text:
User talk:CrazyGuy

Knock off the sockpuppets. NOW. You are wasting your time as well as ours and the next step will be a formal complaint to your ISP for terms of service violations. - Lucky 6.9 04:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Blockbuster.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Blockbuster.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 13:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Blockbuster.gif
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Blockbuster.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:WhatACartoonTitle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WhatACartoonTitle.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. treelo radda  13:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WhatACartoonTitle.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WhatACartoonTitle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:CrazyGuy


text:
Waywayseecappo First Nation

The Waywayseecappo First Nation (Wewezhigaabawing) is a First Nations band government whose reserve is located twenty miles (32 km) east of Russell, Manitoba, Canada. The First Nation's reserve is 10,059 hectare (24,856 acres) and is located near the southwestern corner of the Riding Mountain National Park. It is bordered by the Rural Municipality of Rossburn and the Rural Municipality of Riding Mountain West. The First Nation also hold interest together with 32 other First Nations on the 37.1 hectare (91.7 acre) Treaty Four Reserve Grounds (Indian Reserve No. 77), located adjacent to Fort Qu'Appelle. Its population was 1,219 in 2011. They are home of the MJHL team Waywayseecappo Wolverines. There are several businesses located in the Birdtail valley near PTH 45, such as a gas station, food mart, gaming centre, health centre, daycare, and community arena complex. As of April 1, 2014, the RCMP is no longer in the community, being replaced by the Manitoba First Nations Police Service.

Government
Chief Murray Clearsky

Councillor Mel Wabash Councillor Anthony Longclaws Councillor Paul Mentuck Councillor Tim Cloud Councillor Joe Gambler Councillor Laura Brandon

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

title: Waywayseecappo First Nation


text:
Matthew Norman

Matthew James Norman (born 17 September 1986) is an Australian man who was convicted in Indonesia for drug trafficking as a member of the Bali Nine. In 2005, Norman was arrested in a room at the Melasti Hotel in Kuta together with three others. Police uncovered 334 g of heroin in a suitcase in the room. After a criminal trial, on 15 February 2006 Norman was sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal to the Indonesian Supreme Court to have the sentence reduced suffered a shock when the Supreme Court imposed the death penalty on 6 September 2006. A subsequent appeal to the Indonesian Supreme Court, following a full confession by Norman to his role in the plan to import heroin from Bali to Australia, resulted in the original sentence of life imprisonment being reinstated.

Alleged trafficking conspiracy
From Quakers Hill in Sydney's western suburbs, Norman was employed at Eurest, a catering company, where he met colleagues Martin Stephens, Renae Lawrence, and his supervisor, Andrew Chan. All four would later be convicted of drug trafficking as fellow members of the Bali Nine.

Media reports based on the testimony of co-conspirator, Renae Lawrence, claim that Norman was involved in an attempt in December 2004, at trafficking from Indonesia to Australia. This attempt was allegedly organised by Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen and involved Norman, Lawrence, Andrew Chan, and others. The delivery was aborted when heroin suppliers failed to deliver "due to a financial matter or someone knowing about the plan the shipment was cancelled".

On or about 8 April 2005, Norman arrived in Bali with Si Yi Chen and checked into the White Rose Hotel. It was reported that Norman and Chen "hardly ever left their room".

On 14 April, Norman Chen, Lawrence, and Stephens checked into Adhi Dharma hotel, with Nguyen arriving in the same hotel two days later. It was reported the police took the room next to Norman and Chen. In the evening of Sunday 17 April, appearing like tourists, Norman, Nguyen, and Chen checked into the Melasti Hotel. Myuran Sukumaran, who was also with them, with his bags, left them with the others as he decided to go to the Hard Rock Hotel complex.

Arrest in Indonesia
About 20 minutes after checking in, Norman, aged 18, was arrested at the Melasti Hotel in Kuta on 17 April 2005 with Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen, Myuran Sukumaran and Si Yi Chen. Indonesian police claim the group were in possession of 334 g of heroin and bundles of plastic wrapping, Elastoplast tape, and a set of scales, indicating involvement in a plan to transport drugs to Australia.

Earlier that day at Ngurah Rai International Airport in Denpasar, Indonesian police also arrested the following drug mules after they were found carrying various amounts of heroin concealed on their bodies. Martin Stephens was found to be carrying 3.3 kg; Renae Lawrence was found to be carrying 2.689 kg; Michael Czugaj was found to be carrying 1.75 kg and Scott Rush was found to be carrying 1.3 kg of heroin. Alleged co-ringleader, Andrew Chan was also arrested the same day while seated on an Australian Airlines flight waiting to depart Denpasar for Sydney. At the time Chan was arrested, he was carrying three mobile phones and a boarding pass. No drugs were found in his possession.

Of the nine arrested, Norman was the youngest.

Criticism of Australian Federal Police tipoff
Lee Rush, the father of Scott Rush, a fellow member of the Bali Nine, said that he contacted the Australian Federal Police (AFP) prior to the commission of the offence, fearing his son was travelling to Bali and would commit a drug-related crime. Rush senior claims then to have received assurances from the AFP that they would tell his son he was under surveillance to dissuade him from going through with the crime before the group's departure from Indonesia. Scott Rush's lawyers said he was never contacted. It was revealed that the AFP alerted Indonesian police that a crime was to be committed approximately two weeks before the arrests, and had commenced an investigation about ten weeks prior to the arrests. When the Bali Nine were arrested, the news of the tipoff became public and there was criticism of the role of the AFP in protecting the interests of Australian citizens. Commenting on the matter at the time, AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty was reported as saying:

Rush took action in the Federal Court of Australia against the AFP for breach of the bilateral treaty between Indonesia and Australia when information was handed by the AFP to the Indonesians. Rush's case claimed that such information should only be released by the Attorney-General. However, the Commonwealth Government maintained that the treaty only applies after a suspect is charged. The application was dismissed by the Federal Court in January 2006.

Criminal trial
Criminal trials for the accused commenced in the Denpasar District Court on 11 October 2005. Chen, Nguyen, and Norman, all arrested at the Melasti Hotel and earning the numeric epithet, The Melasti Three, were tried together, with the remaining six defendants tried separately.

In December 2005 it was reported that tensions were building between the Bali Nine drug mules and Sukumaran and Chan. Several days later, lawyers acting for some members of the Bali Nine initially sought the support of the Director of Public Prosecutions to intervene and lay charges for conspiracy to import drugs, so that the nine could be extradited and charged under Australian law. However, the judges hearing the trial matters in Bali called for Australia not to intervene in Indonesia's right to impose capital punishment;. Lawyers acting for Stephens, one of the Bali Nine, claimed that the fairness of his trial was in jeopardy following comments made in the media by Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda that Australians should be prepared for members of the Bali Nine to receive a death sentence, if found guilty.

