text:
Talk:Olefin metathesis

General conditions
What are the general conditions for this reaction? Which specific catalysts are used? -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 15:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobel prize
Request can someone who uderstands this add a plain english paragraph of why this disocery is important engough for a nobel prize?--Duk 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe because they made an important contribution to the field of chemistry. Whether or not you understand it makes no difference. I hereby award you the Nobel Prize for Assholery. (Unsigned comment by User:Duesling)
 * I guess I don't understand how asking for something to be explained, by someone who understands it, is being an asshole. Wikilove and happy editing! :) --Duk 00:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Use
Some information on what this is useful for would be nice. --Guthrie 11:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Reorganized article
I reorganized the article so the more basic, layman's information is first, followed by most of the technical jargon that would just drive off the average reader before they understand the significance of the reaction and why this particular bit of chemistry, among thousands of other discoveries, won a nobel prize.

Duesling, calm down, eh? This is an encyclopedia, not a chemistry journal. :)

— J’raxis (T) 01:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Types of metathesis
"for the development of the metathesis method in organic synthesis"" was the reason for Nobel prize. Is olefin metathesis one type of metathesis or are these two things equal? -EnSamulili 09:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a type of metathesis. See alkyne metathesis. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 10:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Example
This is a stereoselective bu NOT an enantionselective reaction. Perhaps it is with a chiral catalystst but without chiral information it isn't!

 * The title of the article in the footnote citation for that reaction is listed as "A Recyclable Chiral Ru Catalyst for Enantioselective Olefin Metathesis. Efficient Catalytic Asymmetric Ring-Opening/Cross Metathesis in Air", so one might presume that the catalyst for the reaction is indeed chiral. DMacks 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

4 groups vs 2
In the formula in the leading paragraph, each reactants has 4 groups attached, and two from one reactant are exchanged for two from the other. In the explaining formula in the overview paragraph, each reactant has only two groups attached, and one is exchanged for one. This should be explained/harmonized. AxelBoldt 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SHOP

 * Olefin metathesis was first used in petroleum reformation for the synthesis of higher olefins in the Shell higher olefin process (SHOP) under high pressure and high temperatures.

The sentence is ambigous. It can mean
 * (1) olefin metathesis was first used in SHOP, for petroleum reformation, or
 * (2) the first use of olefin methathesis in petroleum reformulation was SHOP.

Also, does SHOP use a metal catalyst? AxelBoldt 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the article?
I can't seem to link from the Richard Schrock article to this one, but i get the message saying that I can put up a request for it, start it, look for it etc. Is the problem on my end or on the encyclopedi's end?
 * A good link exists already at the top of para 3 of Richard Schrock to olefin metathesis.--Smokefoot 23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Metathesis; a word
Metathesis is basically just a word to describe the transfere of bonds between two chemically similar molecules, ie RCM "swapping" what is attached to the double bonds. Olefin metathesis is an archaic(? my spelling is crap) name for alkene metathesis--> this name ought to be changed. This page should also be a sub page of a main metathesis page. Alkene metathesis can be either ring opening, closing or polymeric, depending on what you do with it. Any references to Schrock in this article should be brief as he should be covered by alkyne metathesis. On an importance scale alkene metathesis is much better for organic synthesis. The reason Schrock and Grubbs won their nobel prizes was because they developed new, stereoselective ways of forming carbon-carbon bonds, this is (suprisingly) one of the hardest things to do. The chemistry they have pioneered is very elegant as it occurs at low temp and may be used in complex matrices such as peptides/proteins, no mean feat. So, this is quite a good page but is looking about 20 years behind in content. If you cared to look up Robinson/Eldaridi and/or Ghalit/Poot you would find prime examples of how metathesis is important. User:[Spgoo1] [User talk:Spgoo1|talk] • contribs) 10:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

 * I disagree, and personally prefer olefin metathesis, a quick google shows olefin metathesis gets 159 000 hits, whilst alkene metathesis gets 22 000 Seansheep 23:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First figure
The first figure in this article is absolutely terrible. The cyclobutane is depicted as being a transition state which is total nonsense and completely misleading. The [2+2] cycloaddition of two olefins is symmetry forbidden and thus an extremely high energy process. If that was the mechanism, then olefin metathesis would never happen! The second scheme is much better because it shows the correct cyclometallobutane intermediate. The first figure should be edited to remove the "transition state" Wjousts 14:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first figure is explicitly marked "general scope is outlined by the following equation". The square-bracketed piece illustrates the overall changes that occur but is not intended to convey any mechanistic detail (it has no electron-flow and doesn't have a double-dagger T-state symbol). I thinp placing the two starting materials aligned and thinking about "the bonding pattern simply swaping around" is a great way to see what happens overall. And a terrible mechanistic suggestion, but that's not the point of this diagram. I'd love to have a better "no implied mechanism" diagram that illustrates the overall transformation taking place here. DMacks 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * agree with DMacks, it is not implied anywhere in the article that the first image depicts a reaction mechanism, so in practical terms the image stays or somebody comes up with a better one. V8rik 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The image clearly implies something about mechanism which is totally wrong! The article is better off without it. Wjousts 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, I've changed it for another one which shows the alignment without being wrongly suggestive of mechanism. Wjousts 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Looks fine to me. DMacks 01:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * new image looks great, thanks for the effort V8rik 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Image
I think the second image has the wrong reactant in the top left slide. It should be R1-=-R2 not R2-=-R2. I'll change the svg if someone more knowledgeable confirms this. This doesn't match the first image. --RabidRabbit23 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting the error, I have made the change. V8rik (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Catalysts
This section of the page does not require all of those pictures. A simple link to each of the respective catalysts pages, with just the first gen grubbs catalyst in a nice captioned box to the side would suffice greatly. Also, the talk about the Hoveyda-Grubbs catalyst is excessive. This is clearly covered in the page about grubbs catalysts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.226.187 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Mechanism
The overall mechanism is fine, but the discussion about thermodynamics needs work. "energetics" is not a meaningful term. The issue is enthalpy and entropy. The reactants and products have nearly the same enthalpy. Thus, the reaction must be driven by entropy -- that is, by Le Chatelier's principle. There are probably specific rationales for different reactions, but certainly for RCM it is the low concentration of ethene (which evaporates from the reaction mixture) that drives the reaction forward.

It would be good to point out that all scrambling possibilities are possible and active, but some of them produce products that are the same as the reactants and so are not observed. Hansonrstolaf (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Useful comments. Some of these reactions involve strained alkenes of the norbornene variety, and these reactions probably have an enthalpic component, which is probably known.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

types of olefin metathesis -- adding more?
For the Types_of_olefin_metathesis_processes section, a journal article discusses propene, butene, isobutene and 2-methylbut-2-ene. Shall the section expand to include those heavier alkenes than ethene?
 * The article should not imply that only ethylene is used, but if it does please correct it. The unusual feature of the article is the emphasis on large scale  metatheses, which are exclusively catalyzed heterogeneously and that these catalysts were developed before the Nobelists even started their work.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Olefin metathesis


text:
Talk:Mad As...

Is this even a stub? I can't figure out what "Mad As..." is.

--devotchka

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

title: Talk:Mad As...


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Igor and Grichka Bogdanov cannot be objective and should not edit this article.
1) I ask that neither subject of the article, that is neither Igor nor Grichka Bogdanov contribute to this article at all. They are, by definition, not objective.  They clearly have a goal of making this into an article that makes themselves look good (like geniuses) and that helps them sell books.  They have a clear financial motive and one of pride that disables their objectivity.  It doesn't mean that it is open season for any critics of theirs to write falsehoods or to delete pertanent information that is supportive of the Bogdanovs, but they simply cannot be expected to write objectively of themselves.  Editors that are supporters or critics (or neither) have nothing to gain nor lose should be the editors of the article. r b-j 04:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Of course they should not be editing an article about themselves, but neither should others be editing an article about an event they are participating in. Fred Bauder 13:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:

 * r-b-j wrote : I ask that neither subject of the article, that is neither Igor nor Grichka Bogdanov contribute to this article at all. They are, by definition, not objective.

