text:
Liwayway

Liwayway (Tagalog word meaning "dawn") is a leading Tagalog weekly magazine published in the Philippines since 1922. It contains Tagalog serialized novels, short stories, poetry, serialized comics, essays, news features, entertainment news and articles, and many others. In fact, it is the oldest Tagalog magazine in the Philippines. Its sister publications are Bannawag, Bisaya Magasin, and Hiligaynon.

History
The magazine had its beginning back 1989 when Ramon Roces, the eldest son of Alejandro Roces, introduced it after the ill-fated Photo News had declined in the market.

Roces, a prominent man in the publishing business, first conceived Photo News. It was a magazine with its own style, carrying eleven languages including (Spanish, Tagalog and English). The idea to have three languages in one magazine was to allow it to cater to all types of readers (Spanish and Spanish-speaking readers, English, American, and English-speaking readers, and Tagalog language and Filipino readers).

Unfortunately, the trilingual magazine was not well-received because some readers did not want to waste their money reading something they did not understand.

The sales of the magazine gradually declined and this emotionally affected Roces, but he did not give up. When he returned to Manila from Mindanao, he introduced another magazine patterned after Photo News. Unlike Photo News, the magazine concentrated, however, on making Tagalog (now Filipino) its medium, and outpouring support from the reading public was felt when its maiden issue was finally launched in the market.

The magazine was named Liwayway, meaning dawn. It made significant contribution to the field of literature when it introduced the popular masterpieces of great Filipino poets and writers like Jose Corazon de Jesus, Florentino Collantes, Julian Cruz Balmaceda, Cecilio Apostol Borromeo, Lope K. Santos, Inigo Ed Regalado, Romualdo Ramos, Francisco Lacsamana, Fausto Galauran and Pedrito Reyes, the son of Severino Reyes who later succeeded him as the editor of Liwayway.

Liwayway became even more popular in the following years and Roces decided to launch sister magazines. This gave birth to other vernacular magazines like Bisaya in 1932, Hiligaynon, a Hiligaynon language-magazine for the Ilonggos and people of Western Visayas in 1934, Bikolano in 1935, and the Ilocano Bannawag in 1940. Liwayway Extra was also launched in 1936, a thicker monthly supplement of Liwayway.

In 1945 during the Liberation of Manila, the combined U.S. and Philippine Commonwealth ground troops to fought by the Japanese forces around the battles in the city, the Japanese Imperial Army took over the supervision of Liwayway and named it Manila Simbunsiya. The Japanese military had hidden agenda: to use the magazine in their military campaign after occupying the Philippines. Later following that period, the Liwayway publication and its management was returned to Don Ramos Roces.

The publication was later sold to Hanz Menzi when Roces retired from publishing business in 1965, but the sudden change in the management of the magazine had a severe impact on the magazine. Its sales declined until Menzi decided to sell the magazine to Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation.

The management of the Manila Bulletin aimed to preserve the legacy of Liwayway while reformatting the magazine with its modern digital technology. Liwayway was relaunched in 2022.

Impact
Liwayway’s mix of prose with illustration and their wide array of genres benefited not only the magazine itself but other comics and magazines that came after it. After Liwayway began publishing their comic serials, the magazine as well as other comics that followed began to move from short strips to longer, episodic serials mirroring novels. Its impact in molding the genre and the medium has led scholars such as Cynthia Roxas and Joaquin Arevalo Jr. to credit the magazine for essentially giving birth to the comic industry in the Philippines.

In the 1950s, Liwayway began to attract the attention of then-renowned illustrators and writers whose works were continuously sought out by film executives, a result of the close relationship between the comic industry and the film industry during the time. Throughout the decade, over nine films were produced based on stories featured in the magazine. One of the most famous of these adaptations was Bernardo Carpio, which, like most comics within the magazine, featured both a prose version of the story and a serialized comic edition. Written by Fausto Galauran, the serial ran from November 1950 to March 1951, consisting of over eighteen volumes. A film adaptation based specifically on the version featured in the magazine was released by Sampaguita Pictures in the same year, directed by Benjamin Resella and Artemio Tecson.

The impact of Liwayway on women’s writing shows through its authorship. A study conducted by Clarita Arellano reveals that the feminist authorship of Liwayway, though a minority, broke the narrative of ‘otherness’ and silence, giving female voices authority over elements of discourse, general focus, and characterization. The publishing of these short fictions in Liwayway came with a promise of more radical feminist works to follow in its footsteps. In addition to this, two films produced in the 1950s were also based upon these female-led comics published in the magazine, Aristokrata and Despatsadora, both dubbed as ‘women’s films’ by Joyce Arriola as they cater to women's concerns either in terms of female representation or female spectator-ship.

The magazine also produced several important artists in the local scene, such as Severino Reyes, Vicente A. Dizon, and Antonio S. Velasquez. It had a specific impact upon artist Francisco Coching, who grew up with the magazine and its stories. In the 1920s, Liwayway conducted a literary contest to find newer talents to feature in their magazine, one of which was Coching's father Gregorio Coching who won for his novel Sanggumay in 1925. Coching began working as an apprentice for the magazine in 1936, working on photo-engraving and inking layouts for advertisements and later going on to illustrating covers for the magazine in 1937. In 1946, Liwayway published his comic serial Hagibis, which was later adapted into a movie in 1950 starring Fernando Poe Sr.

The magazine was home to several stories and narratives that are still known and loved to this day. In 1925, Severino Reyes, who also worked as an editor for the magazine, began writing short stories in the series ‘Ang mga Kuwento ni Lola Basyang,’ using the ‘Basyang’ name as his own pseudonym. Following its publication, the ‘Basyang’ stories were adapted for radio, television, and film.

Content
Liwayway is best known for popularizing the comic serial style, which combines visual material with prose to create novel-like narratives. Illustrations featured heavily in both the magazine's content and some of its covers, especially older ones. Short prose without visual aids such as ‘Ang mga Kuwento ni Lola Basyang’ were also featured in the magazine. Today, the magazine publishes novels, short stories, poetry, flash fiction, speculative fiction, and other similar genres. Aside from comics and fiction, the magazine also features a number of editorial articles and pieces on lifestyle, culture, and celebrity news.

New image
The magazine has a glossy colorful cover and pages were reduced down to 48; the size, however, is made bigger by 1 inch than the normal size of the old Liwayway.

The content was also improved with novels by veteran writers like Efren Abueg, Elena Patron, Gilda Olvidado, and Lualhati Bautista. It also carried work in different categories like Short Story (Maikling Kuwento), Children's Story (Kuwentong Pambata), Horror Story (Kuwentong Kababalaghan), and Feature Stories (Lathalain). The comics series have been revived and works of popular and veteran writers like Pablo Gomez and Rod Salandanan are the frontline, together with Sophia Esteban Resano whose horror stories are fast selling in the market.

Artworks of comic illustrators like Rico Rival, Jun Lofamia, Rod Lofamia, Rudy Villanueva, Abe Ocampo, Louie Celerio, and Alfred Manuel were revivals of their old comics series and their works have given a sense of nostalgia to modern Liwayway.

From July to December 2019, it published fortnightly, then from January 2020 onwards it was a monthly magazine.

title: Liwayway


text:
Youlthorpe

Youlthorpe is a hamlet in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England. It forms part of the civil parish of Bishop Wilton. It is situated approximately 10 mi east of York, 5 mi north-west of Pocklington and just south of the main A166 road from York to Bridlington.

From 1886 Youlthorpe was part of the civil parish of Youlthorpe with Gowthorpe which was abolished on 1 April 1935 with the creation of the civil parish of Bishop Wilton.

East farmhouse in the settlement was designated a Grade II listed building in 1987 and is now recorded in the National Heritage List for England, maintained by Historic England.

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

title: Youlthorpe


text:
User talk:Viper Daimao

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! As you haven't got one til now. Don't forger to sign your messages with the 4 tildes. Cheers and happy editing Lectonar 13:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I have noticed that my IP address at work is shared by a few other people. This is because it is an aparently widely used proxy. A simple google search will prove this.

Sockpuppetry Claims
I have a minute to spare at work and am going to try to address some of the claims. The IP 64.154.26.251, which is my proxy address that I use at work, which is also used by thousands of other people as my google link above shows. My use of the word "yall" one time is just me trying to seem like a native Texan (which I am, though I am a Cowboys fan, not so much a Texan fan), when all you need to do is take my IP at home and do a whois search on it to see that it resolves to Houston. The fact that Eleem has used my conversations with 67124ect where we talk to each other like we are different people (because we are) as evidence for us being the same person since thats what someone who was the same person would do to try to act like two different people amuses me somewhat. Like a show that I can't remember the name of where they accuse this guy of having a drug problem but he didn't and he denies it. The boss accusing him says, "denial is the first sign of having a drug problem", to which he replies, "It's also the first sign of NOT having a drug problem". I realize how this can make sense to someone who is already convinced that I am a sockpuppet, therefore I have asked numerous times of someway to prove that I am not. This offer has been rejected as "interference chatter". Me asking for a way to prove I am real is "interference chatter"? This whole discussion is reaching the hights of absurdity to where one would think this is satire.
 * Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
 * Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
 * Peasant 2: ...A witch!