Sentencing and appeal
During his final plea to judges, Norman said:

Norman's mother, Robyn Norman, said after sentencing a life sentence was a better result than the death penalty, and also thanked the Indonesian government for looking after her son:

On 15 February 2006 Norman was sentenced to life imprisonment. Commenting on the sentences at the time, Australian Federal Police Commissioner Keelty stated:

Australian Prime Minister at that time, John Howard was reported as commenting: and

Appealing against the sentence, on 6 September 2006 his sentence was upgraded to the death penalty. On 5 March 2008, three judges in the Indonesian Supreme Court in Jakarta decided to spare the lives of Chen, Norman and Nguyen.

Criminal charges pending in Australia
In an earlier unrelated incident, Norman and Lawrence were arrested on 26 March 2005, travelling along the Pacific Highway in a stolen vehicle. It was reported that police were required to use road spikes to intercept the vehicle. Both were due to appear on 26 April 2005 in the Gosford Magistrates Court to face car theft and traffic related charges. However, due to their arrest in Indonesia nine days earlier, both Norman and Lawrence failed to appear.

title: Matthew Norman


text:
Category:Star Fox media files

__NOGALLERY__

title: Category:Star Fox media files


text:
User:Williamnilly

Hello, my name is Neil.

Before I created the Williamnilly account, I dabbled with Wikipedia under the address [67.184.189.240]

About me
Schools: Woodstock High School (Illinois), Cardinal Stritch University. Current residence: Lakeview, Chicago.

Featured Articles

 * The Office (US TV series) - I LOVE THIS SHOW!! And I wanted to make sure it got the attention it deserved on Wikipedia, so much of what has made it a featured article was done through much of details that I managed to find/add/organize (with editing help from the usual watchers of the article as well) and I'm very proud of what it became. Unfortunately, over two years, it became a less-than-stellar article and was removed from FA status before it was ever featured on the main page. Maybe one day it will return to FA status, but until then, I'm proud of the start I made.

What I tend to do
I focus on comedians and entertainers on Wikipedia. I do a lot of launching of comedy album articles. I love citing sources (you should too) and seek to make Wikipedia a good standard for encyclopedic knowledge on EVERYTHING and ANYTHING.

Unofficial WikiProjects I Undertook

 * I created many of the individual Frank Sinatra album articles I launched. The man has had an amazing music career unmatched by any other performer in American history and I felt his music library should be acknowledged. It was a learning experience for myself, too. Unfortunately, like most projects I do, I got most of them done and just quit once I got to the box set collections, etc...
 * In the middle of the second season of the The Office, I started to write the individual episode articles because I could tell that it was going to become a long-term show. I LOVE THIS SHOW!
 * I also painstakingly linked all of the Monty Python albums together and made most of their album pages look pretty.
 * I renamed/moved many of the episode articles per Wikiproject_Television_episodes and Naming conventions (television). Yay for following conventions!

Other articles I started

 * 2007 Midwest flooding
 * A Wild and Crazy Guy
 * Angela Kinsey
 * Comedian
 * Comedy Is Not Pretty!
 * "Duffless"
 * Eddie Murphy
 * For Your Consideration
 * Frank Sinatra discography (Copied Original LP listing from Frank Sinatra article, added Singles, Box sets)
 * Luther Burbank Performing Arts Center Blues
 * Michael Schur
 * No Sex Please, We're British
 * Paul Lieberstein
 * Retaliation
 * The End of the Universe
 * The Carnegie Hall Performance
 * The Christmas Toy
 * The Steve Martin Brothers
 * The White Album
 * "Voices That Care"
 * Woodstock Opera House

Pages Significantly Added Info

 * "All Things Must Pass"
 * Alphabetical list of songs recorded by Frank Sinatra
 * Dane Cook
 * Harmful If Swallowed
 * Jimmy John's
 * Let's Get Small
 * They're All Gonna Laugh at You!

title: User:Williamnilly


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-10/Article quality criticisms

Last Monday, an essay critical of Wikipedia prompted Jimmy Wales to raise the issue of how to improve the quality of writing in Wikipedia articles, conceding that there were significant problems in some areas.

The essay in question was posted by business journalist and author Nicholas Carr on his blog 3 October. Its focus was actually on the Web 2.0 concept, and Carr gave it the title, "The amorality of Web 2.0". His reflections were prompted by media coverage leading up to this past week's Web 2.0 Conference, and the idealistic notions of people like conference organizer Tim O'Reilly. Carr argued that although the technology behind the Web is fundamentally amoral, the glowing rhetoric around it is creating a quasi-religious fervor and contributing to the "cult of the amateur".

As an example of this phenomenon, Carr turned to Wikipedia, saying, "If you read anything about Web 2.0, you'll inevitably find praise heaped upon Wikipedia as a glorious manifestation of 'the age of participation.'" His own assessment: "In reality, though, Wikipedia isn't very good at all." To support this, he quoted passages from the articles on Bill Gates and Jane Fonda that he described as "an incoherent hodgepodge of dubious factoids", adding that these were representative of much of Wikipedia's content.

Wales observed that while he generally disagreed with Carr's argument, the Fonda and Gates articles "are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment." He opened a mailing list discussion exploring how this type of situation can develop and what could be done to correct it. This prompted a variety of responses: Stan Shebs commented that some well-meaning contributors make edits that, while not vandalism, aren't improvements either, and this sometimes causes articles to deteriorate over time; Charles Matthews highlighted the point that Wikipedia's policies for fostering more professional writing focus on factual disputes (neutral point of view, no original research, and citing sources) rather than "style crimes".

The discussion broadened to cover the challenges of producing featured articles (see related story). One observation made was that it seems easier to develop a quality article about an esoteric subject than a general one. Wales also clarified that his goal is for Wikipedia to be better than the Encyclopædia Britannica, period, and that being free is not a justification for inferior quality.

On Thursday, Carr followed up his original post by quoting a message from David Gerard, which conceded much of Carr's criticism but arguing, "if we want a good encyclopedia in ten years, it's going to have to be a good Wikipedia." Carr closed by saying, "as I feel we're mainly in agreement, I'll leave it there."


