun (which Jiangling city is it's capital city); however, a few months later, Liu Bei successfully "borrowed" Nanjun from Sun Quan; at this point, Liu Bei had controlled most of the Jing Province. But in AD 214, Sun Quan appointed Lu Meng, Sun Jiao, and Ling Tong to take back Jing Provice as Liu Bei refused to return Nanjun after he conquered the Yi Province. Lu Meng was quite successful on his mission, and Liu Bei was forced to offer a truce, which divided Jing Province between him and Sun Quan, after he heard news that Cao Cao might invade Yi Provice. Thus, before Guan Yu launched his war against Cao Cao, Liu Bei had control over Nanjun, Lingling, and Wuling commandaries, Sun Quan had Changsha, a portion of Jiangxia, and Guiyang commandaries (遂分荊州、長沙、江夏、桂陽以東屬權，南郡、零陵、武陵以西屬備 ), and Cao Cao only controlled Nanyang, Xiangyang and a portion of Jiangxia commandaries. Here, we should notice that of those 9 commandaries, Nanjun was the most important as the capital city of the whole Jing Province, Jiangling city, was inside Nanjun. Therefore, Liu Bei not only controlled the MOST of Jing Province, but also had the best part of it. In other words, we have to rewrite the "Analysis" part of the article... EkmanLi (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Did Guan Yu suffer a logistic problem?
I couldn't find records that indicate Guan Yu had any sort of logistic problem during his campaign. Interestingly, I find out that even at the time Lu Meng had attacked his rear, Guan Yu didn't face food shortage, and was still considering to continue the siege on Fencheng. EkmanLi (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Fancheng


text:
Talk:Battle of Santa Cruz (1899)

San Isidro
Does anybody know which place San Isidro in the last paragraph refers to? --seav 13:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Santa Cruz (1899). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.culbertsonmansion.com/Lawton/Laguna-Report/01report-main.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814035426/http://culbertsonmansion.net/Lawton/Laguna-Report/01report-main.htm to http://culbertsonmansion.net/Lawton/Laguna-Report/01report-main.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Santa Cruz (1899). 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/20101109084037/http://www.history.army.mil/html/reference/army_flag/pi.html to http://www.history.army.mil/html/reference/army_flag/pi.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Santa Cruz (1899)


text:
× Epilaeliocattleya

× Epilaeliocattleya, abbreviated Eplc. in the horticultural trade, is the nothogenus consisting of all intergeneric orchid hybrids descended from at least one species in each of the parent genera (Epidendrum, Laelia and Cattleya), and from no other natural genera.

title: × Epilaeliocattleya


text:
User talk:Savagesaladin

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- RHaworth 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

user page
It is felt that the article you created at Anthony Approved is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, which must have a notable subject and be verifiable. I have moved it to User:, which is where users are free to write about themselves. You are at liberty to move it back into the (Main) namespace but bear in mind that if you do so, it is likely to be nominated for deletion.

Note, however, that the purpose of a user page is to enable active editors of Wikipedia to introduce themselves to other editors. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Content unrelated to Wikipedia or its editing is likely to be removed.

Please see the user page guidelines, especially this section for more information. The photo you uploaded needs a copyright tag or it will get deleted. -- RHaworth 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:AnthonyApproved.JPG
This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 12:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

MfD Nomination
I've nominated your user for deletion under the Miscellany for deletion process, since you have made few or no edits outside of your user page since you created it. User pages are intended for the use of active Wikipedia editors to aid them in their work. Your page seems intended to use Wikipedia as not a free webhost or promotional service, which Wikipedia is not.

We appreciate editor contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that your user page belongs here. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hystaeminblumen. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of the page during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Miscellany for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. --Calton | Talk 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:AnthonyApproved.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AnthonyApproved.JPG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Savagesaladin


text: Talk:Battle of Oshikibata

title: Talk:Battle of Oshikibata


text:
Mister Gallagher and Mister Shean

"Mister Gallagher and Mister Shean" is one of the most famous songs to come from vaudeville. First performed by the duo of Gallagher and Shean in the early 1920s, it became a huge hit and carried Gallagher & Shean to stardom. The music was written by Shean, while Bryan Foy (uncredited) wrote the lyrics. The sheet music credits Gallagher and Shean as writers. The song is also sometimes known as "Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher? Positively, Mr. Shean!."

It contains jokes typical of the time but also lampoons current fads and events ("Cost of living went so high / That it's cheaper now to die"). The song itself gave rise to many parody versions.

As this song was sung on the vaudeville stage, each verse was presented as a miniature skit, as though Shean came across Gallagher on a street, beginning: "Oh, Mister Gallagher!  Oh Mister Gallagher!  Have you heard...?"  Gallagher would say "Yes, yes" to his entreaties before the joke was set up in the verse.

Because the duo's first appearance together had been in a skit set in Egypt, the two performed the song in Egyptian costume (Gallagher wearing either a straw hat or a solar topee, Shean in fez and bizarre skirted jacket of the "native" colonial). Aside from one reference to the Nile made in one of the original verses, their costumes had nothing to do with the song, but reflected the craze for all things Egyptian after the discovery of King Tut's tomb.

