text:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Merovingian

 * I applaud Jimbo's appointments of User:Mindspillage and User:Kelly Martin as temporary arbitrators. I am sure that they will do a fine job.  Every measure must be taken to make sure that the Arbitration Committee runs smoothly.

 * I have noticed that some editors are displeased with my support of User:Kelly Martin. I would just like to clarify that while some of Martin's actions have not been entirely appropriate, she has done very well as an arbitrator.  --King of All the Franks 18:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm Merovingian. I've been a Wikipedian since November 2003 and an administrator since March 2004. That doesn't really matter, though. Wikipedia has changed immensely since I joined, and the key to its prosperity is only more change. As the community has grown and diversified, the need for binding solutions has grown, too. The Arbitration Committee is dedicated to finding and developing these solutions.

Certainly, the committee has been a mixed blessing. While it has solved many disputes, it has been plagued by a backlog of cases and too much unimportant arguing. Usually, a fairly simple disagreement escalates, and the committee spends too much time picking through longwinded rants. An enlargement of the Arbitration Committee of just three could very well move cases through much more quickly.

Banning is, obviously, a privilege. Only certain users have this ability. Banning should always be an option in an Arbitration Committee case when the behavior of one or more involved users warrants it. However, I disapprove of banning as a form of injunction, unless it is called for.

I believe that I can help. During my time at Wikipedia, I have tried my very best to adhere to the projects tenets of honesty, good faith, and neutrality. All three are important features to be found in an arbitrator. If elected, I will maintain a high level of participation; the committee’s progress has been hindered by inactive members and resignations. I care about this project too much to give up. If elected, I will act with fairness to all involved parties, and conduct my work with the other arbitrators in the open. If elected, I will keep my personal views out of all cases, as I have tried to do when writing articles.

I welcome questions, comments, or criticisms here, my talk page, or at either of my email addresses, which can be seen on my userpage.

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''

A: I am nearly seventeen years old. In my junior year of high school, I am studying Geography, Pre-Calculus, Literature, Art, Microsoft Applications, and United States Government.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: As I am on Wikipedia for a few hours a day, I can spend every minute of that time as an Arbitrator. I am willing to suspend editing in other areas in order to work on an arbitration case.

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''

A: I have tried my best to collaborate with other users over matters on specific articles. I worked with User:Nunh-huh and User:RickK on The Rest of the Story. I worked with User:Mark Richards on the list of island nations. I worked with User:JoaoRicardo on Angeltheow. I worked with User:Zora on Madhuri Dixit. I worked with several editors in the early discussion of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Finally, I worked with User:Everyking on the Ethiopian presidential election, 2005. These are the longest article discussions I have been in.

I feel that I have enough experience to be an Arbitrator from discussions like these. They are listed chronologically, with the earliest being first. I hope that you can see how my style of interaction has evolved over time, as I learned the finer points of having intelligent discussions with others for the purpose of resolving conflicts over articles' content.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: On the English Wikipedia, I have only edited under this username. However, I do have accounts on the Sanskrit, Simple English, Latin, Malagasy, Spanish, and German language editions of Wikipedia. Their usernames are Mero, Mero, Meronicus, Mero, Merovingian, and Merovingian, respectively.

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:    Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 08:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, more than ever, the committee needs expansion.

I am frustrated that it has not, in its two years, expanded by a single seat, even with numerous resignations and inactive Arbitrators. I fully support more seats. A larger pool of Arbitrators can lead to a better, more efficient group. Here are some other suggestions.

 * The Arbitration Committe must deal with content disputes. They need a final decision, too.  Too many times, arguments are limited to AfD or a talk page, and it becomes chaos.  Sometimes, it peters out only to be revived by somebody a week later, and all of the dead horses are brought out to be beaten again.  By not dealing with content disputes, the Arbitration Committee has set itself from Wikipedia's very purpose.
 * The current election system of arbitrators is awkward. That a user can vote for everybody does not relate to who is actually qualified to serve.  I suggest that we elect arbitrators using the First-Past-the-Post system.  If we have X number of vacancies, users ought to have X votes.  In the last Arbitration committee election, every user who earned a seat had a plurality.  The most popular candidate (for lack of a better term) was voted for by just 51% of voters.  Furthermore, the seventh and eighth places were separated by one vote.  This is not good representation.
 * I was shocked to hear of a proposal to limit the seat of Arbitrators to administrators only. This is fundamentally "anti-wiki".  I don't think we have ever had an arbitrator without sysop rights, but it shouldn't be impossible.
 * Vacancies must be filled soon after they occur. This would lead to smooth operation of the committee, especially if the vacant arbitrator was working on any number of cases.  Elections should quickly set up and executed, instead of having Jimbo Wales appoint replacements because as User:jguk pointed out, Wikipedia cannot rely on him to make every decision forever.  As much as I respect Mr. Wales, we must be able to fix our own problems.
 * There should be only one pool of Arbitrators, instead of a number of them to deal with different kinds of disputes. A single argument needs all the input it can get.

Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * First thing's first: I freely admit that as 17 years old, I don't have a very good amount of firsthand experience in detecting BS, but I have been exposed to enough media (books, TV, Internet, etc.) to know when I'm being fed a line of crap.

 * In my own mind, the determining factor is the difference between what a person says and what a person does. I've found this to be true of individuals and groups both in real life, and on the Internet.  I do, in fact, judge people on whether they keep their word.  Trust is one of the most important things civilised people can have among themselves.

 * In the course of my time on Wikipedia, I have only found this to be true. The Arbitration Committee does not deal with simple vandalism, the kind of nonsense that can be reversed with a quick execution of the revert button.  I've dealt with what the Arbitration Committee does deal with: the trolls, the sneaky POV pushers.  They all share the same thing: they don't do what they say (or vice versa).  --Merovingian 14:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The more preferable policy is the one that can set a better precedent when the Arbitration Comittee uses it as part of a case. In the case of IAR, this is not helpful when it comes to settling conflicts.

 * As a microcosm of Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee cannot function with policies that favor anarchy. It should use policies that are solid and not vague.  It is not anti-wiki to do this.  Instead, it favors the committee's goal: to provide solutions to difficult conflicts.  --Merovingian 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

--Victim of signature fascism 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I have clear political and religious opinions, but I sincerely try not to let those interfere with the reasoning of NPOV. Reporting facts is clear and good.  Inferring from facts is clear and good.  Making judgments based on facts (which is different from inferences) is not good.

 * I would not recuse myself from cases based on content so much as the users involved in the dispute. If I've dealt with them before, or already have a bias toward or against one of them, I know that I could not fairly assess their case.

 * I would not have a second thought in contesting the actions of the committee. It is probable that each arbitrator has his or her thoughts about a given case.  Incompetence or mistakes should not be tolerated.

 * Affected parties of a case should have the right to appeal. Such a provision is a measure of good faith.