Sadly that seems to describe this whole process that I have become an unwitting part of.

--Viper Daimao 16:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care how much proof you have. I still say you are me. Big Daddy 08:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hopefully this puts to rest the witchunt. Finally, please read WP:NPA. It is being violated left and right by many. Hipocrite - « Talk » 18:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed I hope it will. I have always been more than forthcoming and eschewed much of my anonymity to combat these charges. If you have the time, could you present this evidence to the rfa page where I am accused? I am at work and am unable to edit any of the pages, much like the other people who stand accused. I will simply post my evidence when I get home later tonight if no one else does.

 * There's really no need to do so, but I will. I would reccomend using the email link to whoever blocked you and ask them to take a look at this talk page for counterveling evidence, or just wait out the block. There is no reason for you to get involved in the RFAr process at all, IMHO. Hipocrite - « Talk » 18:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks a bunch. I actually did email Fred Bauder twice. Once when all this was starting and then again right after I wrote this. I tried to send one to Eleem who seems to be the main accuser but he hasnt set up his email.--Viper Daimao 18:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

64.154.26.251
yes, there's some accusations flying around. See here:. The guy we are being accused of sockpuppets for seems to have a lot of enemies, so its tough to get help. But it's all so baseless it'll be worked out soon enough I'd think. 67124etc 01:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am in California. Anyway my IP is different. You apparently share that IP with 216.119.139.73 and Barney Gumble, which shouldn't be a problem except Big Daddy is also accused of using that IP. Though there's no proof of that last one apparently or we'd have heard it. 67124etc 03:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

concerning Harry Turtledove
If you find some neutral sources for your claims, go ahead.

I for one think that he's using these redundancies because he can't be sure if everybody has read all the books of the pertaining series; and by the way: Lectonar 13:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This type of censorship makes me sick
Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Need your help
Editor's contributions singled out for his faith, please help keep this notable article--172.150.77.35 16:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikicity
You seem like a big Harry Turtledove fan. I work on the Turtledove wikicity and we need all the help we can get. Your help would be appreciated. Raylan 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Name?
Is your name really Viper? Cool!

Flip Merav 21 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative_notice_board
Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nulearagecover.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nulearagecover.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Viper Daimao


text:
Tōbu Koizumi Line

The Tobu Koizumi Line (東武小泉線), operated by the private railway operator Tobu Railway, connects Tatebayashi Station located in Tatebayashi, Gunma to Nishi-Koizumi Station located in Ōizumi, Gunma as well as Higashi-Koizumi Station in Ōizumi town to Ōta Station in Ōta, Gunma Japan.

Abandoned stations

 * Shin-Koizumi Station - Sengokugashi Station
 * Kobugannon Station (between Higashi-Koizumi Station and Shinozuka Station)
 * Mujinazuka Station (between Narushima Station and Hon-Nakano Station)

History
The first section of the line from Tatebayashi Station to Koizumimachi Station was opened for passenger service on March 12, 1917, operated by the Chūgen Railway, which was purchased by Tobu Railway company in 1937.

The 3 km Sengokugashi Freight Line (仙石河岸貨物線) from Koizumimachi Station to Sengokugashi Station (仙石河岸駅) opened on April 13, 1939, as a freight-only branch line. Passenger services as far as Nishi-Koizumi commenced in 1941.

In 1941, Higashi-Koizumi Station to Ōta Station section opened on June 1, 1941, to service the Nakajima Aircraft Company Ōta and Koizumi plants. The lines were electrified in 1943.

The Nishi-Koizumi to Sengoku freight branch closed in 1976, and freight services ceased on the line in 1996.

title: Tōbu Koizumi Line


text:
User talk:Reality64

This message is regarding the article Shit. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - jredmond 14:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Reality64


text:
Umra Khan

Ghazi Khan Umra Khan of Jandol (c. 1860 – 1904), also called "The Afghan Napoleon",   was a Pashtun chief on the north-western frontier of British India, who was chiefly responsible for the Chitral Expedition of 1895. He was the Khan of Jandol and captured the state of Dir and reigned as its Nawab from 1890 to 1895. Umra briefly occupied Swat, Chitral and Bajaur. He also took over Kunar and Kafiristan regions of Afghanistan.

Life
He was the younger son of the Khan of Jandol who were a Tarkalani ruling class; but he killed his elder brother, seized the throne, and made himself a power on the frontier.

In 1894 he held undisputed sway over almost the whole of Bajour, when his restless ambition caused him to interfere in the internal affairs of Chitral. He instigated Afzal ul-Mulk, a son of Chitral's Mehtar Aman ul-Mulk, to murder his brother Nizam ul-Mulk, and then overthrew the fratricide and supported the claims of his uncle Sher Afzul to the throne. The Government of British India intervened and ordered Umra Khan to leave Chitral. When he refused, the Chitral Expedition was despatched; Umra Khan was driven into exile in Afghanistan, and died there in 1904. He is declared as the Nepoleon of Pathans by Winston Churchill in his book titled the Malakand Field Force. The book was written by Mr. Churchill when he visited the area as a war correspondent with British Forces.

It is also known that Umara Khan participated in the Ambela battle when he was only a few years old. The grandfather of Umara Khan participated along with three thousand mujahideen including Umara Khan in the battle.

Umara Khan became leader of the Dir state in 1881 in a very young age. He raised war against the British in 1896 and captured 120 British soldiers including officers named Edward. The captives later confirmed that they were well treated and were provided food of their choice.

title: Umra Khan


text:
Schempp-Hirth Cirrus

The Schempp-Hirth Cirrus is an Open Class glider built by Schempp-Hirth between 1967 and 1971 and by VTC until 1977. It was replaced by the Nimbus 2.

Development
The Cirrus was designed by Dipl.-Ing. Klaus Holighaus and was the first glass-fibre glider to be built by Schempp-Hirth. The prototype flew in 1967 with a V-tail like the Austria. It won the German Open Class in 1967.

By 1971, 107 Cirrus had been built in Germany. Production was transferred to Vazduhoplovno Tehnicki Centar (VTC) at Vršac in Yugoslavia where an additional 63 were built.

Haro Wodl won the 1968 World Gliding Championships in the open class, flying a Cirrus.

Design
Although Holighaus had designed and built the ground-breaking D-36 together with Gerhard Waibel, Wolf Lemke and Walter Schneider, he followed a completely different design philosophy for the Cirrus, preferring a thicker airfoil and the use of PVC foam instead of balsa as a core material.

The resultant Cirrus has mid-set cantilever wings with a span of 17.74 metres, and a conventional low-set cruciform tailplane. It can carry water-ballast in the wings. There are no flaps. For glidepath control, there are effective top-and-bottom air brakes and a substantial drag chute built into the bottom of the rudder. The undercarriage is retractable.

Aerodynamics
Holighaus chose a rather thick flapless Wortmann airfoil (FX 66-196/161) which had low drag (for the time) and very gentle stall characteristics. The span and profile are optimised for the weaker gliding weather of central Europe. The result is excellent thermalling characteristics and a high glide ratio (for 1967).

Construction
All-fiberglass glider, with foam core sandwiches for the wing skins and fuselage bulkheads. Internal tubular-steel frame interconnects the wings, cockpit and landing gear, carrying the flight and landing stresses. This steel frame is bolted to the fiberglass shell.

The Cirrus was built in female moulds, an innovation that became the standard method for all manufacturers.

Variants

 * The first prototype had an all-flying V-tail.
 * The original Cirrus has a span of 17,74m. Sometimes it is called Open Cirrus.
 * Cirrus VTC were produced in Yugoslavia under license by the Vazduhoplovno Tehnicki Centar in Vršac.

Developments

 * Standard Cirrus, Standard Cirrus VTC and Standard Cirrus 75 have a wingspan of 15m and a T-tail.

title: Schempp-Hirth Cirrus


text:
Talk:Biotin

This vitamin mentioned in Wonder Woman 1984.
Please create Popular Culture section and mentioned that vitamin referred in Wonder Woman 1984 film. Proof Rizosome (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase deceased comedian Rodney Dangerfield "Biotin don't get no respect!" Unlike vitamin C and vitamin B12, it has been obscure as a dietary supplement. No shady doctors giving celebrities biotin injections. In my opinion, getting a name mention in the Wonder Woman film is not enough to catapult it into the popular culture limelight. David notMD (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Change "Source" Section to "Food Sources" + Cornflakes question
Hi all, First, must I say this is a very interesting and informative article. To those editing, kudos!

Would it be a better idea to change the Heading wording of the section "Source" where it mentions the biotin amount found in food (microgram/100 g). To me, the title works but seems off as "Sources" are used most frequently only for sources for citations.

Additionally, in the food section, would it be smarter to edit the corn link to the corn flakes link as the "corn flakes cereal" section refers to the cereal and not to corn (maize) itself.