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Oaks Secondary School

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

The result of the debate was No consensus; default keep. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

White Oaks Secondary School
Does not appear to be an encyclopedic. Furthermore, no references are provided within the text to support that Chris Hadfield was a graduate of this school, nor can I find anything on Google to validate this claim. { edit } 04:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. This article on Hadfield indicates that he's from "Milton District High School." .  --Dvyost 05:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep It's a school. Osomec 07:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for being a high school. Yes, Hadfield went to a different high school, so my vote isn't based on that .   --rob 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Those two keep votes really make me want to vote "Delete, just for being a high school". At least try to demonstrate that the school is notable. Show that you've actually thought about this particular article before voting.--inksT 09:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a waste trying to explain things to some, who don't wish to listen. With any reason I give, you'll say "but that applies to lots of schools".  When people nominate tiny municipalities (smaller than this high school), I don't see similiar demands for specifics.  The fact a municipality has the same signficance as other municipalities, which are notable, is a reason to keep it.  By the same token, its reasonable to beleive this school is as legitimate a topic for an article as most other high schools.  You assume, by default, this high school, is as unimportant as any other high school.  I, assume, it's as important as any other high school.  --rob 10:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't assume that you know what my assumptions are :) Why would I ask for reasoning if I wasn't willing to evaluate the response? Perhaps the problem is that the "schools are inherently notable" argument is extremely weak, and does not stand up to detailed scrutiny. Faced with defeat in a reasoned debate, people voting keep for a school because it's a school invent all sorts of excuses to not justify their position. It is quite obvious from the present state of AfD's that assumptions of inherent notability are doing far more harm then good to Wikipedia.--inksT 21:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Oakville, Ontario, as there is minimal information in this school's article, and an overview of local education would be more useful. Average Earthman 10:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a logically inconsistant approach. Somebody looking at Category:High schools in Ontario would not expect that some schools were there while other schools were inside the town or school district article.  People need to be able find the school, in order to be able add info about it.  Also if/when somebody adds a detail, like an actual notable alum, are they going to add that to the town's article instead of a school article?  That would make no sense.  --rob 11:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If a school becomes notable, then and only then should have its own page. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Having notable alumni does not make a school notable in any case. 99.9% of all notable people went to high school somewhere. --Last Malthusian 11:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why respond to a comment, without addressing the point about categories? The prior voter suggested a merge (you want a delete).  Now, deletionists, while consistently wrong, are at least consistent.  My comment, was about mergers, who wish to toss information, in various places, sometimes in town article, sometimes in district articles, and sometimes in its own article.  This makes categories useless for finding information.  It's pointless having information in wikipedia, if it's not where it can be easily found.  Also, the "crystal ball" reference is silly, since I'm not suggesting we make a prediction in the article.  However, we certainly can make allowances for future article improvement, in advance.  We should organize information in a way, that allows for it to be found and updated, in an effecicient and reliable manner; which in this case, means a separate article.  I don't call that a crystal ball.  But, of course, if we blindly mass-delete articles, we needn't worry about organization.    --rob 12:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The use of labels like "inclusionist" and "deletionist" are part of why these AFDs generally fail to generate useful discussion or consensus. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the usual reasons. Only assertion of notability was made up, as Dvyost said. This retracted and I apologise for appearing to assume bad faith. I've voted to keep a couple of schools that had some interest attached to them and I guess someone at least made an effort here: however, I can't bring myself to vote for a high school just because someone notable went there. Like I said, most notable people went to school somewhere. Maybe if the school he went to was in some way relevant to what made him notable. Abstain. --Last Malthusian 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kappa and Thivierr for citing additional references for Chris Hadfield during my absence. Last Malthusian, doubt me if you will, but please refrain from making any such ignorant personal attacks in the future; it is not WP:CIVIL and directly violates official Wikipedia policy.  Thank you.  Bahn Mi 04:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because you're essentially right I'll refrain from being a pedantic git and pointing out that 'ignorant personal attack' is also a personal attack... er, whoops. --Last Malthusian 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While it's appropriate to assume good faith, it's also appropriate to assume unverified information is quite possibly false, and shouldn't be included. Initially, I assumed a mix-up between "visiting a school" and "attending a school".  When I see a new school article in AFD, before I vote, I try (as best I can) to start with the assumption the school may not even exist, and check to see it's actually real, along with other info (usually that takes mere moments with the school's web site on a district web site).  The only mistake "Last Malthusian" made was expressing his cynicism aloud.  --rob 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. TomTheHand 13:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep and please assume good faith because bahn mi has really done a lot of work with schools it is probably a mistake but anyway this school is notable without that person Yuckfoo 14:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Average Earthman. It's worth mentioning in an article, but it's more useful to keep it as part of a town or school district's article unless significantly expanded. --Idont Havaname 14:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all real high schools. For my reasoning, see this. Xoloz 15:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as no assertion of notability. Nominations like this always go down to no consensus, and just generate needless acrimony and sniping. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep High Schools (I gave up arguing about it.) — RJH 15:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Secondary schools are notable as per rough consensus.  Note that this may have been a bad faith nomination made by a user who has since been banned for having an offensive or confusing user name.  Silensor 16:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * sigh I really dislike these arguments precisely because of this. Before pointing fingers at someone for bad faith you should really do your homework first. Edit was a more or less decent editor who just didn't want to change his/her username - this has absolutely nothing to do with bad faith AfD nominations. Ryan Norton T 19:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - like RJH, I too gave up arguing about it. --Oblivious 19:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Why do we feel the need to consistantly bicker as to whether schools matter or not? I reaffirm my statement that all secondary schools are notable, and their articles should be preserved as such. From what I can see the majority of Wikipedians feel that schools should be kept, so I don't see why we keep getting Afd's on them. Makenji-san 22:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is continuous bickering and AfD's, there is no clear concensus, right? So why should we not debate the issue? The only reason schools are so problematic is because people keep using the "inherent notability" argument. Stop holding on to the stupid concept that all items in a particular classification have identical properties, and then we can have a reasoned, criteria-based debate, school by school, and the problematic AfD's will end.--inksT 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, please. I think that the idea that being a school carries inherent notability is wrong, too, but there's no need to call a belief being advanced in good faith stupid. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Excuse my language.--inksT 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a box with students in it.  Even the article doesn't say anything more about it. --Carnildo 22:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schools/Arguments. Another nomination made to make a point. Kappa