 * I believe that the Arbitration Committee ought to review relevant actions of all involved parties of a case. In other words, yes, I support that decision.  --Merovingian 04:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You are currently an arbitrator. Could you tell us what your clear political and religious opinions are, so that we may judge for ourselves if they do not interfere with an NPOV approach to cases? --Victim of signature fascism 08:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know why my beliefs would be relevant, seeing as I've tried to distance them from my work here. Nevertheless, I will oblige.

 * Economically, I'm moderate. I'm for capitalism, with certain provisions for safety (protection from crashes).  As far as religion goes, I was born a Catholic, although I don't go to church much.  Socially, I'm slightly right-ish; I'm pro-life, pro-gun, and I dislike the thought of gay marriage, but I do not discriminate against gay people.  At-home politics: I am quite conservative, favoring a strong legislature, a strong executive, and a judicial system whose decisions don't create laws.  Foreign politics: I dislike the international organisations, and I prefer that nations be free to deal with each other as they please.  --Merovingian 15:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. --Victim of signature fascism 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure thing; I hope this helps. --Merovingian 20:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden
As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Rather than the subject matter, I believe that it is more important to analyse a case based on the involved parties' actions. It is the committee's preference to not deal with content disputes.  Nevertheless, it is easy to tell bias from fact, regardless of subject.  I can read and think for myself.  I intend to review each case independently, bringing my suggestion(s) to the table only when I feel it is appropriate.  --Merovingian 14:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your response. I think you take too lightly, however, telling bias from fact. Virtually everything reported in Wikipedia is based on sometimes distantly removed reporting of people's observations; if I were to look up on a map and travel to Jasper, Missouri, for example, I could probably decide whether or not the Census Bureau information that Wikipedia reports for the town seems consistent with my observations. But I am very unlikely ever to do any such thing.

 * It is unlikely that anything about a small Missouri town would be misreported by the Census Bureau. But there are other matters about which there is nothing like an authoritative documentation, and of which the available information largely became reported only after the matter had become part of a dispute, with the interested parties in the dispute providing the information. And it is not atypical, in such situations, for the unreported facts of the situation to be overwhelmed by propaganda produced by an interested party.

 * The Intelligent design (ID) "debate" in the US is an example of this: proponents of ID can line up people with relevant academic degrees to declare how it is a legitimate alternative to the theory of evolution, and there is almost no response from the evolution-supporting committee. An uninformed glance at the "debate" might conclude that ID is better supported in the scientific community based on this, while the truth of the matter is that ID is such a fringe position, and not generally even considered to be science, that very few objective scientists want even to dignify it with a response.

 * The Intelligent Design "debate" is a pretty clunky and obvious example of how an extreme minority position might posture as being significant to determining what is a neutral point of view: it is basically a difference in logical construction, and even someone who knows nothing about any of it might be able with some thought to figure out why ID is not part of mainstream science.

 * Other matters are more subtle. In particular, political differences are sometimes argued based on competing versions of history: these cannot generally be resolved through thought experiments.

 * People knowledgeable about the background of such a dispute may legitimately regard one line of argument to be an extreme minority view that needn't be taken into account. But the historiography that such a person might present to an uninformed observor would be very hard to distinguish, generally, from the historiography that would be presented by an interested party hoping to stifle a reasonable line of argument. Similarly, a legitimate argument that a particular historiography should be acknowledged would be very hard to distinguish from an illegitimate attempt to elevate an extreme minority view into a debate over what would constitute a neutral perspective.

 * I don't think I've particularly written anything here that invites a further response from you, although of course you should make one if you'd like to. Consider it all food for your thought.

 * Marsden 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand the gist of what you're saying, that the line between truth and untruth can be very fine. In that case, a good solution for such a dispute is to make readers aware of what is truthful and objective (and what isn't), and evaluating users' actions based on that.  --Merovingian 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The ideas that you have put forward are top-notch suggestions. They are straightforward and clear, and I believe that they are important to ensuring that the Arbitration Committee can be trusted.  Certainly, I can abide by this code if it were implemented.  --Merovingian 21:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Like I've said, I like the concept. Every arbitrator should be held accountable, and their actions should be compared to the ideals listed in the code.  Complaints against arbitrators might be helped by using this list, if it can be shown that the goals have not been met, or that the arbitrator's abilities have been misused/abused.  At this time, I have nothing that I would like to see added or removed from the page.  --Merovingian 21:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I highly disapprove of the use of IAR to justify administrative action. Janitors should be logical and careful enough to at least be aware of guidelines.  I see the use of IAR to back up their actions as reckless.  --King of All the Franks 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

 * I most certainly do, not that many of the ideas should not already be in practice. --King of All the Franks 05:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
 * 2) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
 * 3) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 07:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Civility is an extremely important part of the Wikipedia contributor's experience. If users cannot cooperate, we have failed.
 * I regret to admit that I have not graduated high school, but I try to take criticism as well as I can. Civility is not an issue.  If they're older than me, and they're the teacher, I have no right to up the ante and get snarky.
 * The Code of Conduct (as of now) is fine, but has a whole lot of common sense. In other words, I would hope that past and present arbitrators have already been following these rules.  --King of All the Franks 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * As I have stated before, I am willing to spend every moment I am on Wikipedia on ArbCom matters, if necessary.
 * I don't dedicate myself to many specific projects; mostly, I prefer to go around and do random maintenance work or such. The first WikiProject I joined was the Tree of Life, just a few days ago.  I try to make a few new pages in that area every once in a while.
 * Participation is pretty easy, so I don't think ArbCom would hurt my time for it too much. --King of All the Franks 08:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

 * Yes. The community should be able to remove an arbitrator should it be found that they have acted in a manner unbecoming or abusive of their abilities/position.  --King of All the Franks 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

 * Yes. --King of All the Franks 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

 * I try not dig myself into large disputes, but I have become involved with situations with the circumstances you have provided. Probably the most notable instance of this was on John Kerry, where I made a very minor edit, and another editor accused me of trying to insert pro-Kerry POV into the article.  Truth be told, I "heartily dislike" the man, but Wikipedia deserves a factual, fair article about him.  --King of All the Franks 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

(Being asked just of you)

''Above, you applaud Jimbo Wales' appointment of User:Kelly Martin as a temporary arbitrator. In light of recent events, do you still stand by that?''