Each verse ended with a question-and-answer refrain, one of which – "Positively, Mister Gallagher? Absolutely, Mister Shean!" – became a well-known catchphrase for many years thereafter.

Probably the most successful revival of the song was the version recorded by Bing Crosby and Johnny Mercer for Decca Records on July 1, 1938 which had special lyrics by Mercer. Sub-titled "Mr. Crosby and Mr. Mercer" this reached No. 7 in the charts of the day. A version was performed on television by Groucho Marx (Shean's nephew) with Jackie Gleason in the late 1950s, and Lenny Bruce made off-handed reference to it in his 1960s nightclub act, all of them confident that it would be immediately recognizable to the audience.

The song is recreated in the film Ziegfeld Girl (1941), by Shean (in a cameo role as himself) together with Charles Winninger (playing a fictitious version of Gallagher).

In 1966, Dean Martin and Phil Harris performed a version of the song on The Dean Martin Show.

In the 1974 play Travesties, by Tom Stoppard, the characters Gwendolen and Cecily sing a parody version of the song, substituting their own names. As late as 1983, the song was the centerpiece of an advertising campaign by the Pitney-Bowes corporation ("Absolutely, Mister Pitney? Positively, Mister Bowes!").

There are several versions of the song, and a long list of verses, as it was occasionally reworked or updated, as was typical of topical vaudeville songs. It was recorded both on a popular 78 rpm disc record and on an early "talkie" film, both of which featured the original performers. The song is heard in the soundtrack of the feature film Atlantic City (1944).

Jerry Herman linked this song to his creation "Bosom Buddies" for the musical Mame, referring to the common technique of "rhyme pattern that sounds like dialogue but is actually lyric". This song inspired at least the jingle associated with the household cleaning product Mr. Sheen; whether it directly inspired the product name is unknown.

title: Mister Gallagher and Mister Shean


text:
BR Caprotti Black Fives

British Railways built twenty locomotives of the LMS Stanier Black Five type, fitted with Caprotti valve gear, in 1948; the BR Caprotti Black Fives. These were numbered 44738-57, 44686 and 44687. The Black Fives had been fitted with Walschaerts valve gear as standard. In 1947, as part of an experimental programme by George Ivatt to try to improve the already good design, (4)4767 was built with Stephenson link motion. The Caprotti-fitted Black Fives were part of the same programme.

Caprotti valve gear
The Caprotti valve gear was driven by a single shaft, located between the frames, and driven from the leading coupled axle by a bevel gear. The reversing gear was operated by a screw wheel requiring multiple turns to go from full forward to full reverse; in this it differed from the standard Caprotti version, which only required one turn. It was designed to operate in the same way as the reversing gear on the Walschaerts-fitted Black Fives. However reversing between intermediate cutoff positions could only be achieved by winding to the full-gear position in the new direction and then winding back.

The success of the British Caprotti valve gear lead to its fitting to the final batch of thirty BR Standard Class 5s and also to the solitary BR Standard Class 8 71000 Duke of Gloucester. One of the Caprotti Standard Fives (73129) survives, as does The Duke.

History
The first batch of Caprotti Black Fives, M4748–M4750, emerged from Crewe in February 1948. A second batch, M4751–M4752, entered traffic in March 1948, followed by nos. 44754 and 44755 in April, 44756 in June and 44757 in December. The prefix M, used by the London Midland Region of British Railways, was soon dropped and M4748 to M4752 were renumbered 44748 to 44752 between June 1948 and June 1949. All of these locomotives were fitted with Timken roller bearings throughout. The last three of these, 44755-7, were also fitted with a double chimney.

Between May and August 1948 a further ten Caprotti Black Fives were built, nos. 44738–44747. These had plain wheel bearings throughout.

The last two of the 842 LMS Stanier Black Fives, numbers 44686 and 44687 were constructed by British Railways at Horwich Works in 1951. The two locomotives cost £20,642 each, over £5,000 more than a contemporary standard Class Five. This was in part because of the high cost of development for a type of which only two examples were built. For much of their lives they were allocated to Longsight. They were fitted with Caprotti valve gear, raised running plates without splashers, a double chimney and SKF roller bearings on all axles. Caprotti valve gear had previously been fitted to a batch of twenty Black Fives, nos. 44738-57, built in 1948. The valve gear on these was driven by one drive-line between the frames, driven from the leading coupled axle. Although these locomotives developed a great deal of power at high speeds and were free in coasting, acceleration at low speeds was poor. 44686 and 44687 were fitted with a modified form of valve gear, with an external shaft on each side, driven by a worm gear mounted on a flycrank attached to the driving axle. The British Caprotti valve gear was a new development of Caprotti valve gear by the Associated Locomotive Engineers, under the leadership of L.A. Daniels.