 * Assume good faith, please. I don't see any indication that User:Еdit made this nomination out of anything but a good-faith belief that this was an unencyclopedic subject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that's what the nominator believes, but s/he also knows the article won't be deleted and so this AFD is a waste of time. Kappa 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel the need to make these AFDs even more needlessly confrontational? It's bad enough as it is. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. If there were fewer of these needlessly confrontational and pointless nominations, we could all be doing more productive things. Kappa 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You've accused the nominator of doing something just to make a point, rather than nominating this for the same reason non-notable bands or people end up on AFD. That is a confrontational statement, and I'd still like to know why you made it. The people who are nominating school articles for deletion are, by and large, random users who feel this or that article meets the criteria for deletion, and I don't see any indication that Edit was acting in bad faith. I do see that some users on both sides of this debate are starting to succumb to the tendency to see anyone who disagrees on this issue as part of a monolothic bloc with uniform, sinister movites and methods. I'm reasonably sure this isn't the case; TINC, after all. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that the nominator is familiar with the situation and made this nomination despite knowing it would not achieve consensus to delete. If that is the case, it is an inherently confrontational action. If it is not the case, I apologize. Kappa 01:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you basing this belief on? Edit registered in the last month, and has only participated in one other school AFD, one which produced a useful dialogue. If making a POINT gets people talking as in that AFD instead of the same old "Keep/Delete per the usual reasons" votes, hell, it's time to ignore all rules! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If Edit followed that discussion, s/he would realize that there is no consensus to delete schools and that this nomination was therefore doomed. You are rather tending to confirm my suspicions: I believe that all established schools are notable enough to be considered part of the sum of human knowledge, you disagree and you plan to change my mind by continuing to nominate schools and repeat the discussion. Kappa 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never nominated a school article for AFD or VFD, as far as I can recall, and I don't plan to do so in the future; I simply continue to vote delete because I don't want there to be the illusion that there's firm consensus to keep school articles just because everyone interested in conversing about the subject has been chased away from the AFDs. I don't plan on trying to convince you to delete school articles, just to not ascribe bad faith to those who in good faith attempt to delete them. "You plan to change my mind by continuing to nominate schools and repeat the discussion" is the sort of thing I was warning about above; you're starting to ascribe uniform motivations and methods to those who share an attribute. There really is no cabal. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (ug - too many stars, LOL) - It's the choice of the people discussing it whether to make it confrentational or not, as its perfectly fine to have a nice debate about the subject (which happens more or less on most AfDs, and is of course what I'd prefer). Ryan Norton T 01:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why have the same debate over and over again? Kappa 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not the same debate. You only think it's the same debate, because you belive that all schools are identically notable. Hence, you always bring the same arguments and reasoning. Actually evaluating each school on its individual merits will produce a reasoned, wide ranging discussion.--inksT 01:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe all schools are indentically notable, when did I suggest that? Kappa 01:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase it if you like: "It's not the same debate. You only think it's the same debate, because you belive that all schools are inherently notable. Hence, you always bring the same arguments and reasoning. Actually evaluating each school on its individual merits will produce a reasoned, wide ranging discussion." Howzat? Instead of sidestepping the issue with pedantry, discuss the point being made.--inksT 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussions might be reasoned and wide-ranging, but the result would be incomplete, biased and semi-random coverage of education. Kappa 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats more like it. An encyclopedia does not need to have full coverage of every school in the world to be "complete" - that's a Yellow Pages standard of "completion". Ideally, it should convey the general principles of organised education, and give more detailed treatment to particularly notable schools. The coverage will be biased, by design, against non-notable schools. Note that including every school by default is also a form of bias (just like the current standards of AfD are biased in favour of keeping). So it's not necessarily a bad thing. Semi-random? I doubt it. Do you mean because AfD's depend in who happens accross them? In which case the solution is to fix the AfD process, as opposed to claiming inherent notability status for schools (which would actually create the bias and inconsistency that you seem opposed to).--inksT 04:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not supposed be a selective encyclopedia, or it wouldn't aim to have every Simpons episode. Including as much valid information is not a form of bias, and in any case bias is only a problem when it removes information that users are looking for. Kappa 04:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is selective - otherwise why are we bothering with AfD? :) To further that point, while there may be an article on every Simpsons episode, there isn't one for every TV show, because not all are as notable as the Simpsons. Including excessive and unnecessary information can indeed prevent people from finding what they want - like the difference between giving someone a page reference from a book, and giving them a library.--inksT 04:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will accept episode guides for practically any broadcast TV show. Wikipedia is not paper, so useful information can be organised hierarchically instead of throwing it away. Kappa 05:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also not a junkyard. Not all information is useful.--inksT 20:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kappa, you're the one here swinging around WP:POINT all the time on practically every nomination. I suggest you take a closer look at your own actions - as we've all got room for improvement. Maybe afterwards you'll find these won't be as confrentational, no? Ryan Norton T 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 00:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, a school (for all the usual reasons we keep schools) Trollderella 00:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I bolded your vote for clarity. Hope you don't mind. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did not base my vote on the issue of Chris Hadfield going there.  However, as shown in the article, and at Talk:White Oaks Secondary School it does appear that he did go the school for four years, before going to MDHS, which is the school mentioned in the NASA bio.  In fact, seven schools claim him.  --rob 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep school with a fairly large student enrollment. --Vsion 09:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete schoolcruft. No claim to notability. Dunc|☺ 11:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep School noms are a waste of our time. Hipocrite - « Talk » 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete another completely nn school. Dottore So 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. All you deletionists trotting out the same arguments you trot out on every school AfD can go ride a bicycle.--Nicodemus75 20:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you be offended by "All you inclusionists trotting out the same arguments you trot out on every school AFD..." What do labels and a confrontational attitude accomplish? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is almost exactly what inks has repeated above and on other pages. Repeatedly stating that the philosophical position that "schools are inherently notable" is weak, repetitive, etc. Frankly, I consider the constant re-statement by deletionists that the philosphical position that "schools are inherently notable" is weak a personal attack and extremely uncivil.--Nicodemus75 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're labelling people again. There is a difference between asserting the weakness of an argument, and demonstrating it by means of argument, and by pointing to the acrimony that the concept of inherent notability has brought to AfD. If you disagree with arguments against inherent notability, refute them, instead of trying to stifle them by references to civility and NPA guidelines that are frequently violated by both sides. I have always been concerned that the concept of inherent notability with regards to schools is doing far more harm than good, and have yet to see evidence or argument to the contrary.--inksT 23:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To be fair, "the concept of inherent notability" didn't bring this acrimony to AFD, and if it went away today, there'd be towns and webcomics and roads and whatever people start arguing about next. People on both sides are personalizing these debates, and then lashing out in what they see as justified retaliation. Other people lash back, and both people see themselves as aggrieved (and nothing is accomplished in the meantime). Please, remember, there are reasonable people on both sides who hold their opinions and argue in good faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This entire exchange illustrates how pointless all of this "discussion" truly is. The fact is, that those who routinely vote to delete school articles (since you don't like "labelling"), such as inks, come to the debate with an equally pre-conceived philosophy, ie. "Educational instutions are not noteworthy in and of themselves, simply by virtue of their being educational institutitons. Other characteristics of such institutions need to be established in order to consider them noteworthy". This position is every bit as much a pre-conception, and opinion-oriented, inherently unjustified philosophical position as the position held by myself and others that: "Educational institutions by virtue of the importance they hold solely as institutions of learning (public or private) carry a noteworthiness to society and the culture by their existence and delivery of education. No other defining or illustrative characteristics are necessary to establish their noteworthiness and thusly their eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia" (otherwise known as the "schools are inherently notable" view). It clearly, (after hundreds and hundreds of VfD/AfD on schools in the last 2 years) is a matter of opinion over which we fundamentally disagree on the philosophical nature of the issue. Wikipedians accept (for the most part) that *MANY* things are inherently notable: Battleships, Towns (even with miniscule or insignificant populations), Countries, Train stations, Submarines, Simpsons episodes, etc etc etc etc. There simply is no objective standard to determine if and whether schools are inherently notable - either you believe it, or you don't, and most people (even those unwilling to admit it) come to the debate over schools with one or the other position in mind. As to all of the other arguments for and against, we have debated them over and over and over and over and over. They have been regurgitated, re-invigorated, rehabilitated, re-ventilated, swalllowed and re-gurgitated again and guess what - NO FORMAL CONCENSUS EXISTS - gee what a surprise. Whether or not people state "schools are inherently notable" has virtually nothing to do with it. It has to do with a philosophical approach to whether or not schools, in their own right, justify having an article on Wikipedia (just like towns, battleships, countries, pokemons, etc.) or if you believe some other characteristic is required. Saying "schools are inherently notable" is, frankly, just a way of cutting through all the bullshit of these pointless arguments over and over and over