 * If only objective people have the right to edit this article, I don't think r b-j should be allowed to... Please remember that he wrote about them :
 * "They are hucksters, swindlers, con artists. If this were a criminal trial, the jury would eventually get sick of their lame defenses and simply say "Guilty, guilty, guilty!" (...) Hoax, pseudoscience, The Emperor's New Clothes, excrement are precisely appropriate." (Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 2)
 * "he [=Igor] lies and lies and lies and lies. that is how he got to the position he is at today. (...) it [=The Bogdanov Affair] is what it is. it stinks. the stink is of the Bogdanoffs' own making and no amount of room freshener will remove that stink." (r b-j (Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 3)
 * To the arbitrators : so, if you wish objective contributors for this article, and if you choose to ban all non-objective ones who took part to this farce, please don't forget rbj, even if he has taken part to other Wikipedian articles ! With such a hate against the Bogdanovs, do you think he would be an "objective" contributor, especially if nobody could defend the brothers, including themselves ?
 * Laurence67 21:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The article is not about me, Laurence. Neither is it about you.  And I have not suggested that they ban you (unless it is discovered that you are a sock-puppet of Igor, right now I think you're a "meat-puppet").  I did not come into this with an opinion of the Bogdanov's, but I surely did form one after researching many webpages of evidence.  I do not think you can claim the same.  You came to WP solely to defend the Bogdanovs and your edit history confirms that.  I have been editing dozens of WP articles for more than a year before this dirty affair.  Still, I do not call for banning you from editing an article about someone who is not you.  How is it that you cannot allow the same for me?  Your argument does not pass the  "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" test.   I doubt there will ever be a WP article about Robert Bristow-Johnson, but if there is, I should not be editing it.   r b-j 21:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

All statements, critical or supportive, should be verifiable by links to internet sites
2) (self explanitory.) Lot's of people are saying lots of things about what lots of other people are saying.  It's time that each statement is supported by at least some document that we can readily read on the internet and not simply supplied by the subjects of the article.  r b-j 04:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is an overly narrow principle. It should be permissible to cite to an offline source.  Not all the information in the world is on the web, yet. Kelly Martin 00:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This problem is part of the intrusion of the event into our report of the event. Fred Bauder 13:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * Should be made a necessary but not sufficient criteria. It is too easy to set up a web site for the specific purpose of backing ludicrous claims; I do not want the people linking to web sites of imaginary university departments again. Rama 06:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Template
3)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Ban on involved parties
1) All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes:, , , , , , . , , , and all others who meet the criteria.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * seems to be the only obsessive editor not caught in this net. Fred Bauder 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This does seems necessary, sadly. James F. (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: Rama and Ze miguel: I don't see any reason to exempt CatherineV, if the others are also going to be banned. Ze miguel, however, I would exempt from the general ban and only restrict from editing related pages to the Bogdanov affair, as he has shown interest in and evidence of editing articles outside the dispute. For the others named I support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would recommend grouping Ze miguel in with Rbj on the topic-specific ban instead of a general ban. He joined Wikipedia and made several edits on unrelated topics before being sucked into the maelstrom.  Kelly Martin 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm a newbie Wikipedian, I created my account on September 26. Although I've mainly edited the Bogdanov Affair article, I have done a few other contributions. In particular, I think I've done some significant work on a draft for the Cubana Flight 455 stub article, not yet completed. I also contributed to the French Wikipedia on this French city article. I wouldn't mind being blocked (even forever) from the Bogdanov Affair article, but I would like to avoid being banned from Wikipedia, if possible. Please  don't bite the newbie and assume good faith :). Thanks. --Ze miguel 15:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ban me, if you choose to. I am not ashamed of anything, not a single action, I did regarding this sordid affair.  The 3RR violations (that twice got me blocked for 24 hours) happened only in the context of reverting Igor's persistent removal of pertainent and factual information that was not flattering to him (or his brother).  It was also done, in the second case, with the advanced approval of an admin  because it was obvious what Igor was doing.  He was literally vandalizing the article and I was reverting the vandalism along with others.  Also remember that Igor ignored his blockage to the article and continued to edit/vandalize the article even when he was "banned".  I did not.  In addition, I haven't edited the article in more than a week and don't plan to as long as I can see that someone is fighting off the Bogdanov vandalism.  I did not come into this as a partisan, for or against the Bogdanovs, but I became convinced, after my own research of the affair (with no help from  or any others) that the Bogdanovs, as represented by Igor, are clearly not just cranks or crackpots (that, like other crackpots, believe that they are neo-Einsteins and just cannot come to terms about the baloney that they have successfully foisted upon the French community and tried to with the physics community) but they are clearly nakedly dishonest and narcissistic.  They will do anything to squelch accurate critique, and it would be a shame if WP submitted to such actions of the Bogdanovs.  To keep them from wearing down even the admins and ArbCom, you will nearly certainly have to protect the article from editing, once an "objective" version is settled upon. r b-j 20:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One more additional comment, Fred Bauder's observation about me "not caught in this net" is accurate. I have never been involved externally in this affair.  Not once.  There is no web page about the Bogdanov affair with any contribution from me other than here at WP.  There is no USENET involvement from me at the original 2002 discussion on sci.physics.research at all.  I have made contributions to dozens of other WP articles and have let questionable (IMO) contributions by other editors slide many times (the Variable speed of light article is a good example of that, I had vigorously disputed the very concept of the meaningfulness of VSL with the article creator and have edited the article only twice, once for a NPOV header and another to take it out).  I also think that   is a NPOV editor.  I don't think that  is particularly NPOV but fully support her being allowed to edit because she behaves herself.  And, for certain,  has only recently started in on the Bogdanov Affair and there is no evidence that he/she has had any external involvement at all.  Why is Ze miguel caught in the net?  Using another metaphor, please be careful about the barrel length of the shotgun you shoot with.  Please make sure it's long enough.  r b-j 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of banning all the bogdamaniac contributors (including me) and to only allowed the contributions from people who had already written valuable articles on other subjects. To ban the bogdamaniac won't be efficient as long as "Grishka B.",ZCN or Rollande68 will be able to intervene there.--Luis A. 04:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just found out about the proposal of banning all new contributors and would like to thank those who have already mentioned me as a fair editor. Indeed I've never edited any other article on Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean I never will, and I suppose you've got to start somewhere, right ? I wouldn't dream of editing an article without having some sort of expertise about it. And it turns out I have some expertise (so to speak) about the Bogdanov Affair, so why couldn't I take part in the article, especially when I try to behave and respect both rules and co-editors ? I would definitely resent being banned on the mere account that I'm a new wikipedian or exclusively edit this article. --CatherineV 07:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to make a proposal to the Administration Committee for another possible decision to settle this issue: do absolutely nothing. As evidence that this might be a sensible approach, I would point out the Bogdanov Affair article itself: if one looks at it today, I think it is quite factual and, for the most part, NPOV. Furthermore, if one looks at the edit history of the past 10 days or so, there are less and less reverts, and these concern minor points. What disagreements remain on the content of the article are being actively discussed in the Talk page by the supporters and critics of the Bogdanovs in a (mostly) civil manner. So perhaps doing nothing might be a possible decision that could to be considered by the Committee. Just an idea. Ze miguel 20:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Update: Sorry, I did not realize that the Committee had already taken a decision. Please disregard my comment. Ze miguel 20:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * As an admin who has been monitoring the page and trying to enforce calm there for some days, I would like to stress that a number of users cited above have not only refrained from violating Wikipedia policies, but also made really positive contributions. I have found myself citing as an example for some others at least twice, for instance. If such a policy was to be implemented to some extend, it would be wise to be very selective as not to discourage valuable editors. Note that this proposal has caused some turmoil on Talk:Bogdanov Affair. Rama 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * With this comment, I do not mean to suggest that should be CatherineV as an exception to a general ban, but rather that a ban would be better directed at particular disturbing users. I think that liberty should be the rule and ban the exception. The page has been so disturbed that such measures as general ban might have been appropriate in the past, but now things have calmed down and I think that in the present state, a general ban would be overkilling. Rama 16:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Things have "calmed down" only because Rama has done what he could, as an administrator, to encourage a side to persevere (in this case : people against the Bogdanovs), and to discourage the others (people who defended them) from editing the article. I note, for example, that in the "Internet discussion" part of the article, the problem of the violence and the insults against the Bogdanovs on the fora has been completely concealed, not because a concensus has been found, but because it has been reverted each time we tried to mention it ! And yet I had given a lot of links to these fora, examples, names (pseudonyms) etc., it is a fact about which there are a lot of very concret evidences... but it was just censored each time, until I had to resign myself to stop editing. Rama cites Catherine as an exemple, but she tried also to mention the problem, and I don't see her text about it any more... So, there is no "stabilization" on this article, just intimadatory acts in order to prevent some editors from writing what they had to write.
 * Personally, I don't care about being banned, if the contributors who have tried to impose such a partial and malicious article are banned also. All I wish is preventing the article "Bogdanov affair" from being a settling of scores and a kind of game for people who have already harassed and insulted them on the fora.
 * Laurence67 18:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Laurence, the salient fact that you are overlooking or evading is that the Bogdanov Affair is about nothing other than the recognition of an academic failure regarding the credentialing of your friends and the subsequent dishonest behavior of the same. It's a story about some nasty doings, how can you expect an article documenting that to not reflect poorly on the Bogdanov brothers?  It's like having an article about Child pornography  or pedophiles.  Should there be a 50%-50% "balanced" treatment where every anti-pedophile fact is "balanced" with a pro-pedophile defense?
 * What the Bogdanov brothers did was literally a fraud (if not a hoax) perpetrated upon the physics and academic community as well as on the general French population. The fraud was compounded by the clear dishonesty of Igor by use of sock-puppets here at WP as well as other internet venues.  It is compounded further by use of legal threats. It's an ugly situation.  To whitewash this into anything else, dilutes Wikipedia as a reference of authority. r b-j 21:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're comparing this to, gasp, child pornography?!? I'm speechless. --CatherineV 07:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * i could only wish!
 * now, Catherine, can you address the actual argument (without the use of a strawman)? why should the negative behavior of Igor (and sometime Grichka) be presented in a form that is ambiguous regarding its wrongfulness?  are you saying that dishonesty (the myriad phony sock-puppets, the deliberate misrepresentation of critique into praise), the arrogance (Igor has never submitted to an edit ban, has he now?), the legal threats, the narcissism, etc.  should all of this foolishness be presented in a 50%-50% "balanced" treatment where every anti-dishonesty fact is "balanced" with a pro-dishonesty defense? r b-j 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your argument is based on an erroneous (to say the least) comparison. The article is, first and foremost, about the merit of scientific articles. And yes, it deserves to be balanced. Now, you are comparing the use of sock puppets, the mistranslation of "possible" into "certain" and the bypassing of a ban on wikipedia, to the worst crime committed by mankind for which there is no possible balance. Your argument is void. And burn that strawman. CatherineV 15:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The strawman is the implication that I am comparing the Bogdanovs to pedophiles in a primary sense. I am comparing the argument that Igor has made many times that every critical fact regarding his or his brother's "scholarly" output or subsequent behavior be "balanced" by a defense from him.  Like this is a 50-50 thing.  So we'll have the anti-sockpuppet statement balanced by the pro-sockpuppet defense?  How about the anti-legal-threat-as-a-rhetorical-stragegy citing balanced by a pro-legal-threat-as-a-rhetorical-stragegy?  We should balance every citing of a Bogdanov lie with Igor's explanation that the lie was justified?  That is the comparison to pedophiles because there are actually human beings that openly defend pedophilia between consenting persons.  They would demand equal time, but I seriously do not think that an accurate and responsible WP article about the subject should give them that equal time.  Do you?
 * The article is, first and foremost, about the merit of "scientific" articles of the Bogdanovs. No one else.  It is also about the subsequent profoundly dishonest behavior and narcissism of the Bogdanovs.  No one else.  I don't want any pro-dishonesty defenses or pro-narcissism apologetics in the article.  Do you? r b-j 22:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I hope this comparison will make more obvious your hystery against the Bogdanovs than anything I could have written about your behavior.
 * Laurence67 10:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ... speaking of hysterics.... r b-j 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * About RBJ Pedophile allegation: It is a shame, a real shame, that so called "editors" as RBJ even dare to compare this article to an article on the pedophilia.  I am outraged of such a comparison which allows to suppose many things. I ask that this "editor" be quite simply banned. Igor