Best, Ed0578 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 * The sections have been edited! Best, Ed0578 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is reference to Corn really useful? Often, cereals are added with such vitamins, and therefore it is not a natural source. Such small amounts are well within the definition of "trace amounts" and does not apport significant quantities to one's diet.  I would suggest removing the "corn flakes cereal" as a whole.
 * Best regards, Darkalkemy (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Lede too short
The Lede is too short for a GA. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Latest edit is formatted wrong needs fixing
The latest edit apparently sought to add 'vitamin H' to the description of Biotin in addition to B7 which is great, but it's formatted wrong and now says vitamin B and H7 instead of B7 and H. It needs fixing. It's been so long since I edited anything on here I've forgotten even something as simple as this, so could someone please be kind enough to remedy this. Ty. Taurusthecat (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

✅. We follow ODS/NIH terminology, see Ref. #1. Zefr (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 * TY. Taurusthecat (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Biotin


text:
Nothing (film)

Nothing is a 2003 Canadian surrealist comedy-drama film directed by Vincenzo Natali. It stars David Hewlett and Andrew Miller.

Plot
The film tells the story of two good friends and housemates, Andrew, an agoraphobic travel agent, and Dave, a loser who works in an office. Dave is fired from his job after his girlfriend frames him for embezzlement, Andrew is falsely accused of attempted child molestation, and their house is to be demolished by day's end. Both of them hide inside the house as police, city officials, and outraged neighbors surround it. Dave and Andrew open their front door and discover that the entire world beyond their house is gone, replaced with a featureless white void.

Eventually, after a simple test reveals that the nothingness surrounding them holds a flat, featureless, and somewhat springy surface "like tofu", they set out across the empty plane in order to explore their new surroundings, leaving items behind as a means of getting back. After running out of items to leave as a trail, they lose track of their path. Wandering leads them to what appears to be another house, but they have simply wandered back home.

Panic begins to set in again when Andrew realizes that the house is completely out of food. Andrew glances around the room, eventually stopping and glaring at a noisy clock on the wall; within a few seconds it disappears. Andrew drops a stack of overdue bills in front of Dave, and within seconds the bills abruptly disappear – they realize the clock, the bills, and the entire outside world have all disappeared because they were objects of their hate, and that concentrating their hate on things somehow makes them disappear. Dave puts the theory to test, managing to hate away his need for food.

Dave still expresses some concern over Andrew's remaining phobias, questioning why the phobias still exist when there is nothing left to fear. Reluctantly, Andrew reveals that he was abused and tormented by his parents as a child. With some urging from Dave he hates away the memory of each traumatic childhood event as he recounts it; when he is finally done he is no longer phobic and much more confident in himself. Unfortunately this change alters Andrew's personality and leads to friction between the two friends, finally building into an outright confrontation. They decide they can no longer share the same house, and opt to determine who keeps it by playing a match of their favorite fighting game. Dave loses, and is exiled with his possessions to reside out in the nothingness.

Things become very tense with Dave's departure. Dave attempts to engage Andrew in conversation repeatedly, even performing the national anthem for his self-created nation (its borders marked by a line of his possessions), all to no avail. After several days Dave comes into Andrew's house much happier and explains his sudden change of mood: he has hated away his anger at Andrew; all Andrew needs to do is hate away his anger at Dave and things will be back to normal. Andrew refuses, quite content to be angry at Dave. Dave hates away his anger several times as Andrew rebuffs and outright insults him, but his patience finally wears thin, leading Dave to hate away one of Andrew's possessions. Andrew retaliates by hating away one of Dave's possessions, and the situation escalates until everything including the house is hated away.

Dave walks away, assuming the argument is finished, but falls over suddenly as his feet begin to disappear; Andrew is hating them away. He turns and retaliates, hating away Andrew's legs, and the situation escalates again until all that is left of the two are their disembodied heads. Refusing to give up the fight, Andrew and Dave manage to turn themselves and (by bouncing) charge at each other, headbutting each other repeatedly until they finally stop, exhausted. Their anger abated, Dave and Andrew make up, agree to be best friends again, and set off to explore the nothingness. As they bounce away into the white void they remark how they both had always thought that their bodies were somehow holding them back.

In a post-credits scene, an obviously older Dave and Andrew – still disembodied heads – are sleeping when they are awakened by a popping sound, followed by a loud clamoring of voices and noise. As the unseen source of the clamoring gets louder and closer the two scream.

Cast

 * David Hewlett as Dave
 * Andrew Miller as Andrew
 * Gordon Pinsent as Man In Suit
 * Marie-Josée Croze as Sara
 * Andrew Lowery as Crawford
 * Elana Shilling as Little Girl
 * Soo Garay as Little Girl's Mother
 * Martin Roach as Co-worker
 * Angelo Tsarouchas as Foreman
 * Rick Parker as Mounted Police Officer
 * Maurice Dean Wint as Narrator
 * Bobby the Turtle as Stan

Production
A lot of people said 'you can never make a movie set solely in one room' and they may have been right, but I did Cube. I made a movie called Nothing with only two characters set in a void, but that's what makes it exciting. The [possibility] of catastrophe is what makes making those movies so thrilling. In an interview with Troy Riser of The Trades, director Vincenzo Natali described Nothing as "an experimental film" and called it "the comic flipside" of his earlier Cube. According to Natali, Cube and Nothing are the first two installments of "an informal trilogy of minimalist films," the third of which will be Echo Beach.

Natali, who considers Nothing "a story about friendship" at its core, originally envisioned Stan the turtle as the film's narrator. Due to budget constraints; however, the idea of a talking turtle could not be realized. Natali also associated Stan with a metaphorical significance: "He's a turtle because that's what David and Andrew are -- creatures who carry their home on their back and hide from the world."

In an email interview with Patrick Douglas of The Culture Shock, Natali attributed his desire to make Nothing to a fascination with the "notion of editing reality." He explained the decision to keep the leading actors' real names in the script as "Creative bankruptcy."

David Hewlett, Andrew Miller and Natali grew up and went to high school together. In an interview with Ian Caddell of The Georgia Straight, Natali recalled how Hewlett and Miller had to enact many of the scenes in Nothing hanging from the ceiling on wires. But, he said, they enjoyed the abuse because they knew it could be the last opportunity the three would have to work together. In an interview with Jason Anderson of Eye Weekly, Hewlett, describing the suspension apparatus as a 30-foot atomic wedgie, commented, "[Natali]'d hang us from the ceiling like puppets and literally place us where he wanted us." Miller spoke of similar hardships: "It was really ridiculous."

Natali credited colleague Terry Gilliam as an influence to whom Nothing owes "a real debt."

The film features Squigglevision-like scenes produced by Head Gear Animation.

Reception
Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 50% of six surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating is 6/10.

Film critic Dan Schneider called Nothing "not a bad film", but "not good either", remarking that "its essential silliness and triviality are what keep this from reaching the existential level of a good The Twilight Zone episode, or something more akin to George Lucas's THX 1138." Schneider also criticized the soundtrack, arguing that "the film would have been much more effective if the music had suggested darker undertones." He concluded his review saying, "Nothing is one of those films that will stick with a viewer for a while, if only because it will leave scenarios open to be reworked in each viewer's mind."

title: Nothing (film)


text:
Zurich Open

The Zurich Open was a WTA Tour affiliated professional tennis tournament for women, formerly held every winter in Zürich, Switzerland. It was classified on the WTA Tour as a Tier I tournament from 1993 until 2007. In its final year, 2008, it was downgraded to a Tier II event.

The Open was held at the Hallenstadion, a multifunctional sports arena. It takes 150 specialist workers and 300 tonnes of material to prepare the Hallenstadion into the Zurich Open tennis venue. The event has two tennis courts available for tournament play. Past champions of the tournament include former world number ones Steffi Graf, Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin and Maria Sharapova. Swiss champions included Hingis, Manuela Maleeva-Fragnière (formerly of Bulgaria) and Patty Schnyder.

Name history

 * European Indoors: 1984–1989
 * BMW European Indoors: 1990–1992
 * Barilla Indoors: 1993
 * European Indoor Championships: 1994–1997
 * European Swisscom Challenge: 1998
 * Swisscom Challenge: 1999–2004
 * Zurich Open: 2005–2007
 * TENNIS.com Zurich Open: 2008
 * BNP Paribas Zurich Open: 2012

Records

 * Most singles wins: 🇩🇪 Steffi Graf (6)
 * Most consecutive single wins: 🇩🇪 Steffi Graf (4: 1989–1992)

title: Zurich Open


text:
The Match King

The Match King is a 1932 American Pre-Code drama film made by First National Pictures, directed by William Keighley and Howard Bretherton. The film starred Warren William and Lili Damita, and follows the rise and fall of Swedish safety match tycoon Ivar Kreuger. Based on the novel by Einar Thorvaldson, the film was released on December 31, 1932.

Plot
Though a lowly Chicago street cleaner, Swedish immigrant Paul Kroll is ambitious and unscrupulous. When a fellow employee is fired (due to one of Kroll's schemes), Kroll convinces his foreman to keep him on the payroll (officially at least) so they can split his salary. Soon there are eight "phantom" workers, and Kroll and his partner have amassed enough money for a ticket back to Sweden. However, Kroll has been romancing his partner's wife, Babe, behind his back.

Meanwhile, he has also been lying to the people of his hometown in Sweden, telling them what a successful businessman he has become. As a result, when the local match factory is in trouble, his uncle begs him to return and save it. Kroll gets Babe to withdraw the money he has stolen, deceiving her into thinking they are running away together, then leaves her behind as he sails away to Sweden.