and over. We already know that no formal concensus has or will be reached. "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" continue to nominated and continue to vote to delete (all the while knowing the nominations and the votes will fail to get the article delete) and "Those who routinely vote to keep school articles" continue to vote to keep them. 85%-90% of all nominated school articles in the past year have survived the VfD/AfD process and the great majority of them do so because at least a plurality of editors who vote believe that schools are "inherently noteworthy" and thusly deserving of an article. The real acrimony exists because "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" refuse to accept these results and continue nominating school articles for deletion in what is quite clearly a vain attempt to get even one school article deleted (as much has even been stated by one or more of the usual suspects). All tactics have been tried, multi-nominations, mass-nominations, region or country specific nominations, and they all fail. While there may be contention and disagreement over school articles, one thing is an incontrovertable fact - school articles do not get deleted on Wikipedia because they are "non-notable". You may not like the policies or the processes of AfD, or the results that they generate - but that is the way that WP works. Certainly, school AfD pages are not the place to hash out differences of opinion over the AfD process. This is the tool we have - and it is working. The results are so completely overwhelming that it might as well be policy - "School articles are not deleted on WP simply because they are 'non-notable'". You might disagree, but in practice it is already a fact - the best thing at this point is to accept it. Accepting the results over the last year, will end the acrimony over these articles. There can be no question, that as articles continue to not be deleted at AfD that it is pointless to continue nominating them on the basis that they are "non-notable". Nominating a school article that you know, in advance, will never be deleted on the basis of its lack of noteworthiness engenders acrimony and wastes everyone's time (including your own)- EVEN IF YOU THINK IT SHOULDN'T BE HERE. In summary, "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" must accept the results - schools simply aren't deleted on WP because they are "non-notable", like it or not, it's a fact.--Nicodemus75 22:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You've overlooked an important distinction - I treat all articles equally, and single out no particular class of article for special treatment. Every article I've voted to delete has failed to prove it is worthy to be here. Every article I've voted to keep, I have done so on its merits. To me, no article is inherently notable, and each has to be individually meritous, be they schools, battleships, or Simpsons episodes. Inherent notability is being used as a crutch to sidestep proper discussion.--inksT 02:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that is balderdash. I doubt very much that you look at an article about a nation-state (like say, San Marino) and make a decision on whether or not it "should" have an article on Wikipedia on it's own merits (and if you do, than the absurdity of your position is manifest). Anyone who sees an article about a nation-state on Wikipedia rightly concludes that it has a place here, irrespective of it's "notability" because it's status as a nation-state confers inherent notability upon it, regardless of it's size, population, impact on world affairs, or any other subjective assessment of it's relative "notability". The assumption made by almost anyone who looks at an article about a nation-state is that it is inherently notable. Even if you do hypothetically assess nation-states in this way, it makes no difference whatsoever. Your insistence that others use your deletion philosophy is condescending and elitist. Other editors are (and should be) free to determine for themselves that certain groups or classes of things (like nation-states) possess inherent characteristics of noteworthiness as a legitimate philosophical approach to building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Your assertion that "your way is superior" is noted, but I just think you are plum wrong. Certain classes of things are inherently notable, and I believe one of those classes of things is schools. To try to suggest that those of us who hold and advance a certain philosophical view about notability in good faith, are to blame for the acrimony in this debate is both false and irresponsible. Despite all of this (pointless) back and forth, your response still refuses to respond or take accountability for the main point of my obscure and lengthy dissertation above in the first place. That is, that "School articles are not deleted on Wikipedia on the basis of being "non-notable"." As I have stated, this is a fact. The obvious question that arises is, "Since schools are not deleted on this criteria, why is it that 'those who routinely nominate and vote for school deletion' continue in their pointless and arguably bad-faith crusade to delete school articles "on their own merits", when it is clearly contrary to what the obvious outcome of these attempts will be? I am not simply trying to be rhetorical here - I am asking for a legitimate explanation from the other side, why they are continuing to nominate and vote to delete in the face of the overwhelming history of VfD/AfD results that demonstrate that school articles simply do not get deleted on the basis of being "non-notable" or being a stub?? Please, please explain what is achieved by repeating this process over and over and over?  At this point, "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" aren't even making a point anymore. Of the last 100 or so schools nominated for AfD, the only candidate that was successfully deleted was an article about a school that didn't exist, which was created by an editor who "routinely votes to delete school articles" on the basis of their lack of notability. You think your approach of "determining how to vote on each article according to it's merits" is better than my system? Well good for you. Just tell me what the point of all this is when the school articles in question will not be deleted?--Nicodemus75 02:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Apples to Oranges. You're comparing schools to countries. If it were possible to have several million countries in the world, I'm sure we could argue that some are not notable enough to be mentioned here. The point is that if concepts of inherent notability were not used, we could have a reasoned evaluation of each school on it's own merits, and then those that don't deserve an article can be deleted. If schools truly are as important as you assert, what's the harm in dropping inherent notability?--inksT 04:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Substitute "official municipality" for "country", and the example works fine. There are countless municipalities, with a much smaller population than this high school; which are all auto-included.  Rather than waste time on pointless AFDs, editors on communities have devoted their time to improving articles.  --rob 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, if a municipality with 5 people in it had come up on AfD, I'd vote to delete it as well. I'll state it again - if these subjects are truly so obviously important, why is the concept of inherent notability required to defend them? Finally, you can't accuse me of wasting time if you're also here - by your definition, if there was no opposition to a delete vote, there would be no time "wasted" either :)--inksT 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Possible micro-agreement: If somebody creates an article for 5 kids in there mom's homeschool, I'll likely delete it.  I guarentee you, that you will never, be able to vote delete on multiple real muniicpalities with any real powers, however small they may be (at least in North America).   I have wasted time in these school AFDs, mainly at the request of those demanding explanations, that they're not satisified with.  But, a vastly greater waste of time would occur, if schools started being deleted.  All the time I (and others) spent, creating and improving articles, would be lost.  I'm forced to decide which is a bigger waste:  time in AFD or loosing the time spent creating/editing school articles.  You on the other hand, have no need to waste any time, whatsoever.  --rob 23:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Municipalities, townships, towns, etc. are kept on WP even if they have zero residents - that is settled concensus. Your statement shows your clear willingness (manifest in this very debate) to defy concensus in favour of your own opinion (which is the problem in the first place). As to wasting time, there are a number of areas where your argument is nonsense. First, by deleting articles about schools that are created by editors in good faith, you are wasting those editors' time (there are many of us that have a good faith intention to create verifiable, well-written articles about schools for Wikipedia) and waging a war against those who wish to participate in WikiProject Schools in good-faith on the basis that you (and others "who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools") subjectively find such schools non-notable. The next waste of time, is crying foul everytime someone (like me) who has explained their reasoning on schools a thousand times (ok, a hundred times) to explain and justify every vote on every school. Some of us are tired of screaming at the brick wall that is "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" and just vote bicycle. The next waste of time is your own. Nominating school articles that will not be deleted for AfD is an undeniable waste of time that is only perpetuated in order to make a point. I have asked repeatedly for some justification why nominations and voting and arguing to delete school articles persists, when if nothing else can be agreed upon, it surely could be that as a matter of precedent, school articles are not deleted on WP on the basis of "non-notability".--Nicodemus75 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize this is a contentious subject, but stating that an argument is weak is not a personal attack. (Sorry for the gratuitous italics, but this is very important.) "Your argument is stupid" is uncivil, but it's not a personal attack. "Your argument is weak" isn't even uncivil; it's a strongly-stated disagreement. Everyone needs to distance themselves a bit, and realize that an attack on the position that they hold, however strongly, is not an attack on the person that holds it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CIVIL in mind please Makenji-san 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per schools argument keep chowells 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zhatt  20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the keep arguments ring true -- red stucco 08:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And this does?--Nicodemus75 17:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- DS1953 15:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Yat-Sen Chang