The twenty locomotives incorporated a number of modifications to the original design. Unlike similar rotary poppet valve gear by Lentz and Franklin, the cam boxes on Caprotti gear are mounted vertically to the cylinders, rather than horizontally. This necessitated the boiler be raised by 2 in to 8 ft. The smokebox was extended by 4 in and the chimney moved forward to allow room for the Caprotti valve box and associated steam and exhaust pipes. The large steam pipes are an obvious visual recognition feature. The locomotives fitted with Timken bearings had large split cannon-type axleboxes between the frames. To allow room for the firebox between the middle and rear axleboxes the spacing between the driving and rear coupled wheels was increased from 8 ft to 8 ft. This gave a longer wheelbase of 27 ft as against the 27 ft of the standard locomotives. The locomotives with plain bearings also had the longer wheelbase. All locomotives had a modified cab and a lowered running plate, necessitating the use of splashers over the wheels. In service, the Caprotti Black Fives were slow in acceleration, but were powerful at high speeds, and coasted freely. The slow acceleration was caused by inefficiencies in the drive and valve events. These were addressed in the design of the last two Black Fives to be built, 44686-7, which emerged in 1951 with Caprotti valve gear driven by two external shafts on either side of the locomotives. The exposed driveshafts were easier to access and negated the need for splashers, while the high running board allowed clearance for the valve boxes and subsequent sharp angle of the shafts, Later BR built thirty of the closely related BR Standard class 5 with Caprotti valve gear, and it was also employed on the standard class 8 71000 Duke of Gloucester.

In the early 1960s both 44686 and 44687 worked off Southport shed (code 27C) on passenger trains from Southport to Manchester and Rochdale via Bolton. Other non-standard LMSR 5MTs were at Southport including LMSR Caprottis and the unique Stephenson Link machine 44767.

Withdrawal
44686 was withdrawn in October 1965. 44687 was withdrawn in January 1966.

title: BR Caprotti Black Fives


text:
Talk:Battle of Salineville

Untitled
The link to the photograph of the marker is no longer working. If anyone has a photograph of the marker please consider posting that photo in this article. I would be willing to photograph the marker myself, but I currently live on the other side of the country.

Mark W. Miller 01:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that there is a photograph of the marker again, as well as a second very nice photograph of the surrender site. I appreciate Heidelberg College for putting those photographs online.

It might seem like a bit much, but I think it would be great if somebody added the latitude and longitude coordinates of the marker. If anyone in the area has a handheld gps device maybe they could record the coordinates down to the second (or to 4 or 5 decimal places if using the decimal system). That way anyone in the world would know exactly where the marker was and could easily locate and visit the site.

Mark W. Miller 15:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This picture comes from it might be of use until somebody makes a fieldtrip to the site. Roseohioresident (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio from our article
I've just discovered this page, which copies from our article quite blatantly. Searching through the article history has demonstrated to me that the text in our page developed gradually to the state in which it now is, rather than by copy/pasting from this other page; consequently, I believe that the other website copied from here. Please don't treat this page as a copyright violation because of a page that is actually violating the copyrights of the authors of this article. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original article which has since been extensively edited. The edits have been gradual over time. I did not copy and paste anything, to the best of my memory. Although, I only used internet sources. It is my understanding that Wikipedia content is not copyrighted. I think other people are free to copy from Wikipedia if they wish. I do not know whether there are any restrictions.

Mark W. Miller (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that site seems to have copied from ours. Although, I do not think Wikipedia content is copyrighted.

Mark W. Miller (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Battle of Salineville. 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/20050924084611/http://www.dnr.state.oh.us:80/parks/explore/magazine/spsu2001/morgan.htm to http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/explore/magazine/spsu2001/morgan.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621143410/http://www2.heidelberg.edu/offices/chma/Buffington/markers/Cel-Surrender-View.JPG to http://www2.heidelberg.edu/offices/chma/Buffington/markers/Cel-Surrender-View.JPG
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621143412/http://www2.heidelberg.edu/offices/chma/Buffington/markers/Cel-Surrender.JPG to http://www2.heidelberg.edu/offices/chma/Buffington/markers/Cel-Surrender.JPG

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Salineville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/explore/magazine/spsu2001/morgan.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051018085615/http://www.mahoningvalleycwrt.com/john_hunt_morgan_link.htm to http://www.mahoningvalleycwrt.com/john_hunt_morgan_link.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Location of Battle
The following report gives the location of the battle as Columbiana County, not Carroll County. So, I have made that change. I have also updated dead links. Several links are only accessible now via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Although, they do still function that way. A link to the following report is provided in the actual article. Note that core areas of the battlefield occur in Carroll, Columbiana and Stark Counties. But the majority of these core areas are in Columbiana County, Ohio.

"Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields: State of Ohio"

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

American Battlefield Protection Program

Washington, DC

August 2009

Mark W. Miller (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Salineville


text:
Talk:Battle of Argentovaria

Name
Isn't it Argentaria? Jacob Haller 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Either apparently, I should add Argentaria. Peter Flass (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Argentovaria


text:
Abel Magwitch

Abel Magwitch is a major fictional character from Charles Dickens' 1861 novel Great Expectations.

Synopsis
Charles Dickens set his story in the early 19th century, setting his character Abel Magwitch to meet a man called Compeyson at the Epsom Races. Compeyson, Dickens wrote, had been brought up in a boarding school and was an attractive, charming gentleman. Magwitch, at the same time, began a relationship with a mentally unstable woman named Molly, who later stood trial for murder. Jaggers, her defence lawyer, convinced the jury that she was too weak to have strangled the woman. Molly was acquitted and became (unknown to Magwitch) Jaggers' maidservant.