 * Sacrebleu ! It just sounds like the technique of "the scarecrow"

 * well, we'll just have to let the words of Igor and his groupies speak for themselves.

“This logical mistake occurs when, deliberately or not, someone attacks a different argument from wich has been presented by his contradictor. The real argument is twisted, exagerated or simplified to be replaced with an argument easier to refute.”

 * it's called the Strawman fallacy. r b-j 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * O.K.,in french it's the "scarecrow". --Luis A. 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Exemple :

-	It's a story about some nasty doings, how can you expect an article documenting that to not reflect poorly on the Bogdanov brothers? It's like having an article about Child pornography or pedophiles. Should there be a 50%-50% "balanced" treatment where every anti-pedophile fact is "balanced" with a pro-pedophile defense?

-	It is a shame, a real shame, that so called "editors" as RBJ even dare to compare this article to an article on the pedophilia. I am outraged of such a comparison which allows to suppose many things. I ask that this "editor" be quite simply banned.

--Luis A. 20:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Taking the idea of Kelly Martin, why not soft-ban everybody from this article (and related ones) ? This might not discourage valuable users from contributing, and will have the same effect than a regular ban to those who come on Wikipedia only for warring on the article. Rama 19:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In my humble defense, I have worked quite hard to achieve a consensus on this article. Yes, it is the only article that I've edited because it was the first article that I read on Wikipedia where I thought it was unnecessarily biased.  (In fact, I thought it was unfairly biased against the Bogdanoff brothers.)    Banning all users will only prevent honest people, such as me, CatherineV, and Ze Miguel from making sensible edits to an article.  None of us, I believe, have ever been blocked from this, or any, article.  Some of the more "aggressive" editors -- read: Igor -- will continue to edit this article by evading blocks (he has admitted this several times already), using sock puppets (he has admitted this several times already), or using meat puppets (such as the comical intervention by the French Government, which turned out to be a student and girlfriend of Igor's.  If you've never read this exchange, you really should: it is one of life's great pleasures.).  So why ban the honest and "aggressive" editors when it will effect only half the equation?
 * I find the suggestion perplexing that we (the honest editors) should be banned because we edit this article frequently. Is it Wiki policy that sustained interest in an article's content over a few weeks results in a permanent ban?  If there are specific complaints about my behavior or rule violations, then those should be addressed.  But there have been none.  The proposal to soft ban any honest editor appears heavy handed.
 * --EE Guy 14:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I am another administrator who has been involved in trying to keep the page under control; indeed, my involvement in this matter has been long-standing, since I was also the mediator who handled the Bogdanov Affair case at Mediation Cabal. Although the mediation has been long since abandoned, I would like to point out that it would seem somewhat unfair to tar all of the involved parties with the same brush, since many have done valuable work on making the article NPOV through neutralising the material posted by both the critical parties and by the Bogdanov supporters. In particular, neither EE Guy, CatherineV nor Ze miguel have so far violated 3RR (while Igor B. and YBM most certainly have) and are, by and large, reasonably civil and responsible in dealing with the matter in comparison to the other participants of the dispute. If the opinion of the arbitrators is that these users are only here to "fight out" the Bogdanov Affair dispute on the wiki, then I would say that an injunction from both the article and its talk page would be identically successful in achieving the desired result and that a blanket ban for these users from Wikipedia would be both unjust and wide of the mark. The conduct of YBM, Igor B. and, in some cases, rb-j, would conclude me to believe that a complete ban would, however, be justified for them. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 16:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nicholas, with respect, have you thought that complete ban proposal all the way through? Banning YBM, Igor, and Rbj from editing wiki is a net that would catch Rbj only, since he's the only one of the three that's got any interest in contributing to wiki in the larger sense. For YBM and Igor, banned from wiki is merely synonymous with banned from Bogdanov Affair, but for Rbj that's far from being the case. Rbj is passionate about Bogdanov Affair, but has anybody suggested that he edits inappropriately outside that miserable article? As far as I know, he's a valuable editor. Note that nuisance editors and notorious trolls who do nothing here but waste others' time are rarely dealt with as harshly as you suggest, and that bans and blocks are, in any case, supposed to exist for preventing inappropriate editing only. They're not supposed to be punitive. Bishonen | talk 03:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In addition, Nicholas (and Fred), I would ask you to be specific about in what cases my conduct has been so far off of the mark. I certainly have come to the conclusion that Igor Bogdanov is profoundly mendacious and narcissistic.  That is a judgement (after a lot of web research) not a pre-judgement or prejudice.  I came into this whole mess pretty clean, and due to the record of Bogdanov recalcitrance, came to believe that any neutral article about this affair simply cannot reflect well upon them and/or their (or specifically Igor's) behavior.  Upon coming to this conclusion, I have said (more precisely typed) some harsh words in the talk page regarding the Bogdanovs (that Igor and Laurence67 like to quote) that I continue to stand by, but none of those harsh words went into the article.  There is plenty of unflattering facts from outside of my opinion that can fill the article and I do not need to add my opinion to that, and have not.  Yet, the external facts, flattering or unflattering, must be allowed into the article undiluted lest the Bogdanovs are, again, not held to account for their work product or subsequent defense of it.  Remember, they constructed (or contrived) quite a reputation for themselves in France as some popular-science geniuses, and if that is constructed on a fallacious foundation, we and everyone have a right to know that without dilution.  Editing about that (as well as other unsavory topics, like Monicagate) is not inappropriate.  And it is inappropriate to dilute the factual data or the meaning of it, so that the subject's ego can be left intact.
 * Twice both Igor and I were blocked for 3RR violation. In both times I was reverting Igor's repeated contemptuous and craven deletion of text that was indisputably factual, salient, and relevant (because it was not flattering to Igor).  The second time I was blocked, it was after admin Snowspinner specifically said "not to worry about 3RR" in reverting Igor's "vandalism" (Snowspinner's words).  In both cases, when I was blocked, I lumped it and took my medicine patiently and refrained from finding another IP (and sock-puppet pseudonym) and editing during the blocked period.  In both cases, Igor ignored the block, got a fresh IP, and flagrantly edited the article (the second time as the article was protected the first time) and the Talk page multiple times.
 * I have been editing many other articles in Wkipedia for more than a year. I did not come to the Bogdanov Affair with an agenda (but I certainly formed opinions after getting involved - that is not contrary to NPOV).  However Igor, his sock-puppets, his meat-puppets (Laurence67, XAL (Sophie), CatherineV) have done nothing here at Wikipedia except to support the Bogdanovs and to paint this ugly affair in the most flattering manner possible.  They have no other agenda here at WP.  They came when Igor discovered the article and called in his groupies to defend him.  So, let's see... respectfully, how is it that you Nicholas (and Fred) include me in the same "net" as Igor, Laurence67, XAL, or CatherineV?  How do you include EEGuy or Ze in the same net?  Are you going to go after Alain_r or even Snowspinner (heaven forbid)?  How short is the barrel of your shotgun? r b-j 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, both Bishonen and rb-j made very valid points which I hadn't quite considered. I withdraw any inclination I had towards having rb-j blocked from Wikipedia, and no longer support such a motion by the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps, then, a better solution would be to impose a "soft-ban" injunction against *everyone* editing Bogdanov Affair who has been involved in the dispute (including myself) in the interests of fairness until the matter is resolved, and not imposing any Wikipedia blocks save for those the Arbitration Committee considers to be necessary to avoid threat to the rest of the Wikipedia community. I should point out that having looked at the work that rb-j has done, although I have not participated in a similarly ascerbic manner on the talk page, my actions in editing the article have been somewhat comparable - thus it may be considered appropriate by the arbitrators to impose a sanction on me as well. Regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Isn't it possible to ban rbj only for the article(s) concerning the Bogdanov affair ? He may be good for other articles, but you cannot reasonnably let him edit almost alone an article on 2 people he hates so much, and who he insulted so often and in such a way !
 * Laurence67 08:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's possible, and without underwriting what you say about hate and insults, I think it would be adapted to the practicalities of the situation. It's being proposed as a temporary measure in two out of the three injunction proposals now being voted on at /Proposed decision. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * --- I am surprised that the developement of these discussions takes. Because it appears that far from disturbing the article,  I wrote, 3 weeks ago, that I agreed with the version which was valid at this time.   Unfortunately, some editors as indelicate as rbj or YBM started again the polemic. I recognize that EE GUY had a very positive action on the article some time ago, but that, lately, he expressed a lack of confidence in what I wrote  (ie the mentions problem) and became kind of aggressive  (seing aggressivity in my posts).  Anyway,  my sole suggestion would be to suspend indelicate posters like YBM and RBJ.
 * Igor
 * Igor, speaking of suspending posters, what would you do if they suspended you? Would that stop you from editing the article or talk page?  Had it in the past?  What authority do you claim for editing the article and talk page during a time when both of us were blocked for 3RR?  (The first time at your request, you hypocrisy nearly came back to bite you Igor, except that you ignored your block and edited from another IP anyway.)  What justification do you offer to the ArbCom for editing (using other IPs) during the period that you were blocked for 3RR violation? r b-j 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * i guess, even though Igor has not answered this question directly (when he could, before getting banned), he has de facto answered it by what can be seen at the article history page. To the ArbCom:  I do not think that you will easily be able to keep Igor and sock-puppets from editing the article without explicitly protecting it, at least long enough that Igor might give up and move on.  it's just an opinion. r b-j 19:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And of course, neither you nor Laurence67...Nothing to say about the "decreasing sequence" page 292 ?