Yat-Sen Chang Oliva (born 1971 in Matanzas, Cuba) is a Cuban former principal dancer and convicted rapist.

Biography
Yat-Sen Chang is a Chinese Cuban born in Matanzas, Cuba. Yat-Sen Chang studied dance at the Cuban National Ballet School, beginning his studies at the age of nine. In 1989 he graduated as a dancer and teacher and joined the Cuban National Ballet under Alicia Alonso.

In 1992, he was invited to the International Dance Festival of La Baule and joined Jeune Ballet de France, in the same year and performed in many different countries. He joined the English National Ballet in 1993 as principal dancer.

He has a daughter with fellow ENB former principal dancer and ex-girlfriend Simone Clarke.

Yat-Sen studied at the Cuban National Ballet School, beginning his studies at the age of nine. The youngest of three brothers (all professionally trained ballet dancers), he graduated as a dancer and teacher in 1989 and immediately joined the Cuban National Ballet Company.

Yat-Sen performed both nationally and internationally as a guest artist in many Galas, including; A Homage to Nureyev at The Coliseum Theatre, The 50th Birthday Wings in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, The 50th Anniversary of The English National Ballet, Dame Beryl Grey's Evening at Sadler's Wells Theatre and The 10th Anniversary of Danzaria. Yat-Sen was also a guest artist with the Northern Ballet Theatre NBT in the production The Three Musketeers. He also appeared on television as the lead dancer in Granada Television's Men in Tights and on Blue Peter performing The Twins from William Tuckett's Canterville Ghost.

Awards he received included Best Partner at the Varna International Festival (1990) and The "Leonida Massine Award" in Positano for Best Classical Dancer (1999). Yat-Sen is also the Guinness World Record holder of the fastest turns within 30 seconds.

Yat-Sen Chang became the Artistic Director of the Espinosa Dance Project in February 2012. In addition to the EDP company class, He also gave private tuition to vocationally trained students and professionals.

In August 2013 he started his own brand new company, Yat-Sen Chang Dance Company.

Sexual assault allegations and charges
Chang was accused of sexually assaulting three women at a London dance school. He was charged with 14 counts of sexual assault on a girl between 2014 and 2016. She was as young as 16 when these incidents occurred. He denied these charges in the Magistrates Court, but on 11 May 2021 was found guilty of 12 counts of sexual assault and one count of assault by penetration. He was sentenced to 9 years in prison.

title: Yat-Sen Chang


text:
Civic Biology

A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (usually referred to as just Civic Biology) was a biology textbook written by George William Hunter, published in 1914. It is the book which the state of Tennessee required high school teachers to use in 1925 and is best known for its section about evolution that was ruled by a local court to be in violation of the state Butler Act. It was for teaching from this textbook that John T. Scopes was brought to trial in Dayton, Tennessee in the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. The views espoused in the book about evolution, race, and eugenics were common to American Progressives (especially in the work of Charles Benedict Davenport, one of the most prominent American biologists of the early 20th century, whom Hunter cites in the book).

Excerpts
Excerpts from the book give its general tone and approach to controversial topics regarding mankind:

"Evolution of Man. – Undoubtedly there once lived upon the earth races of men who were much lower in their mental organization than the present inhabitants. If we follow the early history of man upon the earth, we find that at first he must have been little better than one of the lower animals. He was a nomad, wandering from place to place, feeding upon whatever living things he could kill with his hands. Gradually he must have learned to use weapons, and thus kill his prey, first using rough stone implements for this purpose. As man became more civilized, implements of bronze and of iron were used. About this time the subjugation and domestication of animals began to take place. Man then began to cultivate the fields, and to have a fixed place of abode other than a cave. The beginnings of civilization were long ago, but even to-day the earth is not entirely civilized.

The Races of Man. – At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America. ...

Improvement of Man. – If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part. These are personal hygiene, selection of healthy mates, and the betterment of the environment.

Eugenics. – When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, syphilis, that dread disease which cripples and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics. ...

Parasitism and its Cost to Society. – Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

The Remedy. – If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with some success in this country."

Development and publication
Hunter was born in Mamaroneck, New York, and was educated at Williams College, the University of Chicago, and New York University, where he obtained his doctorate. He later became chairman of the biology department at his alma mater, De Witt Clinton High School, a public secondary school for boys in Manhattan. During his time at Clinton, he wrote or co-authored 30 textbooks for college and high school biology courses, including Civic Biology in 1905. By working with educators at Columbia University's Teachers College and the geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan, Hunter developed Civic Biology, a textbook that shaped the modern secondary-school biology curriculum.

Eugenics
In the first edition of Civic Biology, Hunter briefly discusses eugenics on one page of the 432 page textbook. Along with many other evolutionary biologists, Hunter embraced the idea of eugenics as a social doctrine. It was a popular idea in the early 20th century, and several states had enacted laws to compel the sexual segregation and sterilization of people deemed eugenically unfit. Hunter believed that society could perfect the human race by preventing intermarriage between people such as the mentally ill, criminals, and epileptics. He also believed that the Caucasian race was the highest type of all the races.

Shifts in science education
Charles Darwin had published his evolutionary theories 60 years before the public controversy over Civic Biology with the Scopes Trial. Prior to the Scopes Trial and controversy over Civic Biology, most science textbooks included Darwinian concepts in order to keep abreast with prevalent scientific ideas. In the early 20th century, there was a movement in the education sector to bring evolution into high school classrooms, in order to update and reshape how biology was taught. Once evolution began being taught in high schools, controversy over Darwin's theories developed. These efforts tried to incorporate progressive educational ideologies and apply the biological sciences to human society.