--Victim of signature fascism 01:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes. Kelly Martin's actions have not been used as justification for decisions/contributions as an arbitrator.  Furthermore, she has had the good sense to recuse herself from the requested userbox RFAr.  --King of All the Franks 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, unconditionally.
 * No, not at all.
 * I will. The Committee should be a static body.  As long as all members are qualified to serve, they should be allowed to.
 * I have voted on many of the earlier proposals; the newest ones I have not voted on. In short:
 * I support allowing the Committee to be open to all tiers of users, not just admins.
 * Although it may not be relevant now, I support bloc voting for electing the ArbCom.
 * Although it may not be relevant now, I support midyear elections.
 * I support the expansion of the committee. A specific quantity is not important.
 * I oppose a run-off election, not just because of voter fatigue, but I simply find it unlikely and probably irrelevant to the system that we are set to use.
 * I support the idea that, if the committee is not expanded, alternates should be chosen in case they are needed.
 * Although I support the idea of a Condorcet method generally, I do not think it is a good idea for selecting ArbCom members.
 * I oppose any change in the length of ArbCom terms. Regular elections are a good way to refresh the arbitrator pool, especially if resignations and drop-outs continue.
 * I support the idea of nullifying all sockpuppet/puppetmaster votes. These people are uncool and, in my opinion, have forfeited their credibility.  --King of All the Franks 08:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Celestianpower
Vital question for attaining my vote. What is your favourite flavour of ice cream? Think carefully... --Cel e stianpower háblame 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If the trick is to be NPOV, I would say that I'll have whatever you're having. If not, mint chocolate chip.  --King of All the Franks 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh good - a man after my own heart. I love Mint Choc Chip :). Not my favourite as that would have to be strawberry but still, it's a close second... --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, I see... --King of All the Franks 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to butt in but we appear to have the same tastes :) Gotta be careful on the WP:NPOV when we work together ;) — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, two is certainly nowhere near "consensus" either. :)  --King of All the Franks 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by favorite ice cream flavor. :-) the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good thinking! --King of All the Franks 15:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):

 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Improv has taken things in a good direction. Templates such as the aforementioned may be viewed as disruptive, especially since they can hit somebody a lot harded than, say, a template disapproving of a musical group.  I think that these particularly hostile things should be minimized because Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, public or personal.

 * As far as the Arbitration Committee's role in all of this, there should certainly be some intervention if disputes arise over the use of these controversial templates. Personally, I think that the templates can be trivializing (making light of) something rather serious, and potentially sensitive.  Despite my relatively liberal wiki-stance on self-expression, civility and diplomacy are virtues, and should be expected to some degree of all users.  --King of All the Franks 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you ignore the results of votes taken?
Why did you redirect an article in which more than 100 users had already voted to keep the article and not to redirect it?

Why do you feel that you personally, a single individual (aged 17), have the right to cancel the contributions of so many users?

I certainly feel that you should not be elected. I am shocked to learn that you are an administrator. Sam Sloan 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Could you please specify what article you're talking about? --King of All the Franks 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I am afraid to say, for fear that he will go back and redirect it again.

 * He also deleted the entire history, which only an administrator can do, so you cannot really see clearly what he did. Sam Sloan 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * But if you don't name the article, I won't be able to respond to your original claim. I won't bite.  :)  --King of All the Franks 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I see. You have done this so often, both redirecting an article AFTER a vote had been taken to KEEP and also erasing the entire history to that the contributions of one hundred different users are deleted, that you cannot remember or even figure out which article I am writing about.

 * I note that another user is also complaining about you erasing the history of another article.

 * You certainly should be removed from your status as an administrator and go back to being one of us peons. Sam Sloan 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I make plenty of redirects, but I simply don't remember anything like what you're claiming. As Tony has suggested, please bring this issue up with the formal dispute resolution system, where it is more relevant and be dealt with better.  --King of All the Franks 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If I might intervene, I'd just like to suggest that Sam Sloan take his problem with the candidate to dispute resolution. While the accusation, if it were substantiated, could be relevant to the candidacy, the questioning here is not serving any electoral purpose and the tone is verging on the abusive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you kindly for your input, sir. --King of All the Franks 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hold on just a minute! I found what Sam is talking about.  I had moved Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) to Brian Chase (hoaxer), because I thought it was too self-referential (there aren't that many Brian Chases who have pulled large-scale hoaxes like that).  Anyway, it looks like Sam moved it back (or copy-pasted) it, so the question is moot now.  I won't bother to pursue the issue further; somebody else can do that.  --King of All the Franks

 * It is not moot because you also blanked the entire history page. If you look at [] as you have left it, it looks like the page was created a few days ago and there have been only two edits. Actually, the page was created in November and there have been more than one hundred edits, involving numerous different people. (Almost none were by me, incidentally.) The fact that you have erased the work product of one hundred different users shows that you do not respect the opinions of others. Several other users had suggested various name changes and one other user actually made the change you made only to have it reverted back. A heated debate and vote was taken and it was decided to keep the name. Then you came along and probably without even reading the history and familiarizing yourself with the issues, decided to blank the entire history. I am still waiting for you to restore the history page, which I assume that you have the power to do, so that everybody can see what happened. Sam Sloan 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, there are many edits in the history of the redirect . Additionally, there are a number of deleted edits.  I assume you would like me to restore those?  --King of All the Franks 23:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It is not clear to me exactly what you did, and that indeed is part of the problem or indeed the main problem. However, it does appear that the history of Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) was moved over to Brian Chase (hoaxer). In that case you should move it back to where it was.

 * Here is what the most rabid advocate of the redirect just posted:

I'd be inclined to go ahead and turn that article into a redirect, if it weren't for the fact that I did it a couple times in weeks past and it was reverted. There are some folks who are rabidly opposed to such a merge, so I was curious what the people who watch this article think. Friday (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This person User:Friday repeatedly called for the move and merge. He was almost the only one who felt that way however. You should have learned about this before your took your precipituous action. Sam Sloan 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm sorry about that. Anyway, I have restored all deleted versions of Brian Chase (hoaxer).  I'm not planning on doing anything else with the article, unless there's something you can think of.  I can't think of how I could move the history to the right page, but it's all back and publicly viewable now.  --King of All the Franks 01:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


text: MOTOS

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

title: MOTOS


text:
Category:Mountain passes of India

Mountain passes of India.

title: Category:Mountain passes of India


text:
Rosebud Indian Reservation

The Rosebud Indian Reservation is an Indian reservation in South Dakota, United States. It is the home of the federally recognized Rosebud Sioux Tribe, who are Sicangu, a band of Lakota people. The Lakota name Sicangu Oyate translates as the "Burnt Thigh Nation", also known by the French term, the Brulé Sioux.

The Rosebud Indian Reservation was established in 1889 after the United States' partition of the Great Sioux Reservation, which was created by the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868). The Great Sioux Reservation had covered all of West River, South Dakota (the area west of the Missouri River), as well as part of northern Nebraska and eastern Montana. Since its founding, the Rosebud reservation has been reduced considerably in size, as has happened with the other Lakota and Dakota reservations. Now, it includes Todd County, South Dakota, and certain communities and lands in the four adjacent counties.

Geography and population
The Rosebud Indian Reservation is located in south central South Dakota. It includes within its recognized border all of Todd County, an unincorporated county of South Dakota. The Oyate also have communities and extensive lands and populations in the four adjacent counties, which were once within the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (RST) boundaries: Tripp, Lyman, Mellette, and Gregory counties, all in South Dakota. Mellette County, especially, has extensive off-reservation trust land, comprising 33.35 percent of its land area. Some 40.23 percent of the Sicangu Oyate population lives here.