He cons the local bank into giving him a loan to buy a second match factory so he can merge them. Only his old friend Erik Borg knows the truth about Kroll's "success", so Kroll recruits him as his all-too-trusting second in command in his expanding business. Though corrupt, he is also a brilliant business visionary and eventually Kroll owns all of the match factories in Sweden. However, his ambitions do not stop there. Using information he obtains from beautiful, well-placed women he has charmed, he gains official match monopolies, first in Poland, then in Germany and other countries, by offering loans to cash-strapped governments and bribes to corrupt officials.

While dining with Ilse Wagner, one of his conquests, he is dazzled by the beauty of rising actress Marta Molnar. Despite her initial rebuffs, he goes to great lengths to win her heart, even hiring a celebrated "gypsy violinist" to serenade her. Uncharacteristically, he dangerously neglects his business, financed by an ever-growing series of loans. When Marta leaves for Hollywood, he reluctantly returns his attention to his company. One of his agents discovers that an eccentric recluse named Christian Hobe has invented an everlasting match, so Kroll has him locked away as a madman.

When the stock market crashes, Kroll no longer can obtain a bank loan. In desperation, he buys $50 million in fake Italian bonds from forger Scarlatti, whom he then dumps in the middle of a lake to drown. With the bonds as collateral, he obtains a $40 million loan from an American bank. Marta has returned to Sweden and Kroll thinks of retiring, but when he asks Marta to marry him, he discovers that, in his frequent absences, she has fallen in love with Trino, the gypsy violinist. Much worse, his forgeries are detected, and his American loan is canceled. Kroll shoots himself on the balcony and his body tumbles into the gutter, where he started.

Preservation
A print of the film is held at the Library of Congress.

title: The Match King


text: User:Morwen/mets

title: User:Morwen/mets


text:
User talk:Aaa g unit

Headline text == GGGGGG G UNIT G Unit

AKA MRS GARMAN

SHE IS FUNNY

HER HAND GESTURES R A FKIN CREASE

title: User talk:Aaa g unit


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

Case Opened on 15:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Complaining witness

 * (status ambiguous)
 * (status ambiguous)

Defendants

 * Various IPs and used by Igor Bogdanov
 * Various IPs and used by Igor Bogdanov
 * Various IPs and used by Igor Bogdanov
 * Various IPs and used by Igor Bogdanov
 * Various IPs and used by Igor Bogdanov

'''Full text of complaint with comments is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair

Statement by complaining witnesses
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by Snowspinner
The Bogdanov Affair article has been plagued by vicious POV warrioring from a number of sides, including IPs belonging to Igor Bogdanov, the subject of the article. The short form is this: The Bogdanovs published some physics papers, which were eventually widely recognized by the physics community as nonsense. Bogdanovs stand by their papers. Hilarity ensues. The article has been under near-constant revert warring recently, as Bogdanov and people allied with him remove all criticism, and Bogdanov's critics revert frantically. The mediation cabal failed to solve this one. I ask for short term injunctive relief, specifically that the Bogdanovs, YBM, LLL, Laurence67, and XAL all be banned from the article in question. A sample of problematic edits include  (A new user who immediately shows up in the firefight)  and  (For personal attacks). The odds of sockpuppets being involved in editing here is quite high - a lot of users who do nothing other than edit Bogdanov pages.

Statement from User:Rbj
I am not a physicist. I am an electrical engineer with some experience in publishing and in academia, although I'm not in the academia at the moment. Being on the Review Board of a technical journal (Journal of the Audio Engineering Society), I have a little experience about how stuff like this gets published. No journal is immune to it which is why some physicists thought that the Bogdanoff brothers were deliberately stinging the physics discipline in the same way that Sokal did to the sociology discipline.

There are two initial possible classes for the Bogdanoff's work: either it has some merit (perhaps with flaws or perhaps not flawed at all) or it has no merit.

If it's the latter, then it is bad science or junk science or pseudoscience (which would be called "quackery" if the science were medicine). In that case, it doesn't matter what the consensus of physicists think. reality is not dictated by majority rule.

If it is the former, that is that it is not devoid of merit, then it is either mainstream science or it is fringe science or protoscience. But here, which category that it falls into does depend on the consensus of the mainstream of the existing discipline. If a majority or even a large minority of physicists recognize the Bogdanoff's work to be valid (or, at least, to have some merit) a case could be made for it to be called "mainstream". But, given the supposition that the work has some merit, if the Bogdanoff's work is not respected as having any merit by any more than a token set of recognized physicists, then the best that can be claimed for it is that it is fringe science or protoscience. That label is not necessarily disparaging. A century ago special relativity was fringe science or protoscience and now it is standard in any introductory modern physics text.

But if the theory is not accepted by the "mainstream" physics community, there is no basis to claim that the theory is mainstream. And if it is not mainstream, the remaining categories are: fringe science or protoscience, and junk science or pseudoscience. In some manner, even string theory, which has a lot of adherents and respect, must accept such a label. If it turns out that string theory can never be falsifiable, it will eventually fall by the wayside and become an obsolete theory.

So there are two main questions to deal with:

 * 1. Does the Bogdanoff's published work have technical merit or not?  That issue is too technical and arcane to be debated here, however, a bona-fide cosmologist who has identified himself and his credentials has offered an opinion here on the talk page.  Igor would be correct to imply that only the "specialists" can debate this effectively, but he is not correct that this is the salient question for debate about the Wikipedian article.  Wikipedia is not the Annals of Physics nor Classical and Quantum Gravity nor the USENET newsgroup sci.physics.research.  It would be nice if we could get more real physicists other than User:YBM and User:Alain_r involved, but then again, Wikipedia is not the place for real physicists to slug out what is or what is not real physics (but, unfortunately, it looks like it may become that).

 * 2. The other question that is salient is: what does the wider community of physicists say about the quality and veracity of the Bogdanoff's work?  Well, there is quite a record and, despite the publication of their earlier papers in reputable journals, the record is not flattering for the Bogdanoffs.  The VAST majority of the credentialed physics community has utterly rejected and dismissed their published work as "wrong", "hoax", "embarrassing", "incoherent", "gibberish", conceptully invalid (my paraphrase of many positions), and even "BS" (and i don't think they mean "Bachelor of Science").  VERY, VERY, FEW physicists have come to their defense on the record.  We virtually only hear the journal referee's comments (and only relayed to us via the Bogdanoff's, that has to be a dubious source) but that fails to recognize the problem.  No one disputes that the Bogdanoff's got published in a couple of legitimate journals of theoretical physics.  The problem is that their papers are believed by the mainstream to be without merit.  The journal referees competence regarding this arcane field are also suspect (indeed physicist John Baez has said that the referees have something to answer for).  And the merit that Bogdanoff's try to extract from such publication has been destroyed by the fact that the editorial board of CQG has made it clear that the papers, in retrospect, have failed to meet the standards expected of any article published in the journal.  The editors of CQG have repudiated the very papers that the Bogdanoffs have published in their journal.  This is undeniably damning (except that Igor does actually deny that it is).

The Wikipedia policy is that there is no original research and neutral POV (we don't get to write our own autobiographies here). The fact that the Bogdanoffs continue to defend their work as genuine should be reported as such. But the fact that their work is overwelmingly rejected by the mainstream physics community should also be reported as such. Including links to fringe science, protoscience, junk science, and pseudoscience is not inappropriate at all, because there is no way that anyone can claim it to be in the mainstream.

I have been editing on Wikipedia for about a year or two (I think). The Bogdanov Affair is not my only agenda, but that cannot be said for the Bogdanovs, their sock-puppets, and the few flesh-and-blood supporters: XAL, Laurence67, CatherineV; -- they are here for one and only one reason: to paint the B brothers in the most flattering light possible. To turn this stinkhorn into a rose. But it simply stinks, and that stink is of the Bogdanov's own making. Their behavior regarding this, both here on WP, and at other sites/blogs and USENET, has been nakedly dishonest. They act like imposters much of the time, and I am confident that the reason is that they are imposters. They are pretending to be physicists, but the real physicists know that the B. brothers are not.

The admins and ArbCom of Wikipedia are going to have to make a judgement about what the real physicists say about the Bogdanov "research". On the latest version that I or YBM (now a few others have stepped in to defend the article from the B. vandals) have left, you will get links to the extensive web pages and blogs where this has been discussed since 2002 (a quick check of some words as at Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/comments including an older NYT article). This is the very information that the Bogdanov brothers want to suppress. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. r b-j 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Statements by defendants
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement from Laurence67
First, just a comment about Snowspinner's list of "Involved Parties" : why is Igor not there ? Has he no right to stand up for himself, in spite of the fact that he is, with his brother, the most concerned person ? This "omission", in my opinion, is particularly representative of this "Bogdanoff Affair Affair".

Indeed, I find that the worst aspect of this revert war is the rudeness and the unfairness with which Igor is treated by some contributors and, a lot more serious, by some administrators, particularly Snowspinner. The latter decided arbitrarily that Igor's contributions were "repeated vandalism", just because he is the subject of the article, so he banned him and, what's more, encouraged the other contributors to revert his posts "on sight", without worrying about the 3RR.