 * --Luis A. 19:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

After years of "virtual confrontations" on various foras he created,  I can recognize his style between many others : directly of not,  Luis = YBM. This kind of equallity should not surprise me, I suppose. Igor

 * Of course i'm Ybm ("directly or not" ????).Of course everybody use sock puppets like you did.
 * just for the record, not everybody use sock puppets (or multiple WP accounts or anonymous IPs) like Igor does. some of us don't do that. r b-j 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you just can't see why your proposal above is pathetic, i think your case is about pathology.

Another style worth recognizing : It is a shame, a real shame, that so called "contributors" as Igor even dare to compare my style to an Ybm's style. I am outraged of such a comparison which allows to suppose many things. I ask that this "contributor" be quite simply banned.

Nothing to say about the "decreasing sequence" page 292 ?

--Luis A. 23:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you from one partly banned party.
I dunno if this is appropriate or not, but i want to thank the ArbCom and admins for recognizing the damage to Wikipedia's value and reputation that "some" (or at least one, if you resolve the sock-puppets all together) of the banned editors were attempting to make for their own self-serving purposes. I sure don't need to edit it as it is. I believe the article, as it stands now, is pretty good, factual, and fair. I know the subject of the article will not say that, but he has to look to himself (and his brother) and come to terms with the real reason such an embarassment is now exposed to sunlight. Hopefully, they can take their Ph.Ds. and book royaltees, count their lucky stars that these have not been stripped from them, and move on. I realize, that once I form an opinion on a moral/ethical/political issue, I can be pretty abrasive. But it was getting pretty clear what the truth was and who wanted to "suppress" it. Thank you, folks. r b-j 06:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Legal dispute
1), now editing as , is engaged in a legal dispute with others who edit Bogdanov Affair

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is off the wall stuff, but would form the basis for a ban pending resolution of all legal issues. Fred Bauder 01:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The simpler ways of achieving the needed outcomes are better. James F. (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no credible legal dispute here. We can ban her for any number of things, and those reasons aren't subject to being lifted upon repudiation of the "legal dispute".  Kelly Martin 19:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * Oh, please swallow that pseudo-legal gnat and ban XAL for the herd of camels. Note that the targeted victim of the "threat", YBM, was so un-scared by the "evidence" being collected "on the Internet" etc that he didn't even bother to refer to it. Ban her for disruptiveness, inability to work with others, unproductiveness (zero edits to article space), using wikipedia talkpages as blogs (she actually refers to them as blogs), and for spitting in our faces, not for being "in a legal dispute". Ban her for never listening to anybody. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Focus of dispute
2) The Bogdanov Affair is a controversy which arose when the merit of the speculative work in theoretical physics by Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, French television personalities, was questioned by other physicists. Participants in the controversy, including Igor Bogdanov, are editing the article aggressively.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Certain editors, notably and, edit nothing else, devoting their entire effort to churning this article. Fred Bauder 21:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; maybe a principle that people should edit more than merely one article (but then we're telling people what to edit, if only very generally, and one of the great things about Wikipedia is that one only has to edit that in which one is interested). Not sure. James F. (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:
 * , in particular, has written numerous web sites prior to editing Wikipedia which are very critical toward the Bogdanov. It makes sense to infer that he has come here with the specific purpose of fighting the Bogdanov version of the article. Rama 06:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I readily grant that YBM appears obsessed by this Affair, but he has also been invaluable in providing verifiable, irrefutable evidence against some rather peculiar claims made by the Bogdanoff brothers. The Bogdanoff brothers, I'm sure, would love to see him banned.  Igor frequently reminds us that YBM once called them "salauds" (bastards) on a Web forum.  While his behavior in editing the article has certainly been "voluminous," the only rule violations are for reverting Igor's (and associated sock puppets') edits.
 * --EE Guy 14:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Continuing edits by banned editors
3) Editing by banned users on both sides of the issue continues in the face of a temporary injunction.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A comment from one banned editor "Reverting Igor's vandalism... YOU'RE BANNED!! Stop using sock puppets" Fred Bauder 13:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * Yup, that was me... I had just returned from an overseas trip, wasn't logged into my account, and hadn't realized that I was banned myself. My apologies. --EE Guy 68.54.2.189 00:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been compiling a small statistical analysis of the edits done on the Bogdanov Affair article since the injunction that may be of some interest for the ArbCom: User:Ze miguel/B tracker. -- Ze miguel 10:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Is the ArbCom aware that their ban has been ineffective?
1) The ban passed by the ArbCom has effectlvely kept myself and the other less sympathetic editors from editing the article but has not kept the subject of the article, who has shown a vested interest in editing out unflattering factual and relevant data and who has been completely banned from Wikipedia, from editing the article multiple times. I don't have a specific proposed enforcement (other than reverting out the Bogdanov edits and protecting the article for a good long time), but thought I would let you know about this. r b-j 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, the question of who is obeying the injunction is of some interest Fred Bauder 01:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