The story relates that Molly had given birth to Magwitch's daughter, who was about two or three years old at the time of Molly's trial. Molly told Magwitch that she had killed the child, and as far as Magwitch knew, his daughter had indeed died.

Later in the novel Magwitch and Compeyson are accused of putting stolen notes in circulation. Compeyson convinces Magwitch that they should have separate defences and no communication. At the trial, Compeyson appeared like a gentleman, while Magwitch had to sell his clothes to be able to pay for Jaggers. The prosecution placed most of the guilt on Magwitch, who realized that Compeyson had always intended to scapegoat him should they be caught.

Dickens has Compeyson's attorney hammer the point home: "My lord and gentleman, here you has afore you, side by side, two persons as your eyes can separate wide; one, the younger, well brought up, who will be spoke to as such; one, the older, ill brought up, who will be spoke to as such; one, the younger, seldom if ever seen in these here transactions, and only suspected; t'other, the elder, always seen in ‘em and always with his guilt brought home. Can you doubt, if there is but one in it, which is the one, and if there is two in it, which is much the worst one?"

In the end, Magwitch is condemned to fourteen years' imprisonment, while Compeyson receives seven. Magwitch and Compeyson are imprisoned on the same prison ship. Magwitch attempts to kill Compeyson. He is taken to the black hole (a solitary confinement cell) after landing his first punch, but he manages to escape some time around Christmas of 1812.

The novel begins with young Pip visiting the graves of his parents and brothers, where he is surprised by Magwitch: "[a] fearful man, all in coarse gray, with a great iron on his leg. A man with no hat, and with broken shoes, and with an old rag tied round his head. A man who had been soaked in water, and smothered in mud, and lamed by stones, and cut by flints, and stung by nettles, and torn by briars; who limped and shivered, and glared and growled; and whose teeth chattered in his head as he seized me by the chin."

Magwitch tricks the seven-year-old boy into believing that he has an accomplice who is a terrible young man who would tear out and eat Pip's heart and liver if Pip did not help them. Magwitch demands Pip to get him "wittles" (victuals, food) and a file. Pip, terrified, steals a pork pie, brandy and a file from his house and brings them to Magwitch the next morning. On his way, he encounters another convict, bruised in the face, whom he initially thought was Magwitch and then believes to be the young man Magwitch had told him about. Magwitch, upon hearing about the other escapee, realizes that Compeyson has also escaped and, after having eaten, drunk, and filed his leg iron off, he sets off to search for him. He finds him and decides, not caring for his own fate, to take him back to the Hulks. The pair are still struggling when soldiers find and seize them.

Compeyson argued that his escape was due to being terrorized by Magwitch. Consequently, his punishment was light, whereas Magwitch was put in irons, retried, and deported to New South Wales for life. Magwitch had a number of jobs in Australia, including that of a sheep farmer and stock breeder, and became rich. He never forgot Pip's kindness to him and decided to do something for the boy, in part because he reminded him of his lost daughter, who would have been about the same age as Pip. Magwitch sent money to Mr. Jaggers, who passed it to Pip and sought to make the boy a gentleman. Jaggers is not permitted to let Pip know who his benefactor is unless Magwitch chooses to reveal himself as the benefactor to Pip. Dickens continues his tale in about 1829, when Pip is 23 years old, Magwitch secretly returns to England under the name of "Provis". When he reveals himself to Pip, both are disappointed. Pip does not feel gratitude towards Magwitch but rather disgust and repulsion as he discovers where his money came from (partly because he had thought Miss Havisham had been assisting him in wooing her protegee Estella) and his feelings are thinly veiled. However, Pip's feelings towards Magwitch improve as he learns the convict's history. He decides nonetheless that he does not want to accept more money from Provis, despite the fact he is being hounded by debt collectors.

Magwitch, as a deported criminal, would be without doubt sentenced to death if recognized by the authorities. Wemmick and Herbert (during one of Pip's stays at the country) discover that they are being watched and lodge Magwitch (who is to go by the name of Mr. Campbell) in the house of Herbert's fiancée. An escape for Magwitch from England is prepared. Magwitch is to be put aboard a steamer bound for Hamburg. As it is not possible to board at a port due to Magwitch's wanted status, they try to row to the steamer from the banks of the Thames in Essex after the steamer has left the port of London. Unusually, a well-manned boat comes out to intercept them as they aim for the steamer. Magwitch recognizes Compeyson on this boat and goes for him. They both end up in the water where Compeyson is drowned. Magwitch is immediately arrested and clapped in irons, having suffered a serious chest wound during these events.

Pip now considers Magwitch a friend. He makes frequent visits to the ailing Magwitch and holds his hand throughout Magwitch's new trial, where Magwitch receives a death sentence. (This conviction for felony also causes the forfeiture of all his money, thus destroying Pip's great expectations.) Magwitch is declining in health and is being held in the infirmary when Pip at last tells him that his child, Estella, is alive. Pip goes on to tell him that she is a beautiful lady and that he, Pip, was in love with her. Pip has found this information out, as Wemmick told him Molly's story and he recognized her to be Estella's mother. With a last pressure on Pip's hand, Magwitch dies a good and very content man.