This bias had an ill effect on some other contributors, who interpreted this "blessing" as a right to revert any text from which the least extract could have been in favour of the Bogdanovs. To justify this, any contributor who seemed to be "for" the Bogdanovs was suspected to be a sock puppet, which was an excellent excuse to feel free to revert us as easily and systematically as they did for Igor ! Then, when it became obvious that we were not, they created an idiom for us ("meat puppet") which meant clearly that they admitted we were not Igor himself, but which suggested we were "revertable" as well. A good example is given by "Professor Ying" here : 29 september, 11:24, as he writes by reverting me : "reverting a revert of a Bogdanov's sock puppet called Laurence67". This comment is all the more hypocritical as, whereas I have been officially considered to be a "possible" sock puppet (it was inscribed on the top of my personal page), now my name has been removed from the list after I prooved I was a "real person". And what is more, "Professor Ying" knows me for monthes and monthes as a "forumer" (among others on sur-la-toile.com) and knows better than most Wikipedian contributors that I'm "real"...

Because of this lack of fairness, the article has become excessively negative and partial, all the more as most contributors don't even take the trouble to read the details given by Igor in the discussion page - just like r-b-j, who gets 2 journals mix-up but persists in reverting "his" version of the facts.

Moreover, beside the quality and the pertinence of the article itself, I find also that the administrators should be a little more motivated to fight some serious "incivilities" against Igor, who is regularly insulted, without the perpetrators being sanctioned. One of the worst example : "You are bastards", "You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field." (YBM, 26 September, Bogdanov Affair - Archive 3) ; other version, by r-b-j : "They are hucksters, swindlers, con artists" (r b-j, Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 2, 03:26, 17 September 2005), before suggesting to add the category "excrement". More recently, by the same "contributor", whose style becomes more and more hysterical : "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 17:42, 29 September 2005).

Beside these incredible "direct" insults, there are many others, more "discret" and indirect, sometimes in the article itself : some contributors try to insert external links, categories or "See also" whose content is very insultating in this context, like "The Emperor's New Clothes", or more recently : "The crackpot Index", an article about "incompetence" etc. (Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 2, 03:26, 17 September 2005). Obviously, this kind of contributions is designed only to destroy as much as possible the Bogdanovs' reputation. How a "real" encyclopedical article, which is supposed to be objective, could be written in such a malicious context ?

That's why I think that the "Bogdanov Affair" must be written / supervised above all by neutral contributor(s), and I find that Maru's idea - looking for a "neutral Wikipedian" - is very good. There can be one or 3-4, as suggested by Igor, I think that their number doesn't matter much, as long as they don't try to settle a score by means of the article, as some current contributors do.

Laurence67 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

 * Accept Fred Bauder 14:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 23:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision=

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy
1) What_Wikipedia_is_not provides that advocates either of their own position or critics of someone else's position ought not use Wikipedia in pursuit of their advocacy activities.

 * Passed 6-0

Obsessional point of view
2) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area.

 * Passed 6-0

Focus of dispute
1) 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 external controversy, including Igor Bogdanov, are editing the Wikipedia article aggressively.

 * Passed 6-0

Violation of temporary injunction
2) A number of editors, apparently involved in the external event have continued to edit Bogdanov Affair using a number of sockpuppets despite issuance of a temporary injunction forbidding editing of the article by them.

 * Passed 6-0

Ban on editing Bogdanov Affair
1) All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are indefinitely banned from editing Bogdanov Affair. 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 are to the Bogdanov Affair they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes:, , , , , . , , , , , and all others who meet the criteria. Any new user account or anonymous IP which commences editing of the article without substantial editing of other articles shall be presumed to be a participant in the external controversy.

 * Passed 6-0

Ban extended to talk page
The ban on editing has been extended to the talk page of the article.

 * Passed 6-0 14:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice
2) A notice shall be placed at the top of the article Bogdanov Affair which links to Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair which briefly explains that the Wikipedia article has, in part, been conflated with the external event, the Bogdanov Affair, due to participation in editing of the article by participants in the event. The notice shall include an apology for our inability to control this phenomenon and a warning that any editor which is determined to be a participant in the external event may be subject to being banned from editing.

 * Passed 5-1

Enforcement by ban
1) Any user banned from editing Bogdanov Affair who nevertheless edits it, may be briefly banned from Wikipedia entirely, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, and after the 5th offense, up to a year.

 * Passed 6-0

Additional combatants
2) New user accounts and anonymous IPs which focus on editing of Bogdanov Affair shall be presumed to be participants in the external dispute and, despite not being specifically mentioned in this remedy, are subject to it.

 * Passed 6-0


text:
Megadiverse countries

A megadiverse country is one of a group of nations that harbours the majority of Earth's species and high numbers of endemic species. Conservation International identified 17 megadiverse countries in 1998, all of which are located at least partially in tropical or subtropical regions.

Megadiversity means exhibiting great biodiversity. The main criterion for megadiverse countries is endemism at the level of species, genera and families. A megadiverse country must have at least 5,000 species of endemic plants and must border marine ecosystems.

In 2002, Mexico formed a separate organization focusing on Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries, consisting of countries rich in biological diversity and associated traditional knowledge. This organization includes all but three megadiverse countries as identified by Conservation International.

Cancún initiative and declaration of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries
On 18 February 2002, the Ministers in charge of the Environment and the Delegates of Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela assembled in Cancún, Mexico. These countries declared to set up a Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC) to promote consultation and cooperation on the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. They also declared that they would call on those countries that had not become Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to become parties to these agreements.

At the same time, they agreed to meet periodically, at the ministerial and expert levels, and decided that upon the conclusion of each annual Ministerial Meeting, the next rotating host country would take on the role of Secretary of the group, to ensure its continuity, the further development of cooperation among these countries, and to reach the various agreements and objectives. The 17 LMMC member countries in 2002 are home to approximately 70% of Earth's species.

Later, in 2010, Guatemala and Iran were also included in the list.

List of megadiverse countries
In alphabetical order, the 17 megadiverse countries are:

 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$
 * $\phi$

Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries
The current member countries of the Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries organization are as follows, in alphabetical order:

 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙
 * 𝜙

title: Megadiverse countries


text:
Talk:Football Association of Hong Kong, China

until a clear consensus that all non-sovereign territories are titled in this way
Hong Kong Representative Team is what HKFA calls it's team. This is what it calls it, irregardless of what the other teams are called. A year or so ago some footballers went and created XX national football team for everyone in FIFA. They didn't pay attention to whether those teams were national, regional, or whatever - or what their name was according to the association that managed them. Correcting that on individual articles does not require concensus across every single one of them. SchmuckyTheCat 14:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

which began to use the new name since the handover in 1997.
Please provide a cite before restoring this. SchmuckyTheCat 14:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hong Kong FA.gif
Image:Hong Kong FA.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong Football Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428212853/http://www.the-afc.com/en/member-associations/east/hong-kong-football-assoc-ltd.html to http://www.the-afc.com/en/member-associations/east/hong-kong-football-assoc-ltd.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


text:
Švenčionys District Municipality

Švenčionys District Municipality is one of 60 municipalities in Lithuania.

It has significant Polish minority population in Lithuania, with a quarter of the population claiming Polish ethnicity.

Elderships
Švenčionys District Municipality is divided into 11 elderships:

Twin towns — Sister cities
Švenčionys district municipality is twinned with the following towns:
 * 🇵🇱 Świdnica, Poland

title: Švenčionys District Municipality


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

Complete text of request for arbitration:

Involved Parties

 * User:Snowspinner
 * User:YBM
 * User:rbj
 * User:Laurence67
 * User:LLL
 * User:XAL
 * Various IPs

 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

They will be made aware. I promise.

Statement by Snowspinner
The Bogdanov Affair article has been plagued by vicious POV warrioring from a number of sides, including IPs belonging to Igor Bogdanov, the subject of the article. The short form is this: The Bogdanovs published some physics papers, which were eventually widely recognized by the physics community as nonsense. Bogdanovs stand by their papers. Hilarity ensues. The article has been under near-constant revert warring recently, as Bogdanov and people allied with him remove all criticism, and Bogdanov's critics revert frantically. The mediation cabal failed to solve this one. I ask for short term injunctive relief, specifically that the Bogdanovs, YBM, LLL, Laurence67, and XAL all be banned from the article in question. A sample of problematic edits include  (A new user who immediately shows up in the firefight)  and  (For personal attacks). The odds of sockpuppets being involved in editing here is quite high - a lot of users who do nothing other than edit Bogdanov pages.

Statement from third party Ral315
I haven't edited the article, but I was one of the admins who was involved in blocking. As part of a routine 3RR request on WP:AN/3RR (made by Rbj), I blocked Rbj and an IP purportedly belonging to Igor. Both editors acted badly afterward; Igor reverted the article under different IPs, and Rbj was, in his own words, "proud" of the block. The whole thing is a mess, and I would support blocking at least a few of these editors (Bogdanovs and Rbj, I'm not really sure on how the rest are involved) from editing the article. I would also encourage the ArbCom to clarify on whether this is a violation of WP:AB (though this is only a guideline, it would help to clarify how far the vanity/autobiography guidelines reach.  Ral  315   WS  19:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * some clarification Ral315, it was not i, but it was Igor who requested that you block me and you ended up blocking us both for 24 hours. i submitted to the 24 hour block and Igor did not.  he was protesting his innocence on the talk page twice using different IPs before the day was over and i, not willing to use anonymous IP, had to stay out of it.