A proposal regarding enforcement
2) I have suggest this before, but not officially. Now I will as "officially" as I am allowed to do.  Why not protect the article for the maximum period (I believe that to be 7 days) so that people don't have to waste time defending it from the vandalism of the subject of the article?  When the 7 days (or whatever period that the ArbCom deems is more appropriate) expires, the article can be legitimately edited and also it would most certainly be vandalized by the article's subject for a short period of time (hours, or maybe one day).  A WP admin could then revert any vandalism and clean out any POV that was added during this period, and then reprotect the article for another week (or whatever period seems most appropriate by the ArbCom).  This would have to be done for weeks until the subject of the article might eventually give up on it and trial periods of un-protection could be tried to see how much vandalism it gets. If vandalism flairs up again, the article could be re-protected for this period of time again. I believe, once the article's subject and principal vandal is convinced that his vandalism is not going to be allowed to stick and that his repeated attempts to wear the admins and other editors out will not succeed, he might give up. But it will take time and determination. Why not minimize the cost of such determination by protecting the article? Thank you for considering this. r b-j 20:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:


text:
Traditional dyes of the Scottish Highlands

Traditional dyes of the Scottish Highlands are the native vegetable dyes used in Scottish Gaeldom.

The following are the principal dyestuffs with the colours they produce. Several of the tints are very bright, but have now been superseded for convenience of usage by various synthetic dyes. The Latin names are given where known and also the Scottish Gaelic names for various ingredients.

Recipes
Many of the dyes are made from lichens, the useful ones for this purpose being known as crottle.

The process employed is to wash the thread thoroughly in urine long kept ("fual"), rinse and wash in pure water, then put into the boiling pot of dye which is kept boiling hot on the fire. The thread is lifted now and again on the end of a stick, and again plunged in until it is all thoroughly dyed. If blue, the thread is then washed in salt water, but any other colour uses fresh water.

Amateurs may wish to experiment with some of the suggestions, as urine (human or animal) is used in many recipes as a mordant. A number of the recipes used are for more than one colour, and this chart is only a guide.

Claret

 * Claret – "corcar" – the cudbear lichen, Ochrolechia tartarea, scraped off rocks and steeped in urine for three months, then taken out, made into cakes, and hung in bags to dry. When used these cakes are reduced to powder, and the colour fixed with alum.

Black – Dubh

 * Black (finest) –
 * Common dock root with copperas.
 * "Darach" – oak bark and copperas
 * (also grey), "seileastair", iris root
 * "Sgìtheach", hawthorn bark with copperas
 * Alder bark with copperas
 * Blue-black
 * Common sloe – Prunus spinosa – "preas nan àirneag"
 * Bearberry – Arctostaphylos uva ursi, "grainnseag"

Blue – Gorm

 * Blue
 * Blaeberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) with alum or copperas
 * Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) with alum
 * "Ailleann" elecampane

Brown – Donn

 * Brown
 * Common yellow wall lichen – Xanthoria parietina
 * Dark "crotal" (type of lichen) – Parmelia cetarophilia
 * "Duileasg" (dulse), a kind of seaweed.
 * Currant with alum
 * Dark chestnut-brown
 * Roots of "rabhagach", the white waterlily
 * Dark brown
 * Blaeberry with nut-galls
 * Reddish brown - Ruadh
 * The dark purple lichen ‘cen cerig cen du' (gun chéire gun dubh – i.e. neither crimson nor black) treated in the same way as the lichen for the claret dye.
 * Philamot
 * Yellowish "crotal" (type of lichen), the colour of dead leaves – Parmelia saxatilis
 * Drab or fawn
 * Birch bark, Betula pubescens

Green – Uaine

 * Green
 * Ripe privet berries with salt (listed for crimson too)
 * Weld Reseda luteola, "lus buidhe mòr", with indigo
 * "Rùsg conaisg", whin bark
 * Cow weed
 * "Lively" green
 * Common broom
 * Dark green
 * Heather, Erica cinerea, "fraoch-bhadain" with alum. The heather must be pulled before flowering and from a dark, shady place.
 * Iris leaf ("Duilleag seileisteir")

Magenta

 * Magenta
 * Dandelion, Taraxacum officinale, "beàrnan-Brìde"

Orange – Orains/Dearg-buidhe

 * Orange
 * Ragweed ("Stinking Billy") – Senecio jacobaea, "buaghallan"
 * Barberry root –Berberis vulgaris, "barbrag"
 * Dark orange
 * Bramble –Rubus fruticosus, "preas smeur"

Purple – Corcar/Purpaidh

 * Purple
 * Euonymus (Spindle tree), with sal-ammoniac
 * Sundew – Drosera rotundifolia, "lus na feàrnaich"
 * Blaeberry – Vaccinium myrtillus, with alum

Red – Dearg

 * Red
 * Tormentil – Potentilla tormentilla, "leanartach"
 * Rock lichen – Ramalina scopulorum, "crotal"
 * White crottle – Ochrolechia pallescens, "crotal-geal"
 * Fine red
 * Rue – Galium verum, "ladies' bedstraw". A very fine red is obtained from this. Strip the bark off the roots, then boil them in water to extract the remainder of the virtue, then take the roots out and put the bark in, and boil that and the yarn together, adding alum to fix the colour.
 * Galium boreale – treated in the same way as Galium verum above.
 * Purple-red
 * Blaeberry – Vaccinium myrtillus, lus nan dearc, with alum, verdigris and sal-ammoniac
 * Crimson
 * "Crotal-corcar" – Ochrolechia tartarea, white and ground with urine. This was once in favour for producing a bright crimson dye.
 * Scarlet
 * Limestone lichen – Urceolaria calcaria, "Crotal cloich-aoil" – used by the peasantry in limestone districts, such as Shetland.
 * Ripe privet berries with salt. (Listed for green too!)

Violet

 * Violet
 * Wild cress – Nasturtium officinale "biolair"
 * Bitter vetchling – Lathyrus linifolius — cairmeal
 * Bilberries fixed with alum

Yellow – Buidhe

 * Yellow
 * Apple-tree, ash and buckthorn
 * Poplar and elm
 * Bog myrtle, Roid
 * Ash roots
 * Teazle – Dipsacus fullonum – lùs an fhùcadair/leadan
 * Bracken roots – Raineach mhòr
 * Cow weed
 * Tops and flowers of heather, Calluna, fraoch
 * Weld, Reseda luteola, "lus-buidhe mòr", dried, reduced to powder and boiled.
 * Leaves and twigs of dwarf birch, beithe-bheag
 * Bright yellow
 * Sundew – Drosera rotundifolia, "lus na feàrnaich" with ammonia
 * Rich Yellow
 * St John's Wort, achlasan Chalum cille, fixed with alum
 * Dirty yellow
 * Peat soot. Obviously this ingredient on its own will not produce yellow
 * Rhubarb, (monk's) – Rumex alpinus – lus na purgaid


text:
The House on the Edge of the Park

The House on the Edge of the Park (La casa sperduta nel parco) is a 1980 English-language Italian exploitation horror film written by Gianfranco Clerici and Vincenzo Mannino, and directed by Ruggero Deodato. It stars David A. Hess and Giovanni Lombardo Radice as two criminals who infiltrate a posh gathering in a villa and violently turn against the partygoers after they mock them. The film is a loose remake of The Last House on the Left (1972), in which Hess also starred.

Plot
Alex is a serial killer driving around New York City at night when he spots a young woman, Susan, driving alongside him. He follows her to a nearby park, where he rapes her before strangling her to death. He then takes her locket as a trophy.

Sometime later, Alex and his friend Ricky are closing up the underground garage where they both work, planning to go to a local disco. Before they can leave, a Cadillac pulls in with a young, well-dressed couple, Tom and his girlfriend Lisa, asking for help with their car. Alex refuses to help them, saying that the garage is closed, but the slow-witted Ricky decides to help and easily fixes the problem. Tom tells Alex and Ricky that they are driving to a friend's house in New Jersey for a party and invites them along. Before leaving, Alex stops by his locker, filled with various weapons he uses to murder people, and takes a straight-edged razor.

The four arrive at a large villa, welcomed by the owner, Gloria, and her friends, Glenda and Howard. Minutes later, it becomes obvious to Alex and Ricky that the rich people are looking for easy thrills. Gloria asks Ricky to do a striptease to some disco music and is further humiliated by being goaded to drink alcohol with each move. However, Alex stops Ricky before he strips completely naked. Tom, Howard, and Glenda next play poker with Ricky while Lisa begins sexually teasing Alex and invites him upstairs to shower with her, only to push him away.