Biographical note
Charles Barrow, Charles Dickens' maternal grandfather, had been the Head of the Moneys Section at the Navy Pay Office. In 1810 it was found that he had been systematically falsifying his accounts for nine years. During this period he had embezzled nearly £6,000. Threatened with legal proceedings Charles Barrow fled abroad, eventually dying on the Isle of Man, outside English legal jurisdiction, in 1826, when Dickens was fourteen years old. Legal outlawry must have produced some cloaked, mysterious references to his absent maternal grandfather. Flight overseas for suspected felons, bankrupts and indeed any persons visited with moral or social disgrace, was a commonplace of Victorian life and fiction. But two situations are always charged with heightened atmosphere in Dickens' novels. The first is the menace that forever surrounds the lives of the respectable from the very existence of a criminal friend or  relative at large – this is the fate of Mrs Rudge, the dark secret of David Copperfield's aunt, Betsy Trotwood, the strange tension of Mrs Clennam's tomb-like home in Little Dorrit, the central situation of Great Expectations. The other is the extraordinary vividness of foiled attempts by criminals to get away from England's shores.

The dramatic police interception of the illegally returned transported convict Magwitch's attempt to get to the Continent and to liberty, is one of the prime examples of this situation. (The other is the 'Anwerks package' scene in Martin Chuzzlewit when Jonas Chuzzlewit, the murderer, is turned back as he boards ship for the Low Countries.) These scenes have a detail of circumstance and a power of apprehension that suggests the feeding of fiction by an often told family story.

In 1816, Charles Dickens' father, John Dickens, had been appointed to one of the principal naval dockyards in Chatham at the mouth of the River Medway in Kent, 30 miles southeast of London. With his father, accompanying him in the course of his duty into the dockyard or on sailing trips up the River Medway, Dickens must have first seen the convicts who worked at unloading, and the marshes at Cooling, northeast of Chatham, off which the galley ships lay – scenes which would play a part in the story of his fictional self, Pip, and Pip's benefactor, Magwitch.

Dickens visited Portsmouth in the late 1850s to look for his birthplace. He is said to have been unsuccessful. However, the 1861 census (£) lists a "Pheeary Madgwick" living next door to Dickens' childhood home (the address then was 393 Commercial Road). Madgwick was cook to the Baker family, who ran a grocery business in the city. He is recorded as being 24 years old, unmarried and born in Midhurst, Sussex. There is a possibility that Madgwick produced a good meal for Dickens and was honoured with the namesake character Magwitch.

Portrayals
Actors who have portrayed Magwitch in films and TV:
 * Frank Losee (1917)
 * Henry Hull (1934)
 * Finlay Currie (1946)
 * James Mason (1974)
 * Stratford Johns (1981)
 * Anthony Hopkins (1991)
 * Robert De Niro (1998)
 * Bernard Hill (1999)
 * Ray Winstone (2011)
 * Ralph Fiennes (2012)
 * Johnny Harris (2023)

title: Abel Magwitch


text: Talk:Battle of Thyatira

title: Talk:Battle of Thyatira


text:
User talk:Daniele90~enwiki

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

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

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

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  17:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Daniele90. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Daniele90~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daniele90~enwiki


text:
Ship floodability

Floodability is the susceptibility of a ship's construction to flooding. It also refers to the ability to intentionally flood certain areas of the hull for damage control purposes, or to increase stability, which is particularly important in combat vessels, which often face the possibility of serious hull breach due to enemy action, and which rely on well-trained damage controlmen to equalize and then stop flooding of the hull.

Floodability is reduced by dividing the volume of the hull into watertight compartments with decks and bulkheads (which also increase the strength of ships), use of double bottom (or double hull), and by other means. If a ship's hull is divided into watertight compartments, any flooding resulting from a breach of the hull can be contained in the compartments where the flooding occurs. In most cases, the watertight compartments are fitted with a system of automatic doors, which can be triggered either remotely or locally as soon as flooding is detected (an early example of such as system was used on the RMS Titanic, which sank in spite of its watertight bulkheads). Smaller vessels and submarines generally feature watertight hatches between compartments, which are closed manually to block water from escaping the flooded compartment. As long as the flooding is localised, this can allow a ship to retain sufficient buoyancy to remain afloat, but if numerous compartments are opened to the sea, the ship can sink regardless. If a ship is fitted with longitudinal bulkheads (running fore and aft) as well as transverse bulkheads, flooding along one side of the ship can cause a serious list, which can threaten to capsize the vessel. In such cases, damage control parties can intentionally flood the corresponding compartment on the other side, equalizing the list (although this can happen in ships without longitudinal bulkheads, as well). Such techniques can work fore-and-aft as well; for example, if a flooded bow is holding the rudder and propellers out of the water. Some types of ships, such as certain heavy lift vessels, can intentionally flood their own hulls or tanks within their hulls, to sink below the water, and then pump all of the water back out and re-float themselves with the salvaged object on deck. Similarly, submersibles and submarines also produce negative buoyancy by allowing compartments (called "ballast tanks") to flood.