 * lastly, you might not see the justification, but Snowspinner said after the fact that reverting Igor's edits to this article that is about him had some immunity from the 3RR. i don't remember the exact words but the record is there.  my actions were vindicated because of persistent vandalism of the article by Igor because he doesn't like inclusion of factual data that makes him look bad.  please get your facts right.  this is a case of vandalism by persistent vandals that needs to be ended.   as i said on my talk page when i just got blocked, i am absolutely certain that i was doing the right thing reverting that vandalism even if it was more than 3 reverts that day.  Autobiography is pretty clear about writing your own biography here.  it's pretty damn clear who is flagrantly breaking the rules and i hope that the all of the admins and arbcom figure it out.r b-j 21:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Aah, so it was Igor. My mistake.  Nevertheless, I feel that 3RR should still apply- the Autobiography guideline is just that- a guideline.  Not a hard rule.  But a temporary injunction blocking some or all of these editors from editing might not be a bad idea.   Ral  315   WS  02:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think rbj was reasonable to violate the 3RR after I told him not to worry about it. If you really want to throw a 3RR block over this, you should throw it at me. Snowspinner 02:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * ya know, Ral315 and Snowspinner, for the 2nd time i was blocked for 3RR violation along with Igor who was blocked "indefinitely " ', and sat this out for 24 hours, while at the same time Igor just goes and gets another IP and edits the article anyway during the time that we are both "blocked" (during my 24 hours and his "indefinite" period).
 * does this matter to you?  i've never been a 2nd Amendment supporter, but now i understand what they mean when they say "When you take away our guns, only the crooks will be armed because, being crooks, they will not give up their guns voluntarily."  (i'm still not a 2nd Amendment supporter.)
 * you can throw all the 3RR blocks you want. with me they'll stick because i will not edit anonymously nor look around for other IPs to work from, but with Igor, it doesn't matter.  he'll just shrug it off and do what he does anyway since he sees himself as above the rules.  ever wonder how much he's laughing at you? r b-j 01:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Question from Bishonen: an injunction for XAL?
Oops. I didn't realize that the Bogdanov Affair affair had made it to RFAR; I just blocked XAL for the third time for unrepentant personal attacks. 72 hours. Should I unblock her so she can respond to this RFAR? I'd appreciate it if she could get an injunction against editing anywhere else, though (especially not on Talk:Bogdanov Affair), for what would have been the duration of the block. I'm not happy about all this vitriol she spreads, and, from past experience, I'd expect it to be worse now that I've gotten her worked up with a new block. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC) PS, re Snowspinner's request above that XAL along with other users be banned from editing the article: she never has edited it. Never edited any article on wikipedia. I want her banned from the article's talkpage.

 * For what it is worth, I support this motion. XAL has contributed nothing to the discussion, in stark contraindistinction to most of the other users like Igor or rbj or ybm, and often stirs things up. --Maru (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Also from an outsider: XAL appears to only rant and to only rant on one topic (user:YBM, whose letters are sequentially one after hers, like IBM and HAL), and to contribute nothing but a negative -- an anti- point of view. Thus, she seems to have come to us from some outside web fight and longterm flamewar.  Since coming here, she has demonstrated the grace, understanding, curiosity, and equanimity of a wounded hyena with rabies.  Geogre 11:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement from User:Rbj
I am not a physicist. I am an electrical engineer with some experience in publishing and in academia, although I'm not in the academia at the moment. Being on the Review Board of a technical journal (Journal of the Audio Engineering Society), I have a little experience about how stuff like this gets published. No journal is immune to it which is why some physicists thought that the Bogdanoff brothers were deliberately stinging the physics discipline in the same way that Sokal did to the sociology discipline.

There are two initial possible classes for the Bogdanoff's work: either it has some merit (perhaps with flaws or perhaps not flawed at all) or it has no merit.

If it's the latter, then it is bad science or junk science or pseudoscience (which would be called "quackery" if the science were medicine). In that case, it doesn't matter what the consensus of physicists think. reality is not dictated by majority rule.

If it is the former, that is that it is not devoid of merit, then it is either mainstream science or it is fringe science or protoscience. But here, which category that it falls into does depend on the consensus of the mainstream of the existing discipline. If a majority or even a large minority of physicists recognize the Bogdanoff's work to be valid (or, at least, to have some merit) a case could be made for it to be called "mainstream". But, given the supposition that the work has some merit, if the Bogdanoff's work is not respected as having any merit by any more than a token set of recognized physicists, then the best that can be claimed for it is that it is fringe science or protoscience. That label is not necessarily disparaging. A century ago special relativity was fringe science or protoscience and now it is standard in any introductory modern physics text.

But if the theory is not accepted by the "mainstream" physics community, there is no basis to claim that the theory is mainstream. And if it is not mainstream, the remaining categories are: fringe science or protoscience, and junk science or pseudoscience. In some manner, even string theory, which has a lot of adherents and respect, must accept such a label. If it turns out that string theory can never be falsifiable, it will eventually fall by the wayside and become an obsolete theory.

So there are two main questions to deal with:

 * 1. Does the Bogdanoff's published work have technical merit or not?  That issue is too technical and arcane to be debated here, however, a bona-fide cosmologist who has identified himself and his credentials has offered an opinion here on the talk page.  Igor would be correct to imply that only the "specialists" can debate this effectively, but he is not correct that this is the salient question for debate about the Wikipedian article.  Wikipedia is not the Annals of Physics nor Classical and Quantum Gravity nor the USENET newsgroup sci.physics.research.  It would be nice if we could get more real physicists other than User:YBM and User:Alain_r involved, but then again, Wikipedia is not the place for real physicists to slug out what is or what is not real physics (but, unfortunately, it looks like it may become that).

 * 2. The other question that is salient is: what does the wider community of physicists say about the quality and veracity of the Bogdanoff's work?  Well, there is quite a record and, despite the publication of their earlier papers in reputable journals, the record is not flattering for the Bogdanoffs.  The VAST majority of the credentialed physics community has utterly rejected and dismissed their published work as "wrong", "hoax", "embarrassing", "incoherent", "gibberish", conceptully invalid (my paraphrase of many positions), and even "BS" (and i don't think they mean "Bachelor of Science").  VERY, VERY, FEW physicists have come to their defense on the record.  We virtually only hear the journal referee's comments (and only relayed to us via the Bogdanoff's, that has to be a dubious source) but that fails to recognize the problem.  No one disputes that the Bogdanoff's got published in a couple of legitimate journals of theoretical physics.  The problem is that their papers are believed by the mainstream to be without merit.  The journal referees competence regarding this arcane field are also suspect (indeed physicist John Baez has said that the referees have something to answer for).  And the merit that Bogdanoff's try to extract from such publication has been destroyed by the fact that the editorial board of CQG has made it clear that the papers, in retrospect, have failed to meet the standards expected of any article published in the journal.  The editors of CQG have repudiated the very papers that the Bogdanoffs have published in their journal.  This is undeniably damning (except that Igor does actually deny that it is).

The Wikipedia policy is that there is no original research and neutral POV (we don't get to write our own autobiographies here). The fact that the Bogdanoffs continue to defend their work as genuine should be reported as such. But the fact that their work is overwelmingly rejected by the mainstream physics community should also be reported as such. Including links to fringe science, protoscience, junk science, and pseudoscience is not inappropriate at all, because there is no way that anyone can claim it to be in the mainstream.

I have been editing on Wikipedia for about a year or two (I think). The Bogdanov Affair is not my only agenda, but that cannot be said for the Bogdanovs, their sock-puppets, and the few flesh-and-blood supporters: XAL, Laurence67, CatherineV; -- they are here for one and only one reason: to paint the B brothers in the most flattering light possible. To turn this stinkhorn into a rose. But it simply stinks, and that stink is of the Bogdanov's own making. Their behavior regarding this, both here on WP, and at other sites/blogs and USENET, has been nakedly dishonest. They act like imposters much of the time, and I am confident that the reason is that they are imposters. They are pretending to be physicists, but the real physicists know that the B. brothers are not.