As Alex becomes more frustrated, he sees the hosts cheating at poker with Ricky. Alex pulls out the straight-edge razor, and a fight breaks out between him and Howard. Alex throws Howard outside the back door, beats him viciously, and throws him into the pool. Laughing, Alex urinates on Howard and drags him back inside, tying him to a piano leg and proclaiming that he is running the party now.

Alex and Ricky proceed to beat on their hosts-turned-hostages, with Alex slashing Tom's face with the razor and smashing his face into the poker table. Ricky holds the others at bay with a wine bottle while Alex sexually assaults both Gloria and Glenda. Lisa runs to an upstairs bedroom where she tries to escape, but Alex catches her and proceeds to rape her. When Alex takes Lisa downstairs to rejoin the others, the doorbell rings. Alex forces Gloria to answer; when she opens the door, it's their teenage neighbor, Cindy. Alex grabs Cindy while Gloria tries to escape. Still holding the broken wine bottle, Ricky runs outside after Gloria and catches her, showing Gloria that he means no harm by tossing aside the wine bottle. Gloria responds to his simple nature by taking off her clothes and seducing him.

Inside, Alex cuts Cindy's blouse off with the razor while singing. Ricky then returns to the house with Gloria just as Alex forces Cindy to strip off the rest of her clothes and repeatedly slashes her with his razor. At this point, Ricky changes his mind and attempts to stop Alex. Upset at being betrayed by his friend, Alex turns against Ricky, slashes his abdomen wide open, and then breaks down in regret.

Bloodied and battered, Tom runs into the nearby study and pulls a 9mm pistol out from a desk drawer. Tom shoots Alex a few times, then kicks him through the glass back door. Gloria and the other women untie Howard, and the 5 descend upon the fatally wounded Alex lying on the ground. Tom removes the locket Alex is wearing and reveals the reason for all this: the woman Alex raped and murdered at the park is Tom's sister, and Tom wants revenge. He and Lisa lured them to Gloria's house so they could kill them and make it look like self-defense. After shouting at him, Tom shoots the wounded Alex in the groin, making him fall into the swimming pool. Tom and Lisa take turns shooting Alex, who thrashes weakly in the water before a final bullet to the head by Howard finishes him for good.

Gloria stops Howard from shooting Ricky after returning to the house while Glenda tends to the wounded Cindy. Tom and Lisa go into the study to talk about their plan. Tom says that it worked out for the best despite some mistakes and then picks up the phone to call the police.

Cast

 * David A. Hess as Alex
 * Annie Belle as Lisa
 * Christian Borromeo as Tom
 * Giovanni Lombardo Radice as Ricky
 * Marie Claude Joseph as Glenda
 * Gabriele Di Giulio as Howard
 * Brigitte Petronio as Cindy
 * Karoline Mardeck as Susan
 * Lorraine De Selle as Gloria

Production
The entire film was shot on a low budget, in only three weeks in September 1979, after Deodato had finished production on Cannibal Holocaust. Exteriors were done on location in New York City, while Interiors were completed at Incir De Paolis Studios in Rome, Italy.

Once during an interview about the making of the film, Deodato was asked about his initial thoughts of the script when he first read it. He responded: "I thought it was too violent. I make violent films, but softer ones. But this film was full of violence, and that made me uncomfortable. When I met David Hess, I thought that with my direction I could make him do anything. But when I first read it, I found it quite disturbing."

David A. Hess claimed he had real sex with Annie Belle in their bed scene.

Release
The House on the Edge of the Park was initially rejected for a UK cinema certificate by the BBFC when first submitted on 16 March 1981, and later found itself on the DPP list of "video nasties" when it was revealed that the uncut version was readily available on UK video. When it was eventually passed by the BBFC in July 2002, it was cut by 11 minutes and 43 seconds, with almost all of the rape and violence either replaced or removed entirely. It was resubmitted in 2011 and received an almost uncut release, now only being cut by 42 seconds. It was finally passed fully uncut in April 2022.

In 2006, the BBFC commissioned a group of academics at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth to conduct research into people's responses to films that include scenes of sexual violence. The House on the Edge of the Park is one of the films included in their remit to examine.

Home media
The American company Media Blasters released the film on DVD through their Shriek Show label in its fully uncut form on 17 December 2002. It was released on DVD in the UK in 2011 by 'Shameless Screen Entertainment'. A limited edition Blu-ray was released by Code Red in August 2016. It was released on Blu-ray by Severin Films on 29 March 2022, with a newly scanned 4K transfer from the original camera negative, a bonus documentary disc, Deodato Holocaust, and a soundtrack CD by Riz Ortolani.

Sequel
On 27 February 2011, the Dread Central movie website exclusively reported that UK production company North Bank Entertainment were teaming up with director Deodato and actor Radice for The House on the Edge of the Park Part II, a direct sequel to the original film.

title: The House on the Edge of the Park


text:
Talk:Rock Island Centennial Bridge

Death?
I heard that Iowa police sent a black man across the bridge into Illinois and he ended up falling off to his death, but I could not find the story. Is it true? Crossing the bridge on foot was illegal for safety reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5210:A900:CBE:548D:ABC4:9EA2 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested Rename
The current situation is that Centennial Bridge is the main article, and Rock Island Centennial Bridge is a redirect to it. I think this is a mistake, as the article should be known by its most specific name to avoid ambiguity. In particular, I have added an article about the Centennial Bridge, Panama, so I think that Centennial Bridge should become a disambiguation page. — Johantheghost 15:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Go Ahead. Dragons flight 00:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

All fixed! — Johantheghost 16:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Umm... any interest in moving it to Centennial Bridge (Illinois-Iowa)? Is it generally referred to as the Rock Island Centennial Bridge? Is the official name Centennial Bridge or Rock Island Centennial Bridge? The idea I'm getting at is if it's not called Rock Island Centennial Bridge, the article shouldn't be named that -- there should be a proper disambiguated article page. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rock Island Centennial Bridge


text:
List of whisky brands

This is a list of whisky brands arranged by country of origin and style. Whisky (or whiskey) is a type of distilled alcoholic beverage made from fermented grain mash. Different grains are used for different varieties, including barley, malted barley, rye, malted rye, wheat, and corn. Whisky is typically aged in wooden casks, made generally of charred white oak.

American whiskey

Thirteen large distilleries owned by eight companies produce over 99% of the whiskey made in the U.S. Of the thirteen, ten are in Kentucky, two are in Tennessee, and one is in Indiana. The three states are grouped together in the east-central mainland region of the United States.
 * Beam Suntory's Booker Noe Distillery (Boston, Kentucky), Jim Beam Distillery (Clermont, Kentucky), and Maker's Mark Distillery (Loretto, Kentucky)
 * Brown–Forman's Brown–Forman Distillery (Shively, Kentucky), Jack Daniel Distillery (Lynchburg, Tennessee), and Woodford Reserve Distillery (Versailles, Kentucky)
 * Campari's Wild Turkey Distillery (Lawrenceburg, Kentucky)
 * Diageo's George Dickel Distillery (Tullahoma, Tennessee)
 * Heaven Hill's Bernheim Distillery (Louisville, Kentucky)
 * Kirin's Four Roses Distillery (Lawrenceburg, Kentucky)
 * MGP Ingredients' Ross & Squib Distillery (Lawrenceburg, Indiana)
 * Sazerac's Barton 1792 Distillery (Bardstown, Kentucky) and Buffalo Trace Distillery (Frankfort, Kentucky)