History
The Song Dynasty Chinese author Zhu Yu wrote of Song Chinese invented watertight compartments in his book, Pingzhou Table Talks, written from AD 1111 to 1117 and published in 1119. Chinese shipbuilders made sailboats with bulkheads and watertight compartments as early as the second century AD. Bulkhead watertight compartments improved buoyancy and protected cargo. Development of watertight compartments continued during the Song dynasty in China. The watertight compartments were there to ensure that if one part of the ship was leaking, the ship itself would not sink. Song Chinese naval engineers came up with this idea by cutting up bamboo plants. In a bamboo plant, the stem is split into sections and at the end of a section there is a plug-like device that lets in water, but does not let it out. By using this as a model, they were able to make a large scale version that would protect the ship. In addition, the compartments were used as storage tanks in which fresh water could be stored for sailors on board. Compartments were also used to help control the masts and sails so they could all be used at once. The wide application of Chinese watertight compartments soon spread across East Asia and later to the Europeans through contacts with Indian and Arab merchants.

Watertight compartments were frequently implemented in East Asian ships, and had been implemented in the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty maritime warships of Kublai Khan. Chinese seagoing junks often had 14 crosswalls, some of which could be flooded to increase stability or for the carriage of liquids.

Russian naval engineer and mathematician Alexei Krylov and Russian vice-admiral Stepan Makarov worked extensively on the research of ship floodability in the early 20th century.

title: Ship floodability


text: Talk:Detroit Diesel

title: Talk:Detroit Diesel


text:
Medicine in China

In China, the practice of medicine is a mixture of government, charitable, and private institutions, while many people rely on traditional medicine. Until reforms in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, physicians were quasi-government employees and with little freedom in the choice of the hospital to work with. In addition, decades of planned economic policy discouraged physicians from opening their own clinics, and the practice of medicine was generally under the control of local units, such as factories, government, offices, or communes. The reforms created a largely private practice, and physicians now are encouraged to open private clinics and for-profit hospitals.

Chinese Medical Association
The Chinese Medical Association is the largest and oldest non-governmental medical organization in China. It was established by a group of medical professionals in 1915 with an aim to uniting medical professionals, upholding medical ethics and advocating social integrity. It currently counts over 430,000 members and 82 specialty societies. It publishes over 70 medical journals WA (including the Chinese Medical Journal), as well as a medical bulletin and a medical education magazine. The CMA plays a leading and active role in the nation's medical education, training and professional exchanges.

Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
From 1957, Peking Union Medical College is merged into the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences as one single institution directly under the Ministry of Health, now the National Health Commission.

Physician compensation
At government-controlled hospitals, physicians are salaried employees. Salaries are based on working experience and professional level. Some hospitals also pay a bonus to physicians according to the hospital's operating performance and the physician's contributions. Physicians' salaries vary greatly. For those working at busy and well-known hospitals, their base salaries can be a few times as much as those of physicians working at low-ranking hospitals. Chinese hospitals are classified into three general levels, with level 3 at the top and level 1 at the bottom. Each level has sub-levels of A, B, and C. Some elite hospitals are even rated 3A+.

For many physicians, in particular those at big hospitals, specialty hospitals, or hospitals with large reputations, physician incomes can be larger than regular hospitals. Physicians, and in particular, surgeons, can augment their hospital salaries by conducting surgeries at hospitals other than the ones in which they are employed. Many physicians also receive commissions from prescribing prescription drugs and get "red envelopes" from patients (patients give money or gifts to their physicians for receiving treatment) or from sales representatives of drug companies. New regulations issued by the Health Ministry, however, remove physicians from the practice of medicine if they are found to have taken "red envelopes" from patients, and a hotline has been set up to monitor physicians.

Social status
In China, physicians are well respected, but as a group they are not at the top of the social structure of the country because their incomes fall in the middle class.

According to a Ph.D. candidate at a U.S. Public Health School, who was a physician at a well-known 3A hospital in Beijing, like other junior physicians, she seldom received "red envelopes" from patients, and only senior physicians or physicians with fame would have such opportunities. The student said those senior physicians had become members of the high-income class. Like the student, many physicians, went abroad to study because they were not satisfied with their status.

According to a 2002 statistics from Beijing Physicians Association, between 2000 and 2001, in Beijing about 2300 physicians resigned, and most of them went to work as sales representatives of drug companies. Some still practice medicine but work with privately owned hospitals rather than public hospitals.

Competitive pressure for hospitals
Influenced by a centrally-planned economy, many hospitals were managed as government agencies rather than medical service organizations. Hospitals did not have competition pressures. The management team usually did not recognize the importance of developing and retaining high skilled physicians. Administrative personnel were more powerful than physicians at a hospital.

However, with the reform of the medical sector, Chinese hospitals are facing increasing competition from privately owned and foreign-investment-backed hospitals. Physicians are expected to enjoy higher legal income and better social status.

Physician training
To become a medical doctor, a person needs to study for 5 years at a medical school. For foreign or international students, the person needs to study for 6 years at the medical school, namely because the Chinese version is accelerated. Also, international students have to prepare for and take the Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi for admission, and during med school, the Medical Chinese Exam. After graduation, the newly minted physician needs to complete 2–3 years of residency training, including training for subspecialty.

Upon graduation, the graduate must work as a resident physician for few years to be eligible to take a National Medical Licensing Examination (NMLE) for physician certification. This examination is conducted by the National Medical Examination Center (NMEC). Without approval of registration by the Ministry of Health one can not practice medicine in China as a physician or assistant physician.

American type of residency training has not been implemented nationwide in Chinese hospitals though almost all hospitals require their physicians to be trained as resident for few years before promotion to attending. American type of residency program was launched in some University affiliated hospitals. These students will complete their MD study and have to pass the national certification test during the residency.

There are general hospitals and specialty hospitals. A medical graduate rotates through several departments and then assigned to a specialty department according to his or her strengths and the hospital's needs. Specialty physician usually are attendings who specialized in certain specialty during the training process in a specialty hospital or in a subspecialty at a general hospital. Some medical experts have called for a standardized training and testing system for specialty physicians in accordance to American system. The classification of specialties at a Chinese hospital is similar to that at a U.S. hospital.

Prescription drugs
According to BCG's prediction in 2002, China's prescription drug market is expected to reach $24 billion and become the fifth largest market following Japan. AstraZeneca now ranks as the No. 1 foreign brand in terms of prescription sales in the Chinese market.

Physicians control the distribution of prescription drugs. Some hospitals and clinics stipulate patients must buy prescription drugs from the hospitals or directly from the physicians who make the prescriptions. Such a restriction aims to prevent the loss of sales on prescription drugs to retailers, but retailing drug stores are unhappy with such a restriction, and some of them have tried all means to lure away prescription drugs buyer from hospitals. For instance, they offer to pay drug buyers half a dollar for each prescription the buyers brought to the drug stores. Normally a prescription is effective on the day it is issued, but it can be effective within three days of prescription under certain conditions.

Hospitals
Physicians used to be hired as full-time employees at a government controlled hospital. But with the reforming of the medical service sector, both physicians and hospitals have more freedom in choosing each other.

Young physicians usually have an employment contract with the hospital they work with, and a person can quit at will. The hospital can also lay off the individual if it is not satisfied with the employees performance or morality.

It is not uncommon for physicians to quit and take a different job. The top three reasons that lead many physicians in Beijing to quit include: doctors are not well paid; hospitals are poorly managed; and there are not enough personal development opportunities.

Management
For a government-controlled hospital, the hospital is still operated and managed by a management team under the leadership of the president of the hospital, who is usually nominated and appointed by the healthcare department of a province, a city or a county. But for a private hospital or a publicly traded hospital, the ownership is the same as that of a private company or a public company.

There are two types of hospitals in China – for-profit and non-profit. Profit-oriented hospitals may distribute their profit. Non-profit hospitals are government-owned, and will turn earnings into additional infrastructure or hand them back to the respective government authorities. Non-profit hospitals also enjoy preferential tax treatment and several government subsidies. They also get low-cost financing from the government for their capital investment.

Number
By the end of 2002, China has 306,000 healthcare and medical organizations, 63,858 of which are hospitals and clinics, 219,907 of which are nursing homes and 22,270 fall into other categories. Among them, only 1% are for profit, although all non-profit hospitals and clinics also rely on profits of selling drugs and treatments. Drug sales from hospitals account for 85% of total drug sales, with the remaining 15% going to drug stores.

Stripping out the government's subsidies, all government-subsidized hospitals would have been in the red. This poor operating performance can be partially due to that non-profit hospitals have little incentive to control costs, given the government's subsidies.

Private hospitals
In 2000, a reform started to occur in the Chinese hospital system. Government owned hospitals are being restructured, some of them being sold to individual investors, and more and more private hospitals are founded.

In 2004, Beijing Aikang Medical Investment Company bought a state-run-enterprise owned AAA hospital (the highest standard), and the acquisition was the first of this kind in China. The investment company plans to buy 10 hospitals in the next three to five years. In Fuzhou, the capital city of Fujian province, four government-owned hospitals have been sold to private investors.

Nursing and support staff
Nurses are normally well trained before being eligible for working with a hospital, but support workers are a problem. Some hospitals hire skill-less "underground" labors and after giving them some simple training use them as hospital support workers. These workers, mostly originating from rural areas, are poorly paid by those hospitals.

To secure the quality of hospital services, Beijing recently has passed a regulation on training and hiring qualified hospital support workers. In Tianjin, China's third largest city, about 1,000 unemployed people have been trained by local authority and passed hospital support work test. These people returned to work as certified support staff of a number of big hospitals.

Education
One needs to study at a nursing school for around three years before being eligible to work as a nurse. Most nursing schools enroll middle school graduates (Grade 9) and senior high school graduates (Grade 12), and they run four-year and three-year programs respectively.

A bachelor's degree in nursing has been available since late 1980s and early 1990s in China. Many medical schools including the School of Medicine of Beijing University offer five-year programs in nursing.

Locations
Most hospitals are located at downtown areas due to people's reliance on public transportation in China. More than 80% of Chinese medical resources are concentrated in urban areas, and the rest in rural areas.

Payment for healthcare
The government, employers, and individuals pay for healthcare. In December 1998, a national medical insurance scheme was launched by the State Council. By end of 2002, most of the county or above level cities had joined the scheme and covered a population of about 100 million. Social Insurance Fund Administration Centre, a department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, oversees this insurance system. Currently, this system only focuses on employees of enterprises at or above township level. Those in remote or less developed areas cannot enjoy the benefits of this scheme, which is considered a shortcoming of the social medical insurance scheme.