The admins and ArbCom of Wikipedia are going to have to make a judgement about what the real physicists say about the Bogdanov "research". On the latest version that I or YBM (now a few others have stepped in to defend the article from the B. vandals) have left, you will get links to the extensive web pages and blogs where this has been discussed since 2002 (a quick check of some words as at Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/comments including an older NYT article). This is the very information that the Bogdanov brothers want to suppress. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. r b-j 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal from Marudubshinki
I have watched and studied this matter a fair bit; I do not think it will end peaceably until the page is inacessible for whatever reason. I propose we keelhaul a neutral Wikipedian, essentially randomly chosen, and put them up to a vote on the Talk: page. If accepted, (as they should be since a neutral editor will not have been involved, and presumably, would be non-prejudiced and hence acceptable to all parties), they will completely revamp the article, striving for a neutral even-handed result. This would then be indefinitely protected, until such time as the madness ceases. --Maru (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure completely selling out the wiki process is what I'd call an acceptable solution. --Snowspinner 01:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, Snowspinner, the wiki process has been grinding along for a while now, and it seems to be ineffectual in this case. I don't fault wikis for this- they are essentially predicated upon the idea of consensus being possible, with the various parties being reasonable and willing to eventually compromise. I don't see any glimmerings of either quality here. So, much as I hate the precedent, we must explore alternatives. --Maru (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that this is a fair proposal. Another variation on it would be to elect a "college" of 3 or 4 neutral wikipedians.  --Igor

 * Well, I was thinking it would be a lot easier to randomly and fairly select one Wikipedian rather than 3 or 4; it would also be a lot easier for all parties concerned to vet one rather than multiple candidates. --Maru (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A little heads-up regarding the 3RR rule, sock puppets, and subterfuge
I think that if admins and the ArbCom look into this, it is pretty clear that the Bogdanovs are acting on a little plan of attack by attrition. Notice our two latest Bogdanov sock puppets, "Agent 194" and contribs  and "Naudin" and contribs. now here is what will happen, sorta like the board game Risk, in the next edit/revert war, Igor will attack from multiple locations (sock puppets) each with equal resources (our 3 reverts allowed) to the foe, but with a total that outnumbers his opponent. I will revert his vandalism, and he will revert back, but the only way for me to "keep up" is to go beyond the 3RR where none of his sock puppets do that.

I will bet you've seen this sorta thing before, but I do not know what you do about it or have done about it. It's just a heads-up.

In addition, even though both Igor and I have supposedly been blocked because of 3RR violation, Igor does not submit to his being blocked. He just gets another IP, sometimes starts up a new identity, and continues to white wash out anything that he doesn't like to see in this article that is precisely about his "beating the system". Igor is not submitting to his blocks resulting from his own 3RR violation. Do you guys on the ArbCom give a rat's ass about that? -- r b-j 02:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I just point that involved parties cannot unilaterally declare that 3RR is not valid anymore. If Igor has been banned by ArbCom, we can enforce that (please give me an url), otherwise, I'm not upholding Snowspinner advice where he tells Rbj he can break 3RR official policy as much as he can. -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 19:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I point out that I was an uninvolved party, and that the declaration was not that 3RR did not hold on the article, but rather that Igor's edits should be treated as vandalism and [reverts of] edits by banned users, [...] never count towards the 3RR. Snowspinner 20:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, Drini, please be careful (and precise) of what say (or type). Snowspinner only said to not worry about the 3RR in reverting the repeated vandalism of Igor since Igor does not and never has submitted to an edit block.

 * But the main point in my notice here is that it is clear that Igor ignores any block for vandalism, 3RR, or any other reason. At 21:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC),  Ral315 blocked both Igor and me for 24 hours for 3RR violation.  Even though I know I was doing the right thing by reverting Igor's vandalism, I understood that I was taking that risk (of catching a 3RR violation) by repeatedly reverting this vandalism and I accepted the consequence (sorta like civil disobedience).  But it is clear that Igor did not (accept the consequences of his 3RR violation).  At 18:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC), Igor had been clearly editing.  18:01 is earlier than 21:08 therefore Igor does not submit to edit blocks that you throw at him.  There are other examples; if you want me to find them I will.

 * This is explicitly what i want the ArbCom and admins to notice. Igor considers himself above the rules and is perfectly willing to "play the system" to get what he wants, whether he deserves it or not.  Right now, I understand that Igor is "blocked ... indefinitely" (Drini, those are your words).  But do you think that Igor cares about that?  What does the evidence show?  Must i spell more of this out for you before you will get it?  r b-j 20:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but until ArbCom gives its ruling, 3rr still in hold. From Vandalism: "Vandalism is not: NPOV Violations". I know you believe with all your heart as snowspinner does that Igor is throwng false statements. But until an official ruling is issued, both partes are subject to policies.

 * No, Drini, Igor is not subject to the policies. That is the whole point. Give him a 3RR block, he'll laugh it off and edit anyway.  Block him further for ignoring the first block and he'll laugh it off and edit away.  Will a single admin or ArbCom member take notice of that? I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has noticed and I don't know how much more explicit one can be about it. r b-j 20:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But you must wait until arbcom rules. It may seem unfair, it is, but that's how things are. -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That's why this arbcom request is, you cannot be judge (and rule from right now that igor edits should be removed without penalty) and an involde party. -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 03:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Which, notably, I wasn't when I declared open season. Snowspinner 11:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok point taken, but then, if it was indeed a vandal (judged and sentenced) why other with RFAr? -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 23:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Because the ban wasn't working, and the article was still consumed with revert war. Snowspinner 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * actually, the "ban" was halfway working; it worked for me in that when i was blocked i didn't edit. it's just that when Igor was blocked, he ignored the block and used whatever IP he could get to edit anyway. r b-j 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that each one of us believes that it is "noon" above his head. The problem is not what "rbj" thinks or what "igor" thinks. At least not directly. Because the problem, here, is to acheive a good, objective and honnest article. We almost got a consensus. Except...for one thing. Rbj refuses to admit that the publication, in the article, of a negative statement issued by the Editorial Board of CQG (a theoretical physics journal where we got published)  should be balanced by the publication, a few lines after,  of the referee's report that accepted the paper in CQG. It simple to understand : without the referees approval, our paper would not have been published in CQG. And the Editorial Board of the journal would not have issued this negative statement.

Conclusion : after months of discussions, the problem of this "Bogdanoff Affair" article only lies now on the publication of this referee's report. Rbj does not want it to be published. We support its publication which represent, in our opinion, the only way to achieve a balanced article.

Igor

 * As is his normal pattern, what Igor writes here is a falsehood and a verifiable falsehood. Indeed many times I have agreed to keeping a referee's report that flatters the Bogdanovs (as in this version) as long as it is balanced with another referee report that is (how shall we say?...) less flattering (the Eli Hawkins report).  Since virtually the entire physics community dismisses their publications as nonsense, a 50-50 balance of referee reports is more than generous.  In addition, I left it to Igor to decide if he wanted them both in or both out.  As usual, he chose to remove the unflattering report and leave in the one that he likes.  So I removed that one also.  Currently it appears that the WP admins are supporting that decision since they have, without exception, reverted Igor's "edit" (unless one of the other editors got to it first).  Also keep in mind that Igor is "blocked" indefinitely for 3RR and he continues to edit anyway.

 * But, of course, the rules don't apply to Igor Bogdanov. r b-j 23:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

--

Rbj's so called proposals do not stand on. To cut a long story short, he wants to apply the text written by one referee about one article for one journal on an other article and for another journal. This is called deformation and manipulation of facts. Rbj wants to create a reality that never existed.

As I wrote on the discussion page :

"Rbj seems to have 2 problems :

1. The first of his problems seems to be his incapacity of writing exact informations. He presented at least 3 times major informations as correct when they appeared as totally invented to serve his demonstration. For instance, he insisted to apply the text of the referee appointed by "Journal of Physics A"  to the article published in CQG. While reading his presentation, one was convinced that the JPA referee was commenting our CQG paper. To make sure that there was no mistake about this relation, rbj even wrote just after the positive citation of the CQG report :

However a referee for Journal of Physics A, who later went public, might not agree

Might not agree with what? With the paper published in CQG of course! There is no other way to read and understand this phrase.

In the last version he proposed (this very day), rbj continues to present false informations as if he had done a serious work on it. An example? In order to justify the use he does of the text of JPA referee, rbj does not hesitate to write that our "KMS State..." paper was published in Journal of Physics A when IT WAS NEVER PUBLISHED IN THIS JOURNAL!

 * in the talk page, Igor says: The Eli Hawkins report exhibited by rbj is NOT a report for CQG but for "Journal of Physics A" . It was on that basis of that information that i changed it from CQG to JPA and now he says that it wasn't JPA.  so YBM or someone else went and got the precise citings and put it in the article.  i have no idea what it is that Igor is complaining about if i "correct" the reference to what he says it is.  if it was wrong, i'm sorry, but it was on the basis of what Igor said.  and we fixed it right away. r b-j 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is only after having rewritten this article (precisely on the basis of the critics made by the referee) that we submitted the new version to Chinese Journal of Physics where it was published.

So it is evident that rbj's presentation is FALSE and shows his irrepressible tendancy to invent informations or situations just because he HAS to present us as negatively as possible.

 * Igor has to back that up with evidence. i can make mistakes by making corrections based on Igor's information, but i have never "invented" a single fact or quote and no one should believe such a pathetic charge without requiring hard proof. they can complain about "timeline" (a phony argument intended to get unflattering content removed) or about being "not exact" (another bogus argument, when bona fide inaccuracies of content was revealed, they were minor - regarding which journal vs. another journal but there were never any substative errors of fact that i put in the article), but they cannot credibly claim that i fabricated content.  proof is required.

 * in addition, i do not invent identities to make it appear that my falacious POV has more popular support than it does. other than Laurence67, XAL (a.k.a. Sophie), and CatherineV, there is no evidence of other real flesh-and-blood supporters for Igor.  and there is no evidence that either of these three supporters know anything about physics other than reading Igor's and Grichka's book (which means they still wouldn't know anything about physics).  i'm merely and electrical engineer, but any EE who is worth his salt knows some classical and introductory modern physics.  i do not claim to know the hard core detail of cosmology but i can read what other physicists say, i can evaluate their credentials, and, even for this mere electrical engineer, it is obvious that The Emperor is naked, and Igor and Grichka are the weavers of the fine cloth the Emperor is "wearing".  r b-j 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a typical manipulation of facts in order to satisfy rbj's personal views upon the subject. Since he wants the article to appear as negative as possible he organizes "his" article the way he wants (even if it is necessary to deform badly the chain of events or the reality of things).