The total land area of the reservation and its trust lands is 1,970.362 sq mi (5,103.214 km2) with a population of 10,469 in the 2000 census. The main reservation (Todd County) has a land area of 1,388.124 sq mi (3,595.225 km2) and a population of 9,050. The RIR is bounded on the south by Cherry County, Nebraska, on the west by the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, on the north by the White River, and originally, on the east by the Missouri River.

The Oyate capital is the unincorporated town of Rosebud where the tribal headquarters is located. It was established when the Spotted Tail Indian Agency territory extended to the banks of Rosebud Creek near its confluence with the Little White River. It was previously located in northwestern Nebraska.

The largest town on the reservation is Mission, served by the intersections of US Highways 18 and 83. Mission's near neighbor of Antelope is one of the many tribal band communities established in the late 1870s. Another major town in the reservation is Saint Francis, located southwest of Rosebud. Saint Francis, with a current population of about 469 (2020 census)., is the largest incorporated town in South Dakota without a state highway for access.

Located on the Great Plains, just north of the Nebraska Sandhills, Rosebud Indian Reservation has large areas of Ponderosa Pine forest scattered in its grasslands. Deep valleys are defined by steep hills and ravines, often with lakes dotting the deeper valleys.

Economy and services
Major employers include Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Todd County School District. The RST owns and operates Rosebud Casino on U.S. Route 83 just north of the Nebraska border. Nearby is a fuel plaza, featuring truck parking and a convenience store. Power for the casino is furnished in part by one of the nation's first tribally owned wind turbines, which generate electricity. In the early 21st century, the tribe built a new residential development, Sicangu Village, along Highway 83 near the casino and the state line.

The Tribe also owns QCredit, an online financial services company. The Tribe works with financial technology vendor Think Finance for assistance with compliance management, risk management, and loan services.

Like numerous other Native American tribes, the Rosebud government decided to legalize alcohol sales on the reservation. It found that many residents went off reservation to buy alcohol in nearby towns. By legalizing the sale, the tribe can use sales taxes and other revenues generated for the welfare and health of the tribe. It can directly police and regulate the use of alcohol on the reservation in an effort to reduce abuses, and has established health programs for treatment.

The Wolakota Buffalo Range is a nearly 28,000 acre for a bison herd on the reservation. The Rosebud Economic Development Corporation (REDCO), the economic arm of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, is managing the land. Established in 2020, the herd will help develop ecological restoration, cultural practices, economic development, food security and public education.

Government
Under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the federally recognized Rosebud Sioux Tribe (RST) re-established self-government. It adopted a constitution and bylaws, to take back many responsibilities for internal management from the BIA. It followed the model of elected government: president, vice-president, and representative council, adopted by many Native American nations. At the time and since then, many tribal members opposed the elected government, preferring their traditional form of hereditary clan chiefs selected for life, contingent on approval by women elders, and a tribal council that operated by consensus.

Both women and male elders have continued to have influence within the nation, particularly among those who have followed more traditional lives. At times political factions have developed and continued along ethnic and cultural lines, with full-blood Sioux following traditional ways. Others, sometimes of mixed-blood or having had more urban or European-American experiences, support the elected government. Enrolled members living on reservation number 21,245. The RST population is estimated at 25,000 (2005).

The short two-year terms of office can make it difficult for elected tribal officials to carry out projects over the long term. In addition, BIA officials and police retain roles on the reservations, which the historian Akim Reinhardt calls a form of "indirect colonialism".

 * Law: charter, constitution, and bylaws (approved November 23, 1935)
 * Governing Body: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council (20 members)
 * Executive Officers: President, vice-president, Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-At-Arms

Elections

 * Primary elections, fourth Thursday of August; general elections, fourth Thursday of October
 * President and vice-president elected at large for two-year terms; Tribal Council elected from members' districts every two years; Council appoints the secretary, treasurer, and sergeant-at-arms
 * Number of election districts: 13
 * Proportion of representatives: one representative per 750 members

Council meetings

 * Meetings are held twice a month on Wednesday and Thursdays.
 * Quorum: Need 11 members
 * Aired locally on Goldenwest Channel 93 and Rosebud Sioux Tribe YouTube Channel.

Education
The tribe has developed Sinte Gleska University on the reservation. The tribal university is named after the 19th-century Sioux war chief and statesman, whose name in English was Spotted Tail.

 * St. Francis Indian School (Sicangu Oyate Ho, Inc.), in Saint Francis is a private Catholic institution first established as a mission school.
 * St. Joseph's Indian School, Chamberlain, South Dakota
 * Todd County High School, Mission, South Dakota (Todd County School District 66–1)
 * White River School District K-12, White River, South Dakota
 * Akta Lakota Museum & Cultural Center, located since 1991 in an adapted 1968 building on the campus of St. Joseph's Indian School.

Media

 * Rosebud Media Network: Hits 96 (KINI) is a Commercialized radio station and KOYA 88.1 FM is a Non-Profit radio station both located in St. Francis, South Dakota and both are tribally owned.
 * Newspaper: Todd County Tribune, Mission, SD.
 * Newspaper: Sicangu Sun-Times, Rosebud. Founded in 1990 as an independent weekly, the newspaper is Sicangu-owned. It celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2015. The Sicangu Sun-Times is sold on newsstands across the Rosebud Indian Reservation and maintains a website at: sicangusuntimes.com. It also has newsstands in Winner, South Dakota; Valentine, Nebraska; and on three other South Dakota Indian reservations. Due to area poverty, the newspaper survives on limited advertising.

The Sun-Times is the only news outlet to cover political news on the reservation, along with police, court and community news. An economic decline forced the paper to cut back to a monthly edition in 2010.