Kentucky bourbon

Brands are listed alphabetically by brand ownership and the name and location of the distillery. The brand owner is included if different.
 * Alltech brands:
 * Lexington Brewing and Distilling Company, Lexington, Kentucky
 * Town Branch
 * Beam Suntory brands:
 * Jim Beam distillery Booker Noe plant, Boston, Kentucky
 * Jim Beam (also made at Jim Beam Distillery)
 * Jim Beam Distillery, Clermont:
 * Basil Hayden's (small batch)
 * Booker's (small batch)
 * Baker's (small batch)
 * Jim Beam (also made at Jim Beam distillery Booker Noe plant)
 * Knob Creek (small batch)
 * Old Crow
 * Old Grand-Dad
 * Red Stag by Jim Beam
 * Maker's Mark Distillery, Loretto
 * Maker's Mark (small batch, wheated)
 * Brown–Forman brands:
 * Brown–Forman Distillery, Shively:
 * Early Times
 * Old Forester
 * Woodford Reserve Distillery, Versailles
 * Woodford Reserve (small batch)
 * Campari Group brands:
 * Wild Turkey Distillery, Lawrenceburg:
 * Russell's Reserve
 * Wild Turkey
 * Diageo brands:
 * Bulleit Distillery, Shelbyville, Shelby County, Kentucky.
 * Bulleit Bourbon
 * Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. brands:
 * Heaven Hill Distillery, Louisville:Heaven Hill Bourbon.JPG
 * Cabin Still
 * Elijah Craig (small batch and 18-year single barrel)
 * Evan Williams
 * Fighting Cock
 * Heaven Hill
 * J.T.S. Brown
 * Old Fitzgerald (wheated)
 * Old Heaven Hill
 * Kirin brands:
 * Four Roses Distillery, Lawrenceburg
 * Four Roses
 * MGP Ingredients brands:
 * Heaven Hill Distillery, Louisville:
 * Ezra Brooks
 * Old Ezra 101
 * Rebel Yell (wheated)
 * Yellowstone
 * Pernod Ricard brands:
 * Distillery unidentified:
 * Jefferson's Bourbon
 * Sazerac brands (and brands produced exclusively by Sazerac):
 * Barton 1792 Distillery, Bardstown:
 * 1792 Ridgemont Reserve
 * Kentucky Gentleman
 * Kentucky Tavern
 * Ten High
 * Very Old Barton
 * Buffalo Trace Distillery, Frankfort:
 * Ancient Age
 * Blanton's (single barrel) (owned by Age International, a subsidiary of Takara Holdings)
 * Buffalo Trace
 * Eagle Rare (single barrel)
 * George T. Stagg (barrel proof, uncut, unfiltered)
 * Hancock's President's Reserve (single barrel)
 * McAfee's Benchmark
 * Old Charter
 * Old Rip Van Winkle (an Old Rip Van Winkle / Sazerac joint venture brand, wheated)
 * Old Taylor (Clermont)
 * Pappy Van Winkle (an Old Rip Van Winkle / Sazerac joint venture brand, wheated)
 * Rock Hill Farms Single-Barrel (single barrel)
 * W. L. Weller (wheated)

 * Willett Distillery brands:
 * Willett Distillery-owned brands:
 * Johnny Drum, Bardstown
 * Kentucky Vintage (small batch)
 * Noah's Mill (small batch)
 * Rowan's Creek (small batch)
 * Vintage Bourbon
 * Willett Pot Still Reserve (single barrel)
 * Brands exclusively bottled by Willett Distillery (brand owners noted):
 * Old Pogue (a Pogue brand) (small batch)
 * Other brands:
 * Kentucky Owl – SPI Group (currently distilled in Harrodsburg; production to move to Bardstown in 2020 )

Other bourbon

 * Virginia Gentleman – A. Smith Bowman Distillery, Fredericksburg, Virginia
 * Cougar Bourbon – MGP Ingredients, Lawrenceburg, Indiana (a Foster's Group brand, export only, sold in Australia and New Zealand)
 * George Remus Bourbon – MGP Ingredients, Lawrenceburg, Indiana
 * Kings County Bourbon, Brooklyn, New York
 * Bridge & Main - Cleveland Whiskey, Cleveland, Ohio
 * Cleveland Black Reserve Bourbon - Cleveland Whiskey, Cleveland, Ohio
 * Cleveland Underground Bourbon Whiskey Finished with Black Cherry Wood - Cleveland Whiskey, Cleveland, Ohio
 * Wheat Penny 1958 Bourbon - Cleveland Whiskey, Cleveland, Ohio

Tennessee whiskey

 * Jack Daniel's (a Brown–Forman brand), Lynchburg
 * George Dickel (a Diageo brand), Tullahoma
 * Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey, Shelbyville
 * Benjamin Prichard's Tennessee Whiskey, Kelso
 * Chattanooga Whiskey, Chattanooga (not yet producing Tennessee whiskey)

Corn whiskey

 * Georgia Moon Corn Whiskey, Heaven Hill Distilleries, Louisville, Kentucky
 * Kings County Distillery Corn Whiskey, Kings County Distillery, Brooklyn, New York
 * Mellow Corn Kentucky Straight Corn Whiskey, Heaven Hill Distilleries, Louisville, Kentucky
 * Midnight Moon, Piedmont Distillers, Madison, North Carolina
 * Ole Smoky, Ole Smoky Distillery, Gatlinburg, Tennessee
 * Platte Valley 100% Straight Corn Whiskey, McCormick Distilling Company, Weston, Missouri
 * The Gonzales Corn Whiskey, Clifford Distilling LLC, Port Arthur, Texas

Rye whiskey

 * Beam Suntory brands:
 * Jim Beam Rye
 * Knob Creek Rye
 * Old Overholt
 * Diageo brands:
 * Bulleit Rye
 * Dickel Rye
 * MGP Ingredients brands:
 * High West Rye
 * Templeton Rye
 * Sazerac brands (and brands produced exclusively by Sazerac):
 * Van Winkle Family Reserve Rye

 * Independent
 * Copper Fox Rye
 * George Washington's Rye Whiskey, Mount Vernon, Virginia
 * Leopold Bro's Maryland-style Rye -Denver, Colorado
 * Old Potrero (Anchor Distillery)
 * Town Branch Rye – Lexington Brewing and Distilling Company, Lexington, Kentucky
 * Roundstone Rye – Catoctin Creek
 * WhistlePig Rye – Shoreham, Vermont
 * Wigle Whiskey Pennsylvania Rye, Deep Cut Rye, and Straight Rye – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Malt whiskey

 * American Single Malt Whiskey (Peach Street Distillers), Palisade, Colorado
 * Hamilton Distillers, Tucson, Arizona
 * McCarthy's, Mt. Hood, Oregon
 * Pearse Lyons Reserve (Lexington Brewing and Distilling Company), Lexington, Kentucky
 * St. George Single Malt, Alameda, California
 * Stranahan's, Denver, Colorado
 * Wasmunds (Copper Fox Distillery), Sperryville, Virginia
 * Westland Distillery, Seattle
 * Westward Whiskey, Portland, Oregon

Wheat whiskey

 * Bernheim Original – Heaven Hill Distillery, Louisville, Kentucky

Blended whiskey

 * Beam Suntory brands, Jim Beam Distillery, Clermont, Kentucky
 * Beam's Eight Star
 * Calvert Extra
 * Kessler
 * Diageo brands, Stamford, Connecticut
 * Seagram's Seven Crown
 * Heaven Hill brands, Heaven Hill Distillery, Louisville, Kentucky
 * Heaven Hill Kentucky Whiskey
 * Sazerac brands (and brands produced exclusively by Sazerac) at the Tom Moore Distillery, Bardstown, Kentucky
 * Barton Premium Blend
 * Kentucky Gentleman
 * Old Thompson
 * Sazerac brands at other distilleries
 * Ancient Age – Buffalo Trace Distillery, Frankfort, Kentucky

Australian whisky
Australia produces a number of single malt whiskies. Tasmanian whiskies in particular were the first to receive global attention. Australian whiskies are winning an increasing number of global whisky awards and medals, including for example in the World Whiskies Awards and Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 'Liquid Gold Awards'. Mainland Australian whiskies are also obtaining global recognition, in particular a West Australian whisky.

Australian whisky distilleries include:

 * Archie Rose Distilling Co., Sydney
 * Hellyers Road Distillery, Tasmania
 * Hoochery Distillery, (Raymond B Desert III Corn Whiskey), Kununurra, Western Australia
 * Lark Distillery, Tasmania
 * Timboon Railway Shed Distillery, Timboon, Victoria

Canadian whisky

 * Beam Suntory brands
 * Alberta Premium
 * Canadian Club
 * Brown-Forman brands
 * Canadian Mist – Canadian Mist Distillery, Collingwood, Ontario
 * Diageo brands:
 * Crown Royal
 * Forty Creek, Ontario (a part of Gruppo Campari)
 * Forty Creek
 * Glenora Distillers, Glenville, Nova Scotia (independent)
 * Glen Breton Rare
 * Heaven Hill Black Velvet distillery, Lethbridge, Alberta
 * Black Velvet
 * Hood River Distillers
 * Pendleton Whisky
 * Pemberton Distillery (independent)
 * Pernod Ricard brands via Corby Distilleries, produced at the Hiram Walker Distillery, Windsor, Ontario
 * Wiser's
 * Sazerac Company brands
 * Fireball Cinnamon Whisky
 * Northern Light
 * William Grant & Sons, Windsor, Ontario
 * Gibson's Finest
 * Gibson's Finest

English whisky

 * Cotswolds
 * The English Whisky Co.
 * Sacred Spirits
 * Adnams
 * Oxford Rye

Finnish whisky

 * Kyrö
 * Old Buck
 * Teerenpeli

French whisky

 * Glann ar Mor

German whisky

 * Schlitzer
 * Slyrs

Indian whisky

 * After Dark
 * Antiquity
 * Bagpiper
 * Blenders Pride
 * Director's Special
 * Imperial Blue
 * McDowell's No.1
 * Officer's Choice
 * Peter Scot
 * Red Knight
 * Rowson's Reserve
 * Royal Challenge
 * Royal Stag
 * Signature