 * the problem for Igor is that 95% of physicists understand their publications to be nonsense and have publically stated so on various blogs, websites, and USENET postings. when the prevalent opinion of their "work" is so one-sided, a balanced and objective article about it will not reflect that as 50% - 50%.  it is not 50-50, but more like 95-5  or 20 to 1.  Igor seems to think that when 20 physicists say damningly negative things about his "work" to one or two who said lukewarm positive comments, that somehow this means a fair article would express that as 50-50.  "fair" is not stupid and Igor really underestimates the intelligence of those he is debating with.  and he greatly overestimates the persuasiveness of his argument. sometimes we have the energy to take him on, point-by-point, but so often, there are just dozens of ineffective, weak arguments that it just isn't worth the energy to address each frivolous point.  r b-j 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement from Laurence67
First, just a comment about Snowspinner's list of "Involved Parties" : why is Igor not there ? Has he no right to stand up for himself, in spite of the fact that he is, with his brother, the most concerned person ? This "omission", in my opinion, is particularly representative of this "Bogdanoff Affair Affair".

Indeed, I find that the worst aspect of this revert war is the rudeness and the unfairness with which Igor is treated by some contributors and, a lot more serious, by some administrators, particularly Snowspinner. The latter decided arbitrarily that Igor's contributions were "repeated vandalism", just because he is the subject of the article, so he banned him and, what's more, encouraged the other contributors to revert his posts "on sight", without worrying about the 3RR.

This bias had an ill effect on some other contributors, who interpreted this "blessing" as a right to revert any text from which the least extract could have been in favour of the Bogdanovs. To justify this, any contributor who seemed to be "for" the Bogdanovs was suspected to be a sock puppet, which was an excellent excuse to feel free to revert us as easily and systematically as they did for Igor ! Then, when it became obvious that we were not, they created an idiom for us ("meat puppet") which meant clearly that they admitted we were not Igor himself, but which suggested we were "revertable" as well. A good example is given by "Professor Ying" here : 29 september, 11:24, as he writes by reverting me : "reverting a revert of a Bogdanov's sock puppet called Laurence67". This comment is all the more hypocritical as, whereas I have been officially considered to be a "possible" sock puppet (it was inscribed on the top of my personal page), now my name has been removed from the list after I prooved I was a "real person". And what is more, "Professor Ying" knows me for monthes and monthes as a "forumer" (among others on sur-la-toile.com) and knows better than most Wikipedian contributors that I'm "real"...

Because of this lack of fairness, the article has become excessively negative and partial, all the more as most contributors don't even take the trouble to read the details given by Igor in the discussion page - just like r-b-j, who gets 2 journals mix-up but persists in reverting "his" version of the facts.

Moreover, beside the quality and the pertinence of the article itself, I find also that the administrators should be a little more motivated to fight some serious "incivilities" against Igor, who is regularly insulted, without the perpetrators being sanctioned. One of the worst example : "You are bastards", "You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field." (YBM, 26 September, Bogdanov Affair - Archive 3) ; other version, by r-b-j : "They are hucksters, swindlers, con artists" (r b-j, Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 2, 03:26, 17 September 2005), before suggesting to add the category "excrement". More recently, by the same "contributor", whose style becomes more and more hysterical : "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 17:42, 29 September 2005).

Beside these incredible "direct" insults, there are many others, more "discret" and indirect, sometimes in the article itself : some contributors try to insert external links, categories or "See also" whose content is very insultating in this context, like "The Emperor's New Clothes", or more recently : "The crackpot Index", an article about "incompetence" etc. (Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 2, 03:26, 17 September 2005). Obviously, this kind of contributions is designed only to destroy as much as possible the Bogdanovs' reputation. How a "real" encyclopedical article, which is supposed to be objective, could be written in such a malicious context ?

That's why I think that the "Bogdanov Affair" must be written / supervised above all by neutral contributor(s), and I find that Maru's idea - looking for a "neutral Wikipedian" - is very good. There can be one or 3-4, as suggested by Igor, I think that their number doesn't matter much, as long as they don't try to settle a score by means of the article, as some current contributors do.

Laurence67 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just one quick point: "Why is Igor not there?". Igor's there. He's represented by "various IPs", which is unfortunate, but it's his own doing. Igor has not responded to any of my suggestions that he start editing from a name account. I don't have any right to insist on this, and I haven't been, but I recently posted yet another appeal in response to his own complaint about his rapidly rotating assigned IP's causing him to accidentally violate his blocks. No reply. Bishonen | talk 08:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: Igor has now registered the account Igor B., and edited the article from it. I appreciate it, and I hope he'll find the convenience of using a single name account. I'm assuming he intends to edit from it exclusively from now on, so I'm leaving the briefly used Igor Bogdanoff account permablocked. If any lingering autoblocks or other remnants of the confused IP situation should bite him through no fault of his own, I appeal to admins to help keep the new account unblocked. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand. I just found it was not clear if Igor had the right to defend himself or not. Thank you a lot for your explanations !
 * Laurence67 19:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Update October 3: sweetness and light!
Crossposted from WP:AN/I. Update: Bogdanov Affair is eerily quiet just now, after a huge edit war. I removed one POV rant from each side, and everybody (that I've heard from) seems quite happy with the result. Igor Bogdanov has registered a name account, and declared that he doesn't feel any need to change the article any more. And hey, it's a good article, much better than before the wars! Admittedly, this may be the calm before another storm, as the talk page remains a horror story and I just had to threaten to ban two editors--acrimoniously discussing everything but Bogdanov Affair--from it. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not convinced: Article is swamped by recently added cites . Talk page conflicts the same as ever. --Pjacobi 21:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

 * Accept Fred Bauder 14:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 23:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Further Comments
What a silly ruling! I realize Wikipedia is not a democracy/lots of other stuff, but with the pretense towards objective ruling that this arbitration makes process (with "defendants," etc.), one would think that the "findings of fact" would include facts that are significant to the ruling, and that the ruling would be based on those findings of fact. Instead, the ruling is just to ban lots of people from editing, apparently mostly people on one side of the issue, ignoring the extensive arguments on both sides. It seems rather arbitrary, but then it is called "arbitration." There's no principle behind the ruling. It might solve this particular issue - like slapping on a band-aid stops bleeding - but states no principle that could help to solve future issues in advance. Luckily this bleeding doesn't appear to come from hemophilia, but it could, couldn't it?

(Granted, this is coming from someone who just recently came across the article/issue in question, has no real opinion or basis or background to talk about the issue, and doesn't really care either way. But a ruling should have a reason behind it, I would think. And no reason is stated, much less supported.)

zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the Bogdanov Affair
Yes, the thorn-in-the-side returns! Three sock puppets —, and  — have in the last three days vandalized the Bogdanov Affair article, subject of a 2005 ArbCom ruling. All of their accounts are older, in contrast to the one-shot sockpuppet accounts created to muck with that article earlier, but they have been inactive for a long time (Bester since 3 July 2005, Stern since 2 August 2006 and Tron since 26 February 2004). Edit mannerisms (diff, ) are similar or identical to the sockpuppets encountered last year (such as these).

and I both suspect that these may be compromised accounts. In that light, I'd like to request an emendation of the enforcement decision which currently states the following:

 * New user accounts and anonymous IPs which focus on editing of Bogdanov Affair shall be presumed to be participants in the external dispute and, despite not being specifically mentioned in this remedy, are subject to it.

Is it possible to amend this statement so that it also applies to user accounts which have been inactive a significant length of time (say, greater than six months) and which may be compromised, particularly if they exhibit the same editing behavior as known offenders? These are, I should add, very predictable puppets. Anville 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Edit to add: Sam Blanning has created a long-term abuse entry for this matter, which see. Anville 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I've been operating under the assumption that previous rulings, e.g. RFAR/Iasson: One user or several? (a ruling repeated in other cases which I don't remember offhand), allow for the blocking of such compromised accounts, but a change to the wording of the specific case would be appreciated. Only place I disagree with Anville is that I don't think it would be a good idea to include a time limit ("greater than six months") in the amended ruling. The length of time isn't the giveaway, it's the fact that these accounts first display none of the characteristics, then they fall dormant, then they suddenly spring up as Bogdasocks. I wouldn't like to be in a situation where the fact that the account had been compromised would be as obvious as in the case of Bester, but it only fell dormant five months ago.
 * Arbcom rulings are generally slow to change and risky to ignore, so the Arbcom shouldn't, in my opinion, seek to set out exactly how administrators may act to fight a specific abuser once they've ruled that they need to be dealt with - whether a particular account has been compromised should be left up to the judgement of administrators and the community in general on a case-by-case basis. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Sam Blanning's comments and upon further reflection, I've struck out the "six months" part of my remark. Anville 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you're on safe ground blocking the accounts as socks. I don't believe it's necessary to formally change the remedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)