Civic Biology was an example of the new approaches to scientific instruction emerging in the education sector. This modern education focused on applying scientific principles to human society by developing applicable and relevant content for students. This movement towards socially applicable biology was coupled with national efforts towards mandatory public education. Anti-evolution efforts and legislation were responding to the redesigned ideologies in the new biology curricula, and also to the centralized control and regulation of education. Concerns about public and standardized education were part of the public debate over Civic Biology.

Cultural context
Several socio-cultural events shaped the publication and reaction to Civic Biology. Following World War I, a cultural movement emerged that poised two ideological groups against each other: the traditionalists and the modernists. The modernists embraced intellectual experimentation by exploring new philosophies such as Freudian theories and advocated against alcohol prohibition in political spheres. In response to this modernist cultural movement, there was a religious revivalist movement to protest the emergence of these progressive ideologies. The traditionalists were distinguished by their religious zeal. This group favored alcohol prohibition laws and a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Scopes Trial
The content of Civic Biology was not specifically discussed in the trial; rather the trial focused on the merits and problems with Darwin's theory of evolution. The Scopes Trial used Civic Biology as a tool to have a publicized and public debate on whether evolution should continue to be taught. The prosecution argued that teaching evolution undermined traditional religious values by disrupting the Biblical concept of a six-day creation, and claimed that Darwinian concepts could subvert the political sphere of the United States, saying that "survival of the fittest" could be used to justify a laissez-faire capitalist system, imperialism, and militarism in United States politics .They warned that Darwin's theories could be used to justify mass sterilization of livestock in order to selectively breed the best organisms. Prosecutors created arguments to demonstrate the dangers that teaching evolutionary theory could pose to society.

The defense crafted arguments that largely fit within a modernist ideology. They argued that evolution should be taught to high school students under the protection of freedom of speech. The defendants proposed a more liberal and innovative science curriculum be provided to students, one that keeps up with popular scientific ideas of the time. They believed that it was within the rights of teachers and students to decide whether to use Civic Biology, and advocated for a public education system that was independent of specific political, economic, and religious viewpoints.

Legacy
The Scopes Trial, with its controversy over Civic Biology, was a major setback for anti-evolution groups because of the 15 states with anti-evolution legislation pending in 1925, only 2 enacted laws restricting the teaching of Darwin's evolutionary theories. While this public controversy had some political implications, it was not extensively influential in the education sector and the instruction of the biological sciences. During the 1970s, it was believed that pressure from Christian fundamentalists after the Scopes Trial forced textbook authors to limit the discussion of evolution. However, upon later examination of biology textbooks, scholars determined that textbook authors worked to develop biological curricula that differentiated and defended its content, in an attempt to reduce the influence of religious fundamentalism on the biological sciences. As a result, modern scholars now believe that overall, biology textbooks were not heavily influenced by anti-evolution rhetoric after the Scopes Trial.

While biology textbooks did not yield heavy influence from the Scopes Trial, some laws emerged that affected high school teachers. After the Scopes Trial, many teachers, particularly in the South, were then required to take oaths of loyalty. These oaths centered upon restricting instructors to teaching content that did not contradict traditionalist ideologies.

New Civic Biology
A revised edition of Hunter's book appeared the year after the Scopes Trial. This edition no longer used the word "evolution", and removed most references to recognizably evolutionary concepts. A figure illustrating fossils of the precursors of horses in geological context and much of the associated text was eliminated. The section quoted above, "Evolution of Man", was renamed "Development of Man", and, rather than saying "lower in mental organization" said "lower in civilization" (page 250). The book did mention natural selection (page 383), homology (page 237), classification of plants and animals (Chapter XXI, pages 234–252) (including mention of "man" as a vertebrate, a mammal, and a primate, page 250), and had a short biography of Charles Darwin among the "Great Names in Biology" (pages 411–412).

This new edition contained an extended discussion of eugenics (Chapter XXXII "The Improvement of the Human Race", pp. 394–404), but the section quoted above on "The Remedy" removed the words "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this...". (page 400). The supposed history of the Jukes family and the Kallikak family was advanced (pages 398–399). The section "Parasitism and its Cost to Society" was unchanged but for the insertion of the sentence "It is estimated that between 25% and 50% of all prisoners in penal institutions are feeble-minded." The new edition retained the section "The Races of Man" as written, with two changes about "caucasians": They were no longer described as "the highest type of all", and "the Hindus and Arabs of Asia" were included among the enumerated caucasians (page 251).

title: Civic Biology


text: File:Xcel energy center.jpg

title: File:Xcel energy center.jpg


text:
Ebenezer Denny

Ebenezer Denny (March 11, 1761 – July 21, 1822) was a soldier during the American Revolutionary War whose journal is one of the most frequently quoted accounts of the surrender of the British at the siege of Yorktown. Denny later served as the first Mayor of Pittsburgh, from 1816 to 1817.

Early life
Denny was born in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on March 11, 1761, the eldest son of William and Agnes Parker Denny. At the age of 13 he was entrusted to carry dispatches across the Allegheny Mountains by the commandant at Fort Pitt. He crossed alone often; to conceal his presence he hid in the woods at night. At one point he was chased by Indians, finding shelter at Fort Loudon. He then entered into employment for his father's shop in Carlisle. Upon learning that a privateer ship was to sail, with a letter of marque, from Philadelphia for the West Indies, he joined the crew as a volunteer. For his gallantry in numerous sea fights, he was promoted to command the quarterdeck.

Revolutionary War
As he was readying to sail on his second voyage he received a commission as ensign in the 1st Pennsylvania Regiment of the Continental Army in 1778. On August 4, 1780, he was transferred to the 7th Pennsylvania Regiment, and on May 23, 1781, he was promoted to lieutenant in the 4th Pennsylvania Regiment. He served under lieutenant colonel Richard Butler, and General Anthony Wayne.

This transpired during 1781 as the Continental Army marched south to face Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia, as War for Independence drew to a close. Near Williamsburg, Virginia, the regiment had a successful encounter against British forces, the partisan Simcoe. Denny in his military journal states, "Here for the first time saw wounded men; the sight sickened me."

At the 1781 Battle of Green Spring, Denny was the only officer who was not wounded, and was responsible for his company's retreat. Denny credited the orderly retreat to "the veteran first sergeant, the most important officer."

As the Continental Army closed around the British stronghold at Yorktown, Lt. Denny described the scene, "Army encamped on the banks of the James River; part of the French fleet in full view."

 * His journal entry dated September 14, 1781, continues into further detail of the encampment:
 * General Washington Arrived; our brigade was paraded to receive him. Officers all pay their respects. He stands in the door, takes every man by the hand; the offices all pass in, receiving his salute, and shake hands. This is the first time I have seen the General.

 * October 15, 1781, the siege at Yorktown begins:
 * Siege operations were at once commenced; the fighting became very warm on all sides, and the siege works were pushed with great vigor. Easy digging. light, sandy soil. A shell from one of French mortars set fire to a British frigate; she burned to the water's edge and then blew up; made the earth shake.