Notable tribal members and residents

 * Susan Allen, the first Native American woman elected to the Minnesota state legislature, and the first openly lesbian Native American to win election to a state legislature.
 * Janeen Antoine (Sicangu Lakota), curator, educator, and founder in 1983 of the American Indian Contemporary Arts in San Francisco, grew up on the Rosebud Reservation. Her gallery was one of the first in the nation to feature contemporary American Indian art and is important in encouraging new work. She is a co-host of Bay Native Circle, a weekly radio program broadcast on Wednesday evenings on Pacifica Radio station KPFA-FM, Berkeley.
 * Bob Barker (1923-2023), game show host of The Price Is Right, the longest-running daytime game show in North American television history (1972-2007).
 * Martin Brokenleg, is a psychologist and author in the fields of trauma, resilience, and Native American studies. An enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, he was a professor of Native American studies at Augustana University in South Dakota for 30 years.[1] He also served as Professor and Director of the Native Ministries Programme at the Vancouver School of Theology from 2004 to 2009.
 * Belva Cottier (1920-2000), activist and social worker who planned the 1964 Occupation of Alcatraz.
 * Paul Eagle Star, (1864-1891) (Brulé Sioux), member of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show
 * Troy Heinert (Rosebud Sioux), politician, businessman, and rodeo pick-up rider. He was elected to the South Dakota House in 2012 and to the SD Senate in 2014; he is Senate Assistant Minority Leader
 * Hollow Horn Bear, son of Iron Shell, Sioux leader at the Fetterman Fight. He served as head of Indian police at the Rosebud Agency, and arrested Crow Dog for the murder of Spotted Tail.
 * Chief Iron Shell, led the Brulé Orphan Band during the Powder River War of 1866–1868.
 * Doris Leader Charge, Lakota instructor at Sinte Gleska University, dialogue coach on Dances with Wolves
 * Joseph M. Marshall III, Lakota historian and writer, winner of the 2008 PEN/Beyond Margins Award for one of his histories
 * Terry L. Pechota, American attorney who was the 32nd United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota; nominated by Jimmy Carter, confirmed by United States Senate 1979.
 * Plenty Horses (1869–1933), a highly educated Lakota who was at the Drexel Mission Fight and was charged with the murder of Lieutenant Edward W. Casey soon after the Wounded Knee Massacre, but acquitted as the jury found a state of war had existed.
 * Benjamin "Ben" Reifel (Rosebud Sioux) (1906-1990), five-term U.S. Congressman, served in the U.S. Army, worked as a field officer and regional administrator for the BIA, and earned master's and doctoral degrees in public administration from Harvard University. Reifel was elected as US Representative in 1960 and served until his retirement in 1971.
 * Yvette Roubideaux (Rosebud Sioux), M.D., M.P.H., was Director of the United States Indian Health Service (IHS), appointed in 2009 as the first woman to hold the position.
 * Chief Sinte Gleska, translated as "Spotted Tail" (1823-1881), was a war chief and later worked for peace. He was a Brulé Sioux relative of Crazy Horse. In 1868 he signed a peace treaty with the US in 1868 to cede lands. Sinte Gleska University, a Lakota Tribal college, is named for him.
 * Richard Twiss (1954-2013), founder of Wiconi International ministry.
 * Frank Waln, a Sicangu Lakota rapper
 * Albert White Hat Sr.- Author, language teacher, and leader.
 * Dyani White Hawk (born 1976), Sicangu artist and former curator of All My Relations Arts gallery
 * Chauncey Yellow Robe ("Kills in the Woods") (Canowicakte) (1867-1930), was an educator, lecturer and Native American activist. Raised in the Sicangu Lakota tradition, he was a founding member of the Society of American Indians. He fought for American Indian citizenship during the Progressive Era, and collaborated with American Museum of Natural History to produce silent drama The Silent Enemy, in which he starred as Chief Chetoga.

Recent legal cases
In United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), the people of the Rosebud Sioux Reservation joined the Oglala Lakota and other Sioux nations in suing the federal government in a land claim for its taking of the Black Hills in the late 19th century. In 1980 the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court, which agreed with the nations that the US had acted illegally in 1877. The US government offered financial compensation, which the Sioux have refused. They still demand the return of the land to their nation. The compensation fund is earning interest and has increased in value.

The tribe has suffered from terrible conditions at the IHS hospital. Because the IHS did not maintain standards, in November 2015 the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said it would no longer reimburse for services at the ER, as conditions were so poor. The ER was closed. For seven months, citizens on the reservation had no access to ER services. Five babies were born in ambulances en route to the nearest hospitals -50 miles away- and nine people died during emergency transport to other health facilities. CMS announced on July 14, 2016, that the emergency department would re-open the next day.

On April 28, 2016, members of the Rosebud Indian Reservation announced they were suing the federal government for its closure of the only emergency room on its reservation, which is operated by Indian Health Services. The ER was closed because of conditions so poor that Medicaid (CMS) would not reimburse for its services. The ER had been closed for nearly five months, leaving people on the reservation without services. They have to travel 50 miles to reach another hospital. The emergency department was re-opened after seven months on July 15, 2016.

While in Congress before 2018, former Representative Kristi Noem (R-South Dakota), now governor of South Dakota, authored legislation to improve conditions and staff at IHS facilities. She testified before Congress to gain support for the legislation.

In December 2020, the Jesuits returned 525 acres to the reservation. The scattered pieces had been given to them in the 1890s for religious use.

Communities
The Rosebud Sioux Reservation has 20 communities represented on its tribal council:

 * Antelope
 * Okreek
 * Parmelee
 * Rosebud
 * Saint Francis
 * Spring Creek
 * Two Strike
 * Milks Camp
 * Corn Creek
 * Butte Creek
 * Soldier Creek
 * Upper Cut Meat
 * Ring Thunder
 * Black Pipe
 * Bull Creek
 * Swift Bear
 * Grass Mountain
 * Ideal
 * He Dog
 * Horse Creek

title: Rosebud Indian Reservation


text: User:Titoxd/UserPage/Attacks

title: User:Titoxd/UserPage/Attacks


text:
Kenneth Gentry

Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. (3 May 1950) is a Reformed theologian, and an ordained minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly. He is particularly known for his support for and publication on the topics of orthodox preterism and postmillennialism in Christian eschatology, as well as for theonomy and Young Earth creationism. He holds that each of these theological distinctives are logical and theological extensions of his foundational theology.

Biography
Gentry was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He is married (since July 1971) and has three children and six grandchildren.

He received his B.A. in Biblical Studies from Tennessee Temple University (1973, cum laude). After graduating he enrolled at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. After two years at Grace Seminary (1973–1975) he left dispensationalism, having become convinced of a covenant and Reformed theology. He transferred to Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi (1975–1977). Upon completing studies at Reformed Theological Seminary he was awarded the M.Div. in 1977. After several years of pastoral ministry, he earned a Th.M. (1986) and a Th.D. (1987, magna cum laude) from Whitefield Theological Seminary, both in the field of New Testament.

While at Reformed Theological Seminary he studied under Greg L. Bahnsen, a leading presuppositional apologist. Though Gentry initially resisted the distinctive ethical and eschatological views of Bahnsen, he was eventually persuaded of both theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology and became a staunch co-defender of them with Bahnsen. Over the years he developed a close friendship with Bahnsen, often lecturing with him in conferences, co-writing a book with him (House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology), eventually joining the staff of Bahnsen's Southern California Center for Christian Studies, and finally contributing to the festschrift in honor of Bahnsen, titled: The Standard Bearer.

Gentry retired from full-time pastoral ministry in 2016 after serving more than thirty-five years in three conservative and Reformed denominations: The Presbyterian Church in America, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and The Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly. He is the Director of GoodBirth Ministries, a non-profit religious educational ministry, "committed to sponsoring, subsidizing, and advancing serious Christian scholarship and education".

Writings
Gentry is the leading contemporary theological expositor of the early-date of Revelation (prior to A.D. 70) by the Apostle John. The partial preterist paradigm is a different eschatology than that held by most American Dispensationalist Christians, who maintain that the Great Tribulation hasn't yet occurred.