Indian single malts

 * Amrut
 * Paul John
 * Rampur
 * Indri

Irish single malts

 * Bushmills Single Malt
 * Clontarf 1014 Single Malt
 * Dingle Single Malt
 * Knappogue Castle
 * Teeling Single Malt
 * Tullamore Single malt
 * Tyrconnell
 * West Cork Single Malt

Single pot still whiskeys

 * Comber (defunct)
 * Dingle Single Pot Still
 * Drumshanbo
 * Dunville's Three Crowns (defunct)
 * Dunville's VR (defunct)
 * Green Spot
 * Midleton Barry Crockett Legacy Single Pot Still
 * Powers
 * Redbreast
 * Teeling Single Pot Still

Blended Irish whiskeys

 * Bushmills
 * Clontarf 1014
 * Fercullen Falls
 * Jameson
 * Kilbeggan
 * Lost Irish
 * Midleton Very Rare
 * Paddy
 * Proper No. Twelve
 * Roe & Co
 * Slane
 * Teeling Small Batch
 * The Whistler
 * Tullamore D.E.W.
 * Two Stacks Dram in a Can
 * West Cork

Single grain Irish whiskeys

 * Ballyhoo (Connacht Distillery)
 * Egan's Vintage Grain
 * Glendalough Double Barrel
 * Kilbeggan Single Grain
 * Teeling Single Grain

Japanese whisky

 * Akashi
 * Fuji Gotemba
 * Hakushu
 * Hibiki
 * Miyagikyo
 * Yamazaki
 * Yoichi

Campbeltown single malts

 * Campbeltown
 * Glen Scotia
 * Hazelburn
 * Longrow
 * Springbank

Highland single malts

 * Aberfeldy
 * AnCnoc
 * Ardmore
 * Ardnamurchan
 * Balblair
 * Ben Nevis
 * Blair Athol
 * Brora
 * Clynelish
 * Dalmore
 * Dalwhinnie
 * Deanston
 * Edradour
 * Fettercairn
 * Glen Albyn
 * Glencadam
 * Glen Deveron
 * Glendronach
 * Glen Garioch
 * Glenglassaugh
 * Glengoyne
 * Glenmorangie
 * Glen Ord
 * Glenturret
 * Glenugie
 * Glenury Royal
 * GlenWyvis
 * Knockdhu
 * Loch Lomond
 * McClelland
 * Millburn
 * Nc'nean
 * North Port
 * Oban
 * Old Pulteney
 * Royal Brackla
 * Royal Lochnagar
 * The Singleton of Glen Ord
 * Strathearn
 * Teaninich
 * Tomatin
 * Tullibardine
 * Wolfburn

Island single malts

 * Abhainn
 * Arran
 * Barra
 * Harris
 * Highland Park
 * Jura
 * Scapa
 * Talisker
 * Tobermory
 * Torabhaig

Islay single malts

 * Ardbeg
 * Bowmore
 * Bruichladdich
 * Bunnahabhain
 * Caol Ila
 * Kilchoman
 * Lagavulin
 * Laphroaig
 * Port Askaig
 * Port Charlotte
 * Port Ellen

Lowland single malts

 * Ailsa Bay
 * Annandale
 * Auchentoshan
 * Bladnoch
 * Daftmill
 * Glenflagler
 * Glenkinchie
 * Glen Turner
 * Kinclaith
 * Littlemill
 * Rosebank
 * St Magdalene

Speyside single malts

 * A'bunadh
 * Aberlour
 * Allt-A-Bhainne
 * Ardmore
 * Auchroisk
 * Aultmore
 * Balmenach
 * Balvenie
 * BenRiach
 * Benrinnes
 * Benromach
 * Braeval
 * Caperdonich
 * Cardhu
 * Cragganmore
 * Craigellachie
 * Dailuaine
 * Dallas Dhu
 * Dufftown
 * Glen Elgin
 * Glen Grant
 * Glen Keith
 * Glen Moray
 * Glen Spey
 * Glenallachie
 * Glenburgie
 * Glendullan
 * Glenfarclas
 * Glenfiddich
 * The Glenlivet
 * The Glenrothes
 * Glentauchers
 * Imperial
 * Inchgower
 * Kininvie
 * Knockando
 * Linkwood
 * Longmorn
 * The Macallan
 * Mannochmore
 * Miltonduff
 * Mortlach
 * Pittyvaich
 * Speyburn
 * Strathisla
 * Strathmill
 * Tamdhu
 * Tamnavulin
 * Tomintoul
 * Tormore

Grain Scotch whisky

 * Cameronbridge
 * Girvan
 * Invergordon
 * North British
 * Starlaw
 * Strathclyde

Blended Malt Scotch whisky

 * Monkey Shoulder

Blended Scotch whisky

 * Bailie Nicol Jarvie (defunct)
 * Ballantine's
 * Bell's
 * Beneagles (defunct)
 * Black & White
 * Black Bottle
 * Buchanan's
 * Chivas Regal
 * Cutty Sark
 * Dewar's
 * The Famous Grouse
 * Grand Old Parr
 * Grant's
 * Haig
 * Hankey Bannister
 * House of Hazelwood
 * J&B
 * Johnnie Walker
 * Label 5
 * Logan
 * Old St Andrews
 * Passport Scotch
 * Pattison's (defunct)
 * Royal Salute
 * Samuel Dow (defunct)
 * SIA Scotch Whisky
 * Something Special
 * Té Bheag
 * Teacher's Highland Cream
 * Vat 69
 * White Horse
 * Whyte & Mackay
 * William Lawson's

Independent bottlers of Scotch whisky

 * Adelphi
 * Blackadder
 * Compass Box
 * Douglas Laing & Co
 * Duncan Taylor
 * Gordon & MacPhail
 * Murray McDavid
 * Scotch Malt Whisky Society

Overseas bottlers of Scotch whisky

 * 100 Pipers (bottled in India)
 * Black Dog (bottled in India)

South African whisky

 * Three Ships Whisky

Spanish whisky

 * Whisky DYC

Welsh whisky

 * Penderyn

Other whiskies

 * The Chuan – China
 * The Milk & Honey Distillery – Israel
 * Manx Spirit – Isle of Man
 * Frysk Hynder – Netherlands
 * 45 South – New Zealand
 * Mackmyra – Sweden
 * Smögen – Sweden
 * Kavalan – Taiwan

title: List of whisky brands


text:
User talk:Blackpower

Stop vandalising Wikipedia
Regarding this edit to the Eminem article: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 17:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A couple policies
Thanks for contributing. You may want to have a look at WP:V and WP:NPOV. Friday (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

User:G.C.RTW
Are you a sockpuppet for User:G.C.RTW? Jim Apple 07:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I read G.C.RTW's shit about DNA and stuff. Honestly, I don't know what this guy is talking about, but I think he says ancient Egyptians are blacks. The science is too hard for me. Fuck, G.C.RTW is actually my roomate and he was trying to use my wiki account to put shit on it (we both made new accounts that day). Can you change password of your account? ```` Blackpower 20:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

cite source for edit to Nigger?
Could you please cite a source to back up the statement that "It has been suggested that the country Niger should be re-named to "Naiger" in text books in order to minimize these problems"? Thanks. Joyous (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What wikipedia is not
I realize you're new, but you have to understand that your own experiences and opinions aren't considered proper sources for Wikipedia. See What Wikipedia is not for an overview. Also, if other editors feel that you're here to push an agenda, they won't look kindly on your edits. Being neutral and citing your sources will help quite a lot. Friday (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

dna tests/ancient egyptians
Hi

Do you have any citations to articles about the DNA tests performed on ancient egyptians? Based on the other comments on your talk page it looks like it may be vandalism, but just wanted to give you a chance.

Thanks

Piss-Take
This "user" is a piss-take/satire of User:Deeceevoice. All of its edits are likely to be bad faith, and it is definitely a sockpuppet of someone who has had disagreements with Deecee in the past. Babajobu 03:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"piss-take"? I was directed to wikipedia and deeceevoice's page by a so-called "whigger" friend of mine. After viewing all these I recognized that deeceevoice is probably the only person with enough negro magnitude to combat universal, seen or unseen, racism on the web. I'd like to join the fight along with her since she is my hero (sort of, at least on the net) after all other civil rights leaders in matters pertaining to the Race in Cyberspace. If I seem like a piss-take satire, then you probably got misled by my crass (sorry) user page and earlier edits. I wrote that toward the beginning of my wikipedia career when I was (and still is) too hot-headed, sorry about that. I'll refrain from this a bit. Blackpower 16:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blackpower