 * October 17, 1781, The Surrender of Cornwallis:
 * Had the pleasure of seeing a drummer mount the enemy's parapet and beat a parley and immediately an officer, holding up a white handkerchief, made his appearance. An officer from our line ran and met him and tied the handkerchief over his eyes, and thus was the great event of the surrender of Cornwallis accomplished.

Denny remained in the Continental Army until it was disbanded on November 3, 1783. Earlier that year, he became an Original Member of the Pennsylvania Society of the Cincinnati.

Northwest Indian War
Denny rejoined the army as a lieutenant in the First American Regiment in August 1784, and was active in the Northwest Indian War. He participated in the 1790 Harmar Campaign and served as aide-de-camp to Major-General Arthur St. Clair at St. Clair's Defeat. Denny kept a journal, which is considered an important primary document of the two campaigns. Following the battle, Lt. Denny wrote that the native nations were "an enemy brought up from infancy to war, and perhaps superior to an equal number of the best men that could be taken against them." He travelled to Philadelphia to deliver the official report of the loss to Secretary of War Henry Knox and President George Washington.

While in Philadelphia, Denny described encountering friends who "view me as escaped from the dead— astonishment takes place of pleasure; and having in some degree got over those feelings myself, am considered as little better than one of the savages." He also met General Harmar while there, and received a commission as a captain. He resigned his commission on 1 May 1792.

In March 1794, Denny was again appointed as captain, this time of the Allegheny County militia.

Denny also compiled a dictionary of Delaware and Shawnee words. He was promoted to captain on December 29, 1789 and resigned from the U.S. Army in May 1792. Later, Denny was commissioned a major in the Pennsylvania, Militia. Following a mission to report on the condition of Fort Le Boeuf in 1794, Major Denny resigned his commission and settled near Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh
Unlike in other states, communities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could not attain city status until after spending a number of years as a borough with a government run by burgesses, a form of city council. Partly because of this, Denny instead started his political career in county government serving Pittsburgh.

In 1797, Denny was elected Allegheny County Commissioner. He eventually sought even higher office and ran successfully as Treasurer for the entire county in 1803 and 1808.

Being a Revolutionary War hero, and major patriot force for the frontier front of the War of 1812, Denny ran successfully to become the first mayor of the city of Pittsburgh on 19 July 1816.

His term in office saw much progress in the infrastructure of the young city, improving roads and wharves. Citing failing health he retired from public life and the mayor's office on January 14, 1817. He died 21 July 1822, and is interred at Allegheny Cemetery in the Lawrenceville neighborhood of Pittsburgh.

Family
Ebenezer Denny married Nancy Wilkins and had children. His son, Harmar Denny, went on to establish a political career of his own: a member of the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1824 to 1829, as well as being elected to the Twenty-first Congress through the Twenty-fourth Congress serving from 15 December 1829, to 3 March 1837.

His second great-grandson, Harmar D. Denny Jr., served in the 82nd Congress in the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 29th congressional district.

Honors
One of the first resolutions of the Pittsburgh City Council was that of honoring the patriotic and public service of Ebenezer Denny on learning of his early retirement due to health concerns in 1817. Denny Street, in the city's Lawrenceville neighborhood, was named in his honor.

title: Ebenezer Denny


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge platin

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Jorge platin
Non notable author, 242 hits at Google. The whole article now looks like an offtopic thread in a forum. -- ReyBrujo 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What a load of mixed chatter. Down the flushatory with it. Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing salvageable in article -- comprised mostly of personal opinion and random rambling Qaz  ( talk ) 06:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the halibut. - RoyBoy 800 19:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Meegan~enwiki

Welcome!

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

--JAranda'' | yeah 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Meegan~enwiki


text: Category:Politics of Chile

title: Category:Politics of Chile


text:
Friedrich Neznansky

Friedrich Neznansky (Russian: Фридрих Евсеевич Незнанский; 27 September 1932 – 14 February 2013) was a popular Russian crime novelist.

Neznansky was born in Rahachow District, Belarus. He was a lawyer by education, practiced law in Moscow, and was an investigator at the Moscow Prosecutor General’s office for fifteen years. Although Neznansky’s crime novels are light fiction, the political and social currents of the day can be sensed in them, as well as everyday Russian realities. Neznansky's novels have been translated in several languages and some of them have been adapted for television. Neznansky died on 14 February 2013, aged 80, in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.

English Translations

 * Red Square (with Edward Topol), Berkley, 1984.
 * Deadly Games (with Edward Topol), Berkley, 1985.
 * The Body in Sokolniki Park, Bantam, 1987.
 * Fair at Sokolniki, Corgi Books, 1987.
 * Operation Faust, Corgi Books, 1988.
 * Night Wolves, Infinity Publishing, 2004.

title: Friedrich Neznansky


text:
Shannon Marketic

Shannon LaRhea Marketic (born January 14, 1971) is an American model and beauty pageant titleholder who was crowned Miss California USA 1992 and Miss USA 1992.

Pageants
Marketic was crowned Miss Arizona Teen USA 1989 but held the title for only a week and a half after it was discovered an error had been made and she had actually placed first runner-up.

A few years later, Marketic won the Miss California USA 1992 title after being crowned Miss Malibu USA 1992, and went on to represent California in the Miss USA 1992 pageant, which was broadcast live from Wichita, Kansas in February of that year. She placed second in semifinal interview, sixth in swimsuit and evening gown, which allowed her to advance as one of the Top 6 finalists of the competition with the third highest semi-finals average score. After answering the judges' questions, she went into the final 3 in second place, eventually winning the Miss Photogenic award and the Miss USA title.

Marketic went on to compete in the 1992 Miss Universe pageant held in Bangkok, Thailand on May 8 and was one of 10 semifinalists who competed for the title. She eventually placed 8th overall.

Sultan of Brunei incident
In 1997 Marketic sued Jefri Bolkiah, Prince of Brunei, claiming that she and other women were hired for promotional work but instead held as a "virtual prisoner", drugged and sexually abused. The Sultan denied the claims. Marketic's lawsuit named Miss USA 1997 Brandi Sherwood as also being a victim, however Sherwood declined to file her own lawsuit. After 18 months of litigation, a judge dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Sultan had sovereign immunity as head of state.

title: Shannon Marketic


text: Category:Politics of Denmark

title: Category:Politics of Denmark


text:
File:Sinatraallalone.jpg

Summary
Cover of the 1962 Frank Sinatra album All Alone.

title: File:Sinatraallalone.jpg


text:
User:Jignacio

J Ignacio

title: User:Jignacio


text:
Movie Star (company)

Movie Star, Inc. is a New York City-based manufacturer, marketer and seller of lingerie, sleepwear and other types of clothing. Organized in 1935 and formerly known as Sanmark Stardust, Inc., the company became Movie Star, Inc. in 1992. It was acquired by Frederick's of Hollywood in 2006, who sold the company to Dolce Vita Intimates in 2010.

title: Movie Star (company)