Kenneth Gentry's works The Beast of Revelation and He Shall Have Dominion attempt to explain the identity of the Beast and what God's true redemptive plan for humanity are. Gentry's work is considered by his followers to be important for soteriological reasons.

Gentry's work enfilades the error of much contemporary Christian pre-trib eschatology, also serving to argue that incorrect interpretation of the Bible is possible even by sincere experts.

Gentry is perhaps best known for his book Before Jerusalem Fell, which argues that the Book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He holds that many of the dramatic events in Revelation correspond to the persecution of Christians under the Roman imperium as well as to the Jewish War against Rome which resulted in the destruction of Jewish temple. This book is the published version of his doctoral dissertation in 1986 under the title "The Dating of the Book of Revelation: An Exegetical, Theological and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition."

Revelation commentary
Gentry has completed a two-volume academic commentary on Revelation titled: The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation. It is currently being proofed and typeset by Tolle Lege Press and is scheduled for release by September 2023. According to preliminary studies he has released ("The Wrath of God and Israel", Fountain Inn, SC: 2007), he will be presenting evidence that "Babylon" is a metaphor for 1st century Jerusalem, and that the book's author John is following the pattern of the Old Testament prophets in denouncing Jerusalem's unfaithfulness by such images (see especially  and ).

Gentry holds that the theme of Revelation is Christ's judgment-coming against those who pierced him, and presents the "slain Lamb" (etc.) as wreaking vengeance upon 1st-century Jerusalem. He argues that the seven-sealed scroll is God's divorce decree against his unfaithful Old Testament wife (Israel) so that he might take a new bride, the Church (Rev. 21–22). Thus, Revelation dramatizes the transition from the old covenant, Temple-based, Judaic economy to the New Covenant, spiritual economy that includes all ethnicities, not just Jews.

According to his research updates, Gentry sees strong similarities between Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Both works seek to demonstrate Christianity's superiority to Judaism by showing New Covenant Christianity fulfilling Old Covenant Judaism (Heb. 8:13; Rev. 2:9; 3:9; 11:1-2). He notes that both documents even end up pointing the reader to the New Jerusalem from heaven (Heb.12:22; Rev. 21:2), which represents Christianity. He also draws parallels in thought between the Gospel of Matthew and Revelation. He sees evidence for this in Matthew's strong imagery regarding old covenant Judaism's demise in the rise of Christianity (Matt. 8:10-12; 21:33-46; 22:1-13; 23:29-38).

Contributions

 * "Private Charity Should Care for the Poor" in The Welfare State (David L. Bender, ed.) (Greenhaven Press, 1982). ISBN 0-89908-313-7
 * "Civil Sanctions in the New Testament," "Church Sanctions in the Epistle to the Hebrews," and "Whose Victory in History?" in Gary North, ed., Theonomy: An Informed Response (I.C.E., 1991). ISBN 0-930464-59-1
 * "The Preterist View" in Four Views on the Book of Revelation (ed. Marvin Pate) (Zondervan, 1998). ISBN 0-310-21080-1
 * "The Postmillennial View" in Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond (ed., Darrell Bock) (Zondervan, 1999). ISBN 0-310-20143-8
 * "Reformed Theology and Six Day Creationism" in P. Andrew Sandlin, ed., Creation According to the Scriptures: A Presuppositional Defense of Literal, Six Day Creation (Chalcedon, 2001). ISBN 1-891375-12-1
 * "A Revelation of the Revelation" and "Theonomy and Confession" in Robert R. Booth, ed., The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen (Covenant Media Foundation, 2002). ISBN 0-9678317-4-1
 * "The Historical Problem with Hyper-Preterism" in Hyper-Preterism: A Reformed Critique, ed. Keith A. Mathison (P & R 2003). ISBN 0-87552-552-0
 * "Agony, Irony and the Postmillennialist" and "Victory Belongs to the Lord" in Thine Is the Kingdom: A Summary of the Postmillennial Hope, ed. by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. (Ross House, 2004). ISBN 1-891375-22-9
 * "Pauline Communion v. Paedocommunion" in Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and C. N. Willborn, eds., The Covenant: God’s Voluntary Condescension (Presbyterian Press, 2005). ISBN 1-931639-06-X
 * "Defending the Faith" in Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, eds., World Religions and Cults: Counterfeits of Christianity (Master, 2015). ISBN 0-89051903X

title: Kenneth Gentry


text:
Pentagrammic prism

In geometry, the pentagrammic prism is one of an infinite set of nonconvex prisms formed by square sides and two regular star polygon caps, in this case two pentagrams.

It is a special case of a right prism with a pentagram as base, which in general has rectangular non-base faces. Topologically it is the same as a convex pentagonal prism.

It is the 78th model in the list of uniform polyhedra, as the first representative of uniform star prisms, along with the pentagrammic antiprism, which is the 79th model.

Geometry
It has 7 faces, 15 edges and 10 vertices. This polyhedron is identified with the indexed name U78 as a uniform polyhedron.

The triangle face has an ambiguous interior because it is self-intersecting. The central pentagon region can be considered an angle or exterior depending on how the interior is defined. One definition of the interior is the set of points that have a ray that crosses the boundary an odd number of times to escape the diameter

Pentagrammic dipyramid
In geometry, the pentagrammic dipyramid (or bipyramid) is first of the infinite set of face-transitive star dipyramids containing star polygon arrangement of edges. It has 10 intersecting isosceles triangle faces. It is topologically identical to the pentagonal dipyramid.

Each star dipyramid is the dual of a star polygon based uniform prism.

Related polyhedra
There are two pentagrammic trapezohedra (or deltohedra), being dual to the pentagrammic antiprism and pentagrammic crossed antiprism respectively, each having intersecting kite-shaped faces (convex or concave), and a total of 12 vertices:

title: Pentagrammic prism


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTOS

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

MOTOS
Pointless article expanding on an abbreviation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Cleared as filed. 05:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's somewhere to redirect. --Trovatore 05:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These are commonly-used initialisms used in sexuality research and GLBT publications. Several times people see these abbreviations on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the acronyms stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these entries, demonstrates ignorance and prejudice. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)]
 * '''Merge with sexology. Qaz  ( talk ) 06:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These initialisms are most commonly used in sexuality research and GLBT publications and the GLBT community. In fact, I have actually overheard the phonetically-pronounced words "motts" (s/l pots) and "motos" (s/l photos) in casual speak at bisexual rallies.  Several times people see these initialisms appear on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the acronyms/designations stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers.  To delete these entries, clearly demonstrates prejudice, intolerance and ignorance. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)]
 * No, it demonstrates our Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. The place to go to look up what words mean and what initialisms expand to is a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia.  There is a 90,000-word dictionary over there that is ready and waiting for all of the (attested) initialisms that editors care to give it.  Wikipedia articles are encyclopaedia articles, and are about the people/places/concepts/events/things that the initialisms represent.  Our article entitled NASA is about the space agency, for example.  Similarly, our NASDAQ article is about the stock exchange. Our articles about MOTSS and MOTOS would be about members of the same/opposite sex. But there is nothing to say beyond the title in such articles.  At best, they should be redirects to an article on sexual orientation (which deals with how it is classified and by whom).  Uncle G 13:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am bisexual and actively involved in the bisexual community. The arguments by Trovotore here and at the MOTSS entry sound to me as nothing more than bigotry and bisexuals experience enough of that from both the hetero and gay communities.  If you delete these, then you should delete similar NBA, NFL, NASCAR, CBS, NBC and GLBT/LGBT entries. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)]
 * That is a a reductio ad absurdum that is entirely spurious for being based upon a false premise. As above, those articles are about the people/places/concepts/events/things.  For examples: CBS is about the broadcaster and NFL is about the sporting organization. Uncle G 13:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Qaz. CambridgeBayWeather 08:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Rogerd 18:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Qaz. 68.99.129.188
 * Strong Keep. Terms in wide use, on the Internet and elsewhere. (Google search: "motss" 138,000; "motss -soc.motss" 75,300.) I edited MOTSS to add the Usenet connection (naming of newsgroup soc.motss partially due to desire to obscure the subject of the group, to prevent management scrutiny at Usenet sites as well as closeted subscribers). Not a dicdef; terms have cultural significance. MCB 07:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per MCB. --Idont Havaname 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per MCB. TednAZ 08:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sexual orientation. The Bearded One 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per MCB. Reflex Reaction 19:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Uncle G's comment. Nabla 01:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTOS


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/204.113.91.11

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:52 UTC, 8 October 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Example user | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
UPDATE: Barbara Schwarz has been banned by the Salt Lake City Library, the University of Utah, and the LDS Church (the three sites mentioned in the RfC), from using their computers any longer. This solution is much better since Wiki won't have to block public servers at the Library and University in Utah. I have no idea how to close this RfC down since it appears to be a moot point now. Vivaldi 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This user, who identifies herself in posts as Barbara Schwarz, was recently banned and is again vandalizing the discussion page of the Barbara Schwarz article by constantly using personal attacks and threatening lawsuits against the editors after being repeatedly warned to behave properly both on her talk page and in the discussion itself.

Description
The latest vandalism involves Ms. Schwarz repeated attempts to publicly "out" an editor by exposing his real name and location. Although she has made an incorrect guess at the real name, this is still inappropriate to harass and attack a 3rd party who has nothing to do with this dispute.

Also, Ms. Schwarz repeatedly attacks editors and Wikipedia itself with threats of civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and she reports that she is calling police in an editors hometown and that police there are interested in him.

Barbara Schwarz is using three distinct public posting locations in Salt Lake City to commit her vandalism. This includes 204.113.91.11 (the Utah Education Networks public library facilities), and 205.127.246.166 (the Salt Lake City public library), and 12.110.19.97 (the genealogical library at 50 East North Temple in SLC, Utah). Each one of these IP addresses has been added to the spam blacklist at AHBL [] because of her abusive internet activities. See: [] for proof of this. There are literally over 30,000 repetitive spamming posts originating from these IPs written to USENET. Vivaldi 05:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * A more recent tirade nameing names including "porn king" Jimbo Wales.
 * From a sockpuppet account. More vandalism.
 * Vandalism again
 * Vandalism

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * No_personal_attacks
 * No_legal_threats
 * No Sock Puppets

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * User talk:204.113.91.11
 *
 *

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Tilman 08:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Tilman
 * Vivaldi 00:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Vivaldi
I am new to Wikipedia and I would appreciate any advice or suggestions that you can provide. I am hoping to prevent this user from repeatedly adding personal attacks and revealing real names and addresses on articles or discussion pages. Numerous times I have had to remove these attacks and even after a period of blocking they continue.

I filed this RfC with the hope that I could gain some assistance in stopping this behaviour. If WP:VIP or WP:ANI is the appropriate forum for this, then I would be happy to make my reports there. Vivaldi 00:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Tilman 08:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Tilman
 * Modemac 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (You may also want to take a look at the "discussions" (i.e. flames) involving this subject on alt.religion.scientology. This Google search for "schwarz" and "wikipedia" should suffice.)
 * Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 19:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I have seen this woman abuse, threaten, and lie about many people, myself included. I have a USENET 'kook' file and she has over 100,000 entries, and it is missing a number of months of her abuse.  All attemps I have seen at problem resolution, both here and on ARS have been met with more libel or off-topic posts and edits.
 * Desertphile 11:53 LMT, 10 October 2005. I have sought legal redress against Ms. Schwarz's defamation and lible, but the Salt Lake City, Utah, lawyer I discussed the issue with said that in his opinion it is futile to sue a pennyless person who is mentally ill. His opinion included the probability that her being ordered by a court judge to cease her abusive behavior would not induce her to cease that behavior.
 * Antaeus Feldspar 18:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Ms. Schwarz's very first statement to me started "You are an idiot, Feldspar. Try to learn about due process. Appeal rights are for anybody. Looks you are a German, a member of Tilman's OPC gang, and you think I should be treated righless like a Jew." I don't even know what "OPC" is supposed to stand for.

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view by McClenon
As of 17:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC), this RfC has been certified by only one editor. It has been endorsed by two, but is not properly certified unless the endorser will change their signature to a certification that they have also tried to resolve the issue.

Also, why not post this to WP:VIP instead, if the edits are considered to be vandalism, or to WP:ANI, if they are in some other way clearly in bad faith?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 17:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Soltak | Talk 23:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I've reviewed a bit of the evidence and it seem clear that this dispute would be better off at WP:VIP
 * 3) Nikitchenko 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Endorsing McClenon's view.  Take it to WP:VIP.  The complaining cabal needs to grow up a little.
 * This must be the first time I've ever read this. I've seen it go the other way plenty of times, that an editor unhappy with someone else's edits squints his eyes, pretends it's "vandalism" when it's not, and reports it at WP:VIP.  That is frequently considered childish behavior on the part of the reporter.  I have never before seen people accused of "need[ing] to grow up a little" for not interpreting personal attacks on them as vandalism, and I must admit I find myself puzzled why anyone would think it immature behavior to bend over backwards to give a problematic user's behavior the benefit of the doubt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not share your opinion, my endorsement remains. --Nikitchenko 12:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.


text: File:Moonsocietylogo.jpg

title: File:Moonsocietylogo.jpg


text:
Aberfeldy, Victoria

Aberfeldy is a locality in Victoria, Australia on Mount Lookout, northeast of the Thomson Dam, 125 km east of Melbourne.

History
The area began to be inhabited in 1871 following the discovery of alluvial gold, although access was made difficult by the rugged terrain and the harsh winters, with sub-zero temperatures and much snow.