The National Basic Medical Insurance Scheme ensures basic medical access by the public under the social security system. Individuals pay an annual insurance premium for their basic medical treatment entitlements. This scheme has replaced the previous government-funded labor insurance medical system.

Foreign-invested enterprises are required to provide health insurance benefits, but are not required to participate in the basic plan. For example, for employees of foreign enterprises in Beijing hired through Foreign Enterprises Service Corp. (FESCO), foreign enterprises pay FESCO, and FESCO then buys insurance policies for these employees. The government also allows commercial health insurers to operate in China.

In 2004, 119.41 million people had basic medical insurance. Revenues of basic medical insurance funds reached $91 billion, and payments were $74 billion.

Drug price regulation
The qualified drug catalogue under the basic medical scheme, which aims to control expenses on drugs, specifies drugs that are covered by the scheme and eligible for reimbursement. As the government-driven drug price regulation mechanism and the centralized tendering drug procurement program are only applicable to the drugs covered by the scheme, the scheme undoubtedly plays a crucial role in the development of the drug industry.

The basic insurance plan does not reimburse expenses for drugs not on the basic medical insurance drug list, the State Scheme Drug List for Basic Medical Insurance, which is based on clinical need, safety and efficacy, reasonable pricing, ease of use, and the desire to maintain a balance between Western and TCM products.

The basic medical insurance and at-work injury insurance of 2004 cover 832 traditional Chinese medicines, up from 415 of 2000; the number of chemical medicines covered by the insurance systems increase from 725 to 1031 from year 2000 to 2004, some of which are patent-protected drugs of Western companies.

Sino-Generali Life Insurance, a joint venture between China and Italy companies, offers a commercial medical insurance that reimburses 80% of prescription drugs, with an annual maximum reimbursement of $1000 per policy.

Changes
Before the reform of healthcare system, roughly 140 million workers and 60 million family members were covered under the State-owned enterprise (SOE) and collective insurance. This system has reimbursed 100 percent of employees' medical costs, and 50 percent of family members' costs. The system has been funded, in name at least, by the enterprises.

Hoping to reduce enterprise subsidies of all types, the State Council launched pilot reforms in 1994 of the two health insurance systems under its control. Begun in two midsize cities, Jiujiang, Jiangxi Province, and Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, and expanded to over 60 cities in 1997, this experiment has become national policy, applicable to domestic and foreign-invested firms. The two State health insurance systems would later be consolidated to be the Basic Medical Insurance System.

Only about 120 million to 180 million workers have some form of healthcare coverage that will pay for Western pharmaceuticals, according to industry analysts. Farmers, who make up the vast majority of Chinese, have no real coverage at all.

Government
The Chinese government used to cover up to 100% of medical fees for employees working with government agencies, state-owned enterprises, or educational organizations, but peasants didn't enjoy the policy.

Starting from 2001, a new medical coverage plan took effect, marking the government's withdrawal from shouldering whole medical insurance burden. Under the policy, urban residents must join a government managed basic insurance coverage plan for urban residents and pay a certain amount of monthly fees based on their income levels, and up to 70% of their medical expenses can be reimbursed. So far around 100 million urban residents are covered by the plan.

Private payers and insurance companies
According to a news report, 44.8% of urban residents and 79.1% of rural residents have no medical insurance.} Many of people are private payers. They either cannot afford to buy medical insurance, or do not understand the value of medical insurance.

In contrast to rural residents, urban residents have much better situation. Many employers have bought for their employees group or supplementary medical insurance, and employers deduct from employees' payrolls a small percentage of their monthly incomes.

Medical education
By 1901, China was the most popular destination for medical missionaries. The 150 foreign physicians operated 128 hospitals and 245 dispensaries, treating 1.7 million patients. In 1894, male medical missionaries comprised 14 percent of all missionaries; women doctors were four percent. Modern medical education in China started in the early 20th century at hospitals run by international missionaries.

Today Universities, colleges and institutes, which make up China's higher educational system, offer four- or five-year undergraduate programs as well as special two- or three-year programs. To control the medical education standard the Chinese ministry of education set up a quality control regulation on medical education, this regulation specially for English medium undergraduate medical education.

Nursing

 * Chan, Sally, and Frances Wong. "Development of basic nursing education in China and Hong Kong." Journal of advanced nursing 29.6 (1999): 1300-1307. online
 * Chen, Kaiyi. "Missionaries and the early development of nursing in China." Nursing History Review 4 (1996): 129-149.
 * Davis, Anne J., et al. "The young pioneers: first baccalaureate nursing students in the People's Republic of China." Journal of advanced nursing 17.10 (1992): 1166-1170. online
 * Grypma, Sonya. "Withdrawal from Weihui: China missions and the silencing of missionary nursing, 1888–1947." Nursing inquiry 14.4 (2007): 306-319.
 * Xu, Yu, Z. Xu, and Jainhui Zhang. "The nursing education system in the People's Republic of China: evolution, structure and reform." International Nursing Review 47.4 (2000): 207–217. online

title: Medicine in China


text:
× Hawkinsara

× Hawkinsara, abbreviated Hknsa. in the horticultural trade, is an intergeneric hybrid of orchids, with parent genera Broughtonia, Cattleya, Laelia and Sophronitis.

title: × Hawkinsara