The first Aberfeldy Post Office opened on 1 January 1872. It finally closed permanently in 1967. The postmaster from 1880 to 1884 was Henry Donaldson, whose sister, Elizabeth Donaldson had married the Aberfeldy butcher Thomas Dwyer, originally from Tipperary, Ireland.

The eldest of the three Dwyer children was John Patrick, born in Aberfeldy in 1879. His parents both died in 1884, so the children were taken in by their Scottish grandparents David and Annie Donaldson, who ran the general store in nearby Morwell. At that time Henry Donaldson also left Aberfeldy, going to be postmaster in Heyfield, Victoria.

John Partick Dwyer was a child prodigy and after qualifying as a solicitor in Melbourne he was called to the Bar at the age of 23. He moved to Western Australia in 1904 where he stood out as the possessor of a brilliant legal mind. He was appointed Chief Justice of Western Australia and was knighted in 1946, and then distinguished with a KCMG in 1949. He and his wife are buried together in a simple grave in Karrakatta Cemetery in Perth.

Aberfeldy was surveyed and proclaimed in 1885. It was initially known as Mount Lookout but was eventually renamed after the Scottish town of Aberfeldy. At its peak, the township had a population of around 500. After the end of the gold rush the townsfolk depended for their livelihood upon sheep and cattle grazing and the production of potatoes and other crops.

Following the First World War, the population diminished, although the locality managed to survive. The town hotel was burned down in 1938 and the Black Friday bush-fires of 1939 destroyed many of the buildings in the locality.

On 10 March 1942 a Curtiss P-40 Warhawk of the United States Army Air Force flown by Captain Joseph P McLaughlin crashed near Aberfeldy on a flight from Canberra to Laverton. The plane was discovered in 1948. and in 2005 the pilot's remains were identified and taken to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

A road was built to the town of Matlock by 1950, but it was not maintained and became unusable.

Apart from John Patrick Dwyer, the locality's most well-known inhabitant was Kitty Cane, a former dancer and mining investor who owned a successful roadside tavern. Legend has it that when Cane died, her loyal customers and the local miners decided to carry her coffin to the Aberfeldy cemetery. However, since Cane was unusually heavy, weighing 22 stone (140 kilos) and because the miners were intoxicated, the coffin never made it to the cemetery. Instead the miners buried her beside the road. When travelling from The Thomson Dam to Aberfeldy, Kitty Cane's grave is about a kilometre (0.6 miles) after the Cast Iron Point lookout and on the left hand side of the Walhalla-Woods Point Road, Thompson. It is recorded in the Victorian Heritage Inventory: H8122-0102.

Today (2011) there is only one permanent resident, the historian Grahame Code (who has lived in the area for 50 years), and his family. There is several holiday homes which are occupied occasionally. Land was released for public sale in 1999. Remains of some of the former gold-rush era buildings are still visible.

Climate
Aberfeldy features a cold oceanic climate (Cfb) due to its elevation at a deep southern latitude, nearing the 38th parallel south. By mean maximum temperature, it is the coldest locality in Victoria and likewise mainland Australia.

Aberfeldy is frequently coated in snowfall, receiving an average of 32.5 snowy days annually. Summer snow is not uncommon.

title: Aberfeldy, Victoria


text:
Indian Wells (Kern County, California)

An Indian Wells California Historical Landmark was erected near the Indian Wells Lodge, 4.9 miles north of Freeman Junction on Highway 14 where William L. Manly found water after his group left Death Valley.

This marker was placed by California Centennials Commission in cooperation with Kern County Historical Society and dedicated on July 9, 1950. This site is California Historical Landmark #457.

The inscription on the plaque reads:

 * Indian water hole on Joseph R. Walker trail of 1834 where Manly-Jayhawker parties of 1849 found their first water after five days of travel from Argus Range. During 1860s was site of stage and freight station from Los Angeles to Coso and Cerro Gordo mines.

title: Indian Wells (Kern County, California)


text:
Kenna, New Mexico

Kenna is an unincorporated community in Roosevelt County, New Mexico, United States. It is located on U.S. Route 70, 30 mi southwest of Portales.

History
The settlement was originally known as Urton, probably named for two brothers who came to the region from the state of Missouri in 1884. A contractor by the name of Kenna camped in Urton during the construction of a roadbed for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. Kenna's camp served as a stopping place for stagecoaches to exchange mail as well as passengers.

In 1899, when the railroad was completed, the name Kenna remained for the camp. Established first as Urton in 1902 by the opening of a post office, the name was changed back to Kenna in 1906. E.D. Kenna, the vice president of the railroad, may have contributed to the final choice of a name.

Kenna was one of the largest cattle shipping points in the state by 1909. At the peak of its development, the town had a bank, two hotels, several stores, a post office, and several saloons. By 1912, many homesteaders relinquished their claims due to the drought, and Kenna began to decline.

title: Kenna, New Mexico


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTSS

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

MOTSS
dicdef
 * Maybe there's somewhere this and MOTOS can be redirected, but they shouldn't have whole articles. --Trovatore 05:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (nominator)

 * These are commonly-used abbreviations used in sexuality research and GLBT publications. Several times people see these abbreviations on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the abbreviations stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these abbreviations, demonstrates ignorance and prejudice. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ  01:06, October 8, 2005 (UTC)]
 * There are lots of functions Wikipedia could serve, but choices have to be made, and that one is settled. See WP:NOT. --Trovatore 06:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * '''Merge with sexology. Qaz  ( talk ) 06:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As per Articles for deletion/MOTOS, redirect to sexual orientation. Uncle G 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * '''Merge with sexology.68.99.129.188 21:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This strictly hetero, not especially webwise person recognises this initialism and deems it of sufficient noteworthiness to merit a keep. Denni ☯ 00:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Terms (MOTSS and MOTOS) in wide use, on the Internet and elsewhere. (Google search: "motss" 138,000; "motss -soc.motss" 75,300.) I edited to add the Usenet connection (naming of newsgroup soc.motss partially due to desire to obscure the subject of the group, to prevent management scrutiny at Usenet sites as well as closeted subscribers). Not a dicdef; terms have cultural significance. MCB 07:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't get how that makes it "not a dicdef". The article defines the meaning, says in what context the term is used and by whom, and not much else. This is all dictionary stuff. If it were an anthropological article about the phenomenon of people using this term as opposed to another one, that would be different. I might still vote to delete--seems like pretty thin gruel; I'd want to see citations indicating that the phenomenon (rather than the term) was an object of scholarly study. But it wouldn't be on dicdef grounds. --Trovatore 06:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Denni and MCB. --Idont Havaname 05:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the entry! i was glad to have come across it and learn what it meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.32.166 (talk • contribs)
 * Sure, that's why it's often fun to read dictionaries. --Trovatore 18:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per MCB. TednAZ 08:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sexual orientation. The Bearded One 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per MCB. Reflex Reaction 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, see Articles for deletion/MOTOS. Nabla 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTSS