text:
Talk:Al Leong

Initial notes
The funny thing about the Fametracker web site is that I created the Photoshopped image they use for my (long since defunct) Golden Horde: The Al Leong Fan Club web site. I don't begrudge them using it, of course: I'm glad someone out there is paying Al the respect he deserves.

I have put all of the filmographic data I have online. Note: some of this is written tongue-in-cheek, and may need a bit of revision to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. There are a few gaps. Maybe someone can fill those in. My next step is to go through and Wiki-link the more interesting cross-references (e.g., Andy Sidaris, Rambo, Genghis Khan). Anyone who would like to help with that has my blessing. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This article fails to explicitly point out a very important detail: Al Leong's Bacon number is 1! (71.233.165.69 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Cleanup?
This article has been tagged for "cleanup", but no mention of what may be needed has been discussed. Let's discuss the article before we go tagging it with things. If the article needs changes, what are those changes? -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-17 T 19:22 Z

 * For starters, the tone of most of the filmography is waaay too informal and very unencyclopedic. dfg 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This isn't an encyclopedia: it doesn't have fact-checking or a real editor. Real encyclopedias don't let any moron edit any article they want. This is a glorified blog, not an encyclopedia. That being said, if you want to re-write some entries to make the prose tighter, be my guest. I said when I posted all that stuff that I knew it needed work. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-03-11 T 22:35 Z

 * I checked your userpage, and knowing that you're familiar with Wikipedia saves me some typing-of-the-obvious. So lemme cut to the chase and ask, if you're so worked up about how unprofessional this project is, why are you getting offended about someone stating the obvious in that "Way to go, Al!" doesn't belong in an entry? Why not create a private webpage where you can write all the slavering fanboy prose you want? You burned out on WP, fine, you're not alone, but WP isn't yours exclusively and you don't have the right to subvert the last remaining articles in which you have interest.
 * One solution to "improving" this article's POV and unencyclopedic violations would be to remove all the offending sections until someone comes up with something better. That has the potential to start an edit war, and I read that you're tired of that kind of bs, and I have no interest in it either. Instead of that, I'll keep it confined to this talk page, and hope that another editor comes along and realizes that work needs to be done here. Lots of it. dfg 16:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you want to re-write some entries to make them cleaner and less informal, be my guest. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-03-23 T 04:21 Z

 * I removed the clean up tag. As long as this page stays in its current incarnation without irrelevant masses of information, I don't think it warrants any more attention. Vesperholly 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tables
I can't for the life of me figure out why those first few tables don't work and the rest of them do. I've gone over it with a fine-toothed comb and I can't find any difference that would account for it. Oh well... Felicity4711 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Adding a left brace at the beginning of the first table seems to help, but then the table is way too wide and for some reason everything from Black Rain onward is boldfaced, if I do that. Adding a space after the final pipe in a table seems to help, too, but not enough. I'm stumped. I guess I'll RTFM -- that is, when I have time. Right now I have to go to work. Felicity4711 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't go replacing normal apostrophes and quotation marks with HTML tags. I've changed them back. As for the table thing, I reverted it to the version which was legible, and added the They Live entry that you contributed (good entry, too -- I had no idea he was in that). -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-26 T 02:46 Z

Good article
Hi,

The GA tag was added to this article without going through the nomination process. It has now been removed, please don't re-add it without nominating the article at this page.

Thanks,

Cedars 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This article
This article offends my eyes. I'm not good at sounding serious, so someone please fix this. To whoever wrote the article this way, fall in a well and stay forgotten. Ace ofspade 18:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is language so informal? ' battling yellow turbans (and winning!) in the alleyway' '(Hey, it's an impressive scream.)'. 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Because that is how it was originally written. Feel free to re-write some entries to make them cleaner and less informal. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well...
Okay, cute and clever and excellent for a blog sort of thing, but not for an encyclopedia. I dunno if User:Bblackmoor is still reading this at all, but perhaps I could move whatever scant dialogue he had in films to wikiquotes? I'll remove the synopsis of the films and instead make a filmography section. Basically I'm asking for a radical reduction. Sorry. Tamarkot 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Feel free to delete anything that is not verifiable. Feel free to rephrase anything that is not NPOV. Feel free to delete anything that isn't notable and relevant to this article. However, Leong's dialogue is notable, because it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of his roles -- his dialogue, or lack thereof, is part of what makes Leong himself notable. Removing Leong's dialogue from the article would be like removing the paintings from the article on Vincent van Gogh -- it would eliminate a major portion of what makes the article relevant to its subject. As for removing the synopses, that would be acceptable as long as the verifiable information contained in them is moved to another Wikipedia article (one for each film, presumably). However, be aware that since one of Leong's signature attributes is that he is a bit player, Leong's appearance in a film might not be notable in an article devoted to that film, while it is notable in an article devoted to Leong himself. Ergo, much of what is currently contained in the film synopses may be notable only within the context of this article -- and thus, should stay in this article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work!
Good work by user:ONUnicorn and user:Ace ofspade on the article. Thanks. Your efforts are greatly apppreciated. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work by user:PlatinumX and user:Gator MacReady. Your efforts are appreciated. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work by user:Sumahoy. Precise categories are a joy to behold. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2006-12-28 20:03Z

Wholesale deletion of article content by AspiraDude
user:AspiraDude deleted most of the article's content. I would not characterize this as vandalism, per se, but at the very least it was not the result of discussion and consensus, nor was any valid reason given for the deletion of the article's content. I have therefore reverted AspiraDude's changes. Feel free to delete anything that is not verifiable. Feel free to rephrase anything that is not NPOV. Feel free to delete anything that isn't notable and relevant to this article. Feel free to discuss anything else. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but that is WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION. ITA with dfg in the Cleanup section. That depth of information simply does not belong on Wikipedia. See Article_size. I'll "feel free" to delete what I think is inappropriate for Wikipedia, not the fans of Al Leong, thanks. If you think people care to know all that information about Al Leong, create a website and link to it from here. Don't shove his entire 20-year career down our collective throats. Vesperholly 08:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You do not think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for detailed, verifiable, NPOV information? I will respectfully agree to disagree. As for "shoving something down your throat", no one is forcing you to read an article in which you clearly have no interest. There are much longer articles on Wikipedia than this one, which do not interest me. Should I go and delete large portions of them for that reason? I think not. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I have an interest in relevant information. Entire lists of dialogue and descriptions of characters which don't even have names are completely irrelevant and make this article very difficult to read. A minor character actor like Leong does not justify a page that is the same length as Steven Spielberg's article. I'm interested in why you think Leong's article should be as long as Spielberg's. Perhaps you can elucidate me. Vesperholly 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no need to defend this article's length in comparison to the length of any other Wikipedia article: that is not a relevant concern. However, if you would like work on Spielberg's article to make it longer, then of course you should feel free to do so. Incidentally, "elucidate" does not mean what you appear to think it means. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. Seeing every death of a career villain listed in a row is a kick, and a chart like the one on this page would fit in very well on a "bad movies" site. However, it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, even if it's verifiable, interesting, and funny. It's not about length so much as whether the content is encyclopedic or not. I have no problem with the Al Leong article being as long or longer than Steven Spielberg's, but if the content is a chart of funny quotes, lengthy descriptions of roles, and causes of death, then it really belongs on a humor/movie buff site rather than an encyclopedia. Snurks T C 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Providing a comprehensive reference is an encyclopedia's raison d'etre. There is no precedent, as far as I know, for excluding verifiable information from Wikipedia simply because the topic is related to pop culture. I could be mistaken; if so, please provide a reference so that I may correct my error. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That suggests to me that the inclusion of minutae is inappropriate, and best left to a fan site. Pruning, to the extent of just listing the filmography, and a section higlighting the bit part nature of his roles would seem to be a satisfactory resolution. -- Princess Tiswas 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" does not appear to apply to this article. Other than the "plot summary" example, the examples given in that section generally have to do with "how to" type subjects. And while this article does contain (very abbreviated) plot information, it is used here "as an aspect of a larger topic". -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The list is indiscriminate, in that it makes no attempt to put the filmography into any context of notability. This goes against the letter of wikipedia, and perhaps, more importantly, against the spirit. The inclusion of a synopsis for each film is redundant - this is covered in the the entry for each film (where there is one). I've cleaned up the section inline with my previous suggestion :: Princess Tiswas 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Leong's filmography is not indiscriminate -- the discriminating factor is that it's a list of films in which he has appeared. Nor are the synopses of the films redundant with the listings for the films themselves: as has already been pointed out, one of the earmarks of Leong's appearances is that he plays minor characters who nearly always die, and who would ordinarily not even be mentioned in a film's conventional synopsis. The content you deleted is relevant to this article, the subject of the article is notable, and the content itself is written from a neutral point of view (although of course it can be improved), it is verifiable, and it is not original research. That you do not find the subject of the article interesting has absolutely no bearing, and that is not sufficient reason to go deleting half of it. I have reverted your ill-considered and wholly unnecessary deletions. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the changes back to the previous version, for the very reasons given above. The inclusion of pedantic minutae to illustrate a point merely adds bloat. It's apparent that you have an issue with wikipedia in general, inasmuch as can be garnered from your user page, and this article has become your own private sandbox. I suggest this article be tagged for review by a wider audience. - Tiswas (t/c) 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I've reverted the changes back to the previous version, for the very reasons given above." Reverted back. The arguments to which you refer have been addressed. If you have anything new to add to the discussion, please do so here before unilaterally deleting valid, verifiable, relevant neutral content. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Asian American
I have reverted Mr Tan's edit, where he replaced the "Asian-American Actor" category with "Chinese-American Actor". I reverted it because although Leong looks Asian (and I suppose that's important to some people), we have no evidence or references to verify the assertion that Leong identifies himself as "Chinese-American". Personally, I find the introduction of categories like "Asian-American" and "Chinese-American" offensive and inappropriate. On the one hand, he was born in the USA, and he's a US citizen. That makes him an American. No hyphen. On the other hand, categories like "Asian-American" are meaningless: the vast bulk of the people living in the USA have ancestors from numerous continents. The whole concept of "[whatever]-American" is inane, in my opinion. However, I have simply reverted the category instead of deleting it, because I know I am outnumbered by those who think such a category is relevant. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit by HongQiGong for the same reason. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-02-04 08:28Z

I find it really rather strange that it should be "offensive" to point out that someone is Asian American or Chinese American, as if it should be shameful to be Asian or Chinese in the US or something. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Racism is shameful. An American is an American. However, if you cite a source that verifies that Leong identifies himself as "Chinese American", then that assertion can stay in the article. Until then, it does not belong in the article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-02-04 18:33Z

Small changes made
I know that Bblackmoor cares deeply about this article, but in the process of adding wikilinks, I had to change some of the more tongue-in-cheek and colloquial turns of phrase. Wikipedia is actually an encyclopedia and should be written as such, but the language had to be slightly cleaned up, while I left the format and spirit of the article intact. JesseRafe 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said back in 2005, "some of this is written tongue-in-cheek, and may need a bit of revision to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry." I think you have done excellent work. Well done. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-01-08 03:55Z

Request for feedback
I've posted a request for feedback on this article, to address concerns regarding overall style and content. The aim is to achieve a more rounded consensus, from a wider audience. - Tiswas (t/c) 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I deleted your inappropriately-placed "examplefarm" template ("inappropriate" in the sense that it has no bearing or relevance to this article). If you wish to improve the article, then do so: delete anything that is not verifiable; rephrase anything that is not NPOV; delete anything that isn't relevant to this article; add verifiable information where it is lacking; etc. In other words, improve the article by improving the article. It is clear from your user page and your edit history that you are a great fan of templates, but perhaps you ought to be more judicious in their use. Arbitrarily inserting irrelevant templates into an article merely defaces it, to the detriment of Wikipedia. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-08 19:54Z
 * On the contrary, templates flag articles that can otherwise be improved, inviting editors with a more vested interest in an article to make such improvements. The relevance of the template, in the context of this article, is that it highlights the indiscriminate listing of all of Leong's appearances, for the purpose of providing examples of his characters' deaths. If this article were to be considered a good article, which I am sure you would like to see, judging by your continued and conscientious monitoring, it would appear prudent to trim the section to list each appearance, going into detail in the more notable and pertinent examples. My personal may be for predilection for tagging, but I do so advisedly, and with due consideration - I will freely admit that, in this case, a comment in the talk page would have been wiser. In the meantime, I am re-adding the tag - You may, of course, revert this as you see fit, but I would prefer to seek some consensus, as opposed to it becoming a bone of contention. The tone tag, I would agree, is now all but redundant. - Tiswas (t) 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag is inappropriate. The filmography is not simply a list of examples, such as might be found in an article on the Pythagorean Theorem. In such a case, one or two examples is sufficient to illustrate the theorem. On the contrary, the filmography in this case is a large part of the point of the article. A seeker of knowledge who wished to learn more about Leong might well wish to see for themselves how and when Leong's character died in, say, They Live. Due to the nature of Leong's roles, it would be very easy for someone to miss that, even if they knew he appeared in the film. Ergo, a person investigating Leong -- for a research paper on pop culture in cinema, or on stuntmen, for example -- would begin looking for information on Leong's roles in the first place many people look for relatively obscure but verifiable information: Wikipedia. Your preferences for gutting the article notwithstanding, Leong is a notable figure in American cinema, having appeared in dozens of films; the distinctive nature of his roles is that they are for the most part nameless and short-lived (thus rarely meriting a mention in an article devoted to the film itself), and information on those roles belongs in an encyclopedia article ostensibly devoted to Leong. I say to you again: if you want to improve the article, then improve the article. If you do not have anything worthwhile to contribute to this article, I am sure there are other articles which would be more productive recipients of your efforts. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-09 20:44Z
 * The tag is entirely appropriate. I'm not suggesting that a list of Leong's filmography is inappropriate - I'm flagging the fact that it is is being indiscriminately used to illustrate the point of the article. A more judicious us would be, as I have already suggested, to offer pertinent examples from his more notable appearances. As it stands, the filmography is entirely a list of examples to illustrate a synthesised point, which is, in itself, unsourced and original research.
 * Insofar as research is concerned, Wikipedia is, as you state, a starting point. By the same token, it is not the finishing point. It is a repository for third party information, not for synthesised work or for original research. Neither is it intended to be exhaustive and indiscriminate. Wikipedia reports on other peoples conclusions that Leong dies in all his films, and cites references to these conclusions - A researcher would go further than Wikipedia to draw their conclusions.
 * My preference is not to gut the article, per se, but to improve it (or, rather, flag it for improvement, which is equally as valid an edit, and not a reason for reversion on its own). Perhaps you should be reminded that you do not own this article. If you feel that my continued edits are inappropriate, you should seek to obtain a wider consensus. In the meantime, I have replaced the tag, both as a constructive criticism of the article, and as an invitation to others to make the necessary improvements. Neither the article nor its talk page is the place to discuss the merits of tagging as a practice -  Tiswas (t) 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is a starting point -- and you appear to want that starting point crippled. This is not appropriate. Nor is the "example" tag appropriate, as the filmography is -- as I have already stated -- not merely a list of examples to illustrate a concept or process, but are themselves the point of the article. Your assertion that any reference to the purpose of an article is "original research" is simply fatuous. The purpose of every article is to provide information on the article's subject, and the Wikipedia requirement that an article's subject be notable is evidence enough that we are supposed to think in terms of what is relevant when constructing an article. Leong is known for a particular type of role, and that assertion is supported by external references. Q.E.D. And no, of course I do not own this article -- numerous people have worked on this article, and I am merely one of them. That does not mean I will sit idly by while a lone-wolf editor defaces an article that a number of people have spent time improving and cleaning up. A good article is a good article, and just because it doesn't belong to me (any more than any other Wikipedia article) is no reason to allow it to be made worse through the well-meaning but misguided efforts of an editor who apparently thinks that Wikipedia articles should not be informative if the subject pertains to pop culture. I won't even address your attempts to short-circuit discussion and consensus through the use of ad hominem attacks and other fallacies, other than to say that they won't work.
 * I have now addressed your points, such as they are, at least twice. If you have anything new to discuss with reference to the article, or you have any improvements or additions you would like to make, feel free to discuss them. Or be bold, and add new content on your own, and we can discus them afterward if they are controversial. Inappropriate tags, however, are neither new content nor are they improvements, and if you insist on adding them without consensus or discussion, they will be removed. I say to you again: if you want to improve the article, then improve the article. If you do not have anything worthwhile to contribute to this article, I am sure there are other articles which would benefit from your efforts. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-13 13:17Z
 * By the way, I happened to notice that the Olympic_medals article lists every city in which the Olympics have been held, along with the number of tims that the city has hosted the games. Perhaps you should rush over and tag that with your "examplefarm" tag. More people monitor that article than this one, and you would soon get "wider consensus" on the appropriate use of this tag.  -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-13 13:26Z
 * In no way does the tag cripple the article. If that were the case, it implies that the use of cleanup templates would not be tolerated on a wider scale - if you wish to make a point regarding the value of tags in the context of defacement, this should be dealt with at the village pump.
 * On which note, accusasations, such as that of being fatuous are both uncivil and against the spirit of the wikipedia community. The notion that I have made any ad hominem attacks is equally baseless. If you wish to maintain that I have done so, you should note it at WP:ANI, or one of the many other channels that administrators monitor. Equally, this goes for accusations of defacement, and suggestions that I am short-circuiting wikipedia practice.
 * Improvement may also come by means of subtraction. The article has too many examples, of films which are covered elsewhere, and which do not materially add to the article after a point, and diminish from the article's quality. An exhaustive example list is fine for a fan page, but not for an encyclopaedia, as the tag states.
 * You appear misdirected in drawing a parallel with the Olympic Games - The host cities are listed, but not used as examples to support a synthesised conclusion. I have no objection to this article including a list of appearances, with the more notable appearances being used to illustrate the roles for which Leong has become known (Which, in itself, needs to be cited - along the lines of an article or reference along the lines of "Al Leong - he's always dying". It's not enough that this conclusion is drawn from examples or references - The assertion must be from a third party, reliable source).
 * I have replaced the tags. If you still feel that they are inappropriate, again, please feel free to take this to a ""wider audience"". - Tiswas (t) 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interests of avoiding 3rr, edit warring & the page becoming battleground, I have requested a third opinion- Tiswas (t) 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to be drawn into some pointless argument with you, despite your goading. I plan to stick to the basics: making the article better and sticking with the core Wikipedia policies of notability, verifiability, and NPOV. If you want to discuss improvements to the article in order to better abide by those policies, I will be happy to discuss it. If you wish to continue your ad hominem attacks and utterly irrelevant complaints, you will be talking to yourself. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-13 21:32Z
 * If I am goading you, please be sure to point this out to an administrator, as it is against the spirit of wikipedia. If I am making ad hominem as well, you should definitely take this issue to WP:ANI. In the meantime, I'm going to replace the tag, and leave the article, and this talk space, alone for a time, if nothing else to allow us both a little space and time for due consideration - Tiswas (t) 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Here from third opinion. The article is a trainwreck and the list needs to be scaled down a LOT with far fewer examples than it currently has. Leave the template and clean it up. --132 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to contribute to the article, by all means do so. Do you have more information? Better sources? Would you like to improve the clarity of the text? Have you suggestions on how to make the point of view more neutral? I look forward to reading your contributions to the article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-13 21:32Z

 * Please go to WP:3O before questioning my knowledge of the subject or ability to edit the article. Third Opinion is a page where someone can place a request for a...third opinion. The third opinion should come from someone who is looking in from the outside and has no vested interest in the article or the argument that way their third opinion can be as neutral and objective as possible. A request was made for a third opinion, I came in and gave my third opinion, and you are welcome to take that how you wish.

 * However, questioning whether my opinion was valid because of my lack of knowledge or inability to find sources has nothing to do with the WP:30 request and your clear sarcasm is, indeed, rather uncivil. The argument was about the style of the article and the inclusion of a particular tag. I looked at the article, saw a trainwreck, decided that the tag was much needed and stated that opinion. If I had an interest in or wanted to edit the article, I would not be a neutral third party and, therefore, should not give my opinion about this argument when a third opinion is requested. Since I am not attached in any way, my third opinion is entirely valid.

 * If you still have a disagreement, please take it to dispute resolution. --132 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To whom are you replying? Certainly not me, as I never questioned your ability to edit the article nor the validity of your opinion. On the contrary, I welcome your constructive input and look forward to your contributions. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-14 12:10Z

Cleanup and tone
An extensive amount of work has been done on this article since the "cleanup" template was added in June of 2006. Among other improvements, a number of editors have gone through and cleaned up intra-wiki links, improved the tone to make it consistently encyclopedic, and fact-checked the filmography. Has this article been improved sufficiently to remove the cleanup/tone template? (I think it has.) -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-08 19:35Z

"Unencyclopedic lists"?
Unlike the tag that Princess Tiswas kept adding to this article, the "unencyclopedic list" template that Tikiwont has applied is, at least, used correctly and appropriately. However, unlike the previous templates applied to this article (concerning its tone, primarily -- template tags which I wholeheartedly supported as being useful and constructive to the improvement of the article), I disagree with the goal of this tag and with the assumptions on which it is based. I disagree with the premise that lists are somehow "unexcyclopedic". I would posit that lists of relevant, verifiable information about notable subjects is precisely encyclopedic, and sometimes that is the most practical way of structuring such information. From reading the talk page devoted to that template, I can see that I am hardly alone in this opinion. Based on the precedents set by other articles on Wikipedia, I would go so far as to say that this "lists are bad" mentality is in the extreme minority. But I will let someone else remove the template. I have done enough cleanup on this article lately. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-15 03:03Z
 * I don't have such a strong opinion on lists in general. It's the second time that I apply this particular tag and I wasn't so aware that it may be understood in the sense that lists in general are unecyclopedic nor would I want to say so. I think there is a problem with the template and have explained that further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Laundromat. I added the tag to defuse somehat the dispute about the other tag and because the section certainly needs attention in my opinion. On further consideration, what we have at Al Leong is actually an unformatted table with a lot of unreferenced text and I've removed the tag for both reasons. To move beyond taggging, I've summarized below a proposal for this section.--Tikiwont 09:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC), expanded on 14:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation and Writer's Reel
I have removed the citation tag, because the vast majority of the content of this article is thoroughly documented. "Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." That certainly does not apply here. In fact, there is only one passage in the entire article that is not directly supported by reliable references, and that's this:
 * In 2003, Leong lampooned himself as well as the Hollywood tradition of actor and director 'reels' by starring in screenwriter Dave Callaham's "Writer's Reel." In the five minute short film, Leong portrayed Callaham going through a typical day in the life of a writer. The 'reel' was accepted into a number of short film festivals.

I have not been able to find any references to support this passage, anywhere. Per Wikipedia policy, "All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately." I wouldn't consider this contentious (no one has contested it, Q.E.D.), so I do not think this warrants immediate removal. However, if some kind of supporting documentation is not provided in a reasonable amount of time, I do think it ought to be removed, at least until supporting references can be found. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-15 03:32Z
 * Well, the tag was asking for better and more sources. Right now there are only two published sources and both of the type that we call today a blog. Moreover, we cannot cite the Al Leong website directly in the text, because it is citing Wikipedia itself! --Tikiwont 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's content is published under one or more open documentation licenses (GNU FDL and CC-SA, primarily). It's perfectly acceptable for other sites to use Wikipedia's text: if Wikipedia's text is accurate and reflects the site author's intent, why would they want to waste effort re-writing what has already been written and reviewed by numerous editors? It would be perverse to then refuse to consider that site an acceptable reference simply because it says the same thing that Wikipedia says. What makes an external reference a source of supporting documentation for Wikipedia's verifiability purposes is that one or more independent experts have reviewed the information and declared it accurate, outside of the free-for-all "Wikiality" here on Wikipedia. That the text in question comes from, was inspired by, or did itself inspire the content of a Wikipedia article is irrelevant. You are saying that if an expert on recombinant DNA publishes an article on stem cell research, using an open license like CC-SA, and that if all or part of that article were then incorporated into Wikipedia, that the article could then not be used as a cited external reference in the article. Do you see how absurd that is? You would be discouraging people from releasing their work under open licenses, and crippling Wikipedia in the process. That's positively Kafkaesque. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-20 14:46Z
 * Kafkaesque maybe, but not in the sense you're intending. It just shows what can happen if we publish insufficiently sourced material. We shouldn't confuse licensing and attribution and what you imply above with the DNA example is not what I am saying at all. Wikipedia text can of course be reused, but has itself to rely on published sources so that the text that we're encouraging to be reused is anchored somewhere. The Al Cheong site does not fit this criterion in the first place. They can of course reprint a Wikipedia paragraph without ctiations, but we don't know in as far it has actually been reviewed and verified, so it is better to avoid this then as a citation here. At the end it has to be clear who says e.g. that Al Cheong has a Cult following or why this is asserted. Moreover, good external sources are also dated as our Wiki versions, so if attribution is done properly, there shouldn't be any circular referencing and no reason to fear crippling Wikipedia. Aren't there any old printed articles on Al Cheong. Including them here and the relaying the distilled version would be something useful. Meanwhile we can sue the site to add - as indrect claim for a cult following - a note regarding the campaign for an award.Tikiwont 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Filmography: A proposal
Beyond labels and tags, the current format of the filmography section has been criticised repeatedly. As am actor, Al Long should have a filmography section similar to that of other actors here in Wikipedia. Looking at featured articles, there seems to be a wide consensus for having a table with the four columns Year, Title, Role, Other notes. With respect to the current structure this would mean.
 * Highlight in the main part that Al Leong’s character usually says little or nothing and after a short appearance dies.
 * The list should feature all films that have an article in Wikipedia or where it is likely to be created
 * There is no place for a synopsis, not even form the Al Leong character point of view. Any meaningful content may at the discretion of interested editors moved into the film article (unless there is no consensus at the target page)
 * The notes section would report anything unusual such as e.g. a major talking role or a case where he is good guy or does not die.
 * This is not the place for a quote collection. Maybe some can be saved into wikiquotes. Maybe so some fan site.

This has been tried alreayd once in the past. I understand it would remove some material that is uniquely arranged, but it this amounts almost to originally arranged to somehow amplify the fact that Leong has routinely been casted for a specifyc type of role. Comments, endorsements, opposes below please. --Tikiwont 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I will repeat what I said almost precisely a year ago: Leong's dialogue is notable, because it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of his roles -- his dialogue, or lack thereof, is part of what makes Leong himself notable. This is not original research -- it is referenced in every significant mention of him in external sources (the number of which is diminishing, sadly, as his heydey recedes into the past). As for removing the synopses, that would be acceptable as long as the verifiable information contained in them is moved to another Wikipedia article (one for each film, presumably). However, be aware that since one of Leong's signature attributes is that he is a bit player, Leong's appearance in a film might not be notable in an article devoted to that film, while it is notable in an article devoted to Leong himself. Ergo, much of what is currently contained in the film synopses may be notable only within the context of this article -- and thus, should stay in this article. Again, this is not original research -- it is merely the placement of verifiable information in articles where that information is relevant and notable, all of which is directly supported by Wikipedia's core principles.

You make a valid comparison to articles devoted to other actors. However, the observation that other actor's filmographies are incomplete is certainly not a reason to remove verifiable information where it currently exists. Under that rationale, every article on Wikipedia would be reduced to a stub. It is my opinion that neutral, verifiable, notable information should never be removed from Wikipedia unless there is some truly extraordinary justification for it. I find it quite odd that any editor would disagree.

As for the article having been criticized, this is so. On the hand, it has received nonconstructive criticism from a small number of people who have neither provided a coherent basis for that criticism nor contributed anything to the article themselves. (Suggestions that the editors of the article should "fall in a well and stay forgotten" and observations that the article is a "train wreck" are typical of such editors' comments.) However, the article has also received constructive criticism from editors who have cleaned up, clarified, expanded, and just generally improved the article. It is my opinion that the latter form of criticism should be given the most weight. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-17 14:33Z

 * Well, I am certainly having a hard time finding in above discussion actual endorsements of the current format of the filmography. With respect to mentioned filmographies of other actors, I actually checked some featured articles and they all feature the mentioned format. So having a Wikipedia standard representation already counts for quite a bit as does the underlying consensus about the level of detail we're aiming at. But why would many think that something that looks incomplete to you is good quality? IMO, mostly because the plots, the dialogues and the deaths belong to the characters and the films, i.e. to fictional worlds. And it is here in linking all the details form the differtn films to the real person that the original aspect comes into place. Having little dialogue does not imply that the plot few lines are notable when put into the actors article or that there is something Al Cheongish about them or the plot parts, nor are there currently sources for that. And of course Al Leong himself is not dying at all in the films as the current table implies. Not to mention that I would not knwo how to verify most content if not by whatching the scene.

 * So there was a year of time to go through the plots and will be afteards, Wikiquotes is the place for quotes and if I look e.g. at the quotes of Jeff Goldblum, it might be acceptable to enter content by characters there. For the rest, it has to talk about the film from the actor and not the character perspective, e.g if Leong also did stunts.--Tikiwont 09:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to change it now. Above are suggestions what to do with the removed parts. In case you're still not convinced, please consider to split off the previous version as Al Leong filmography. --Tikiwont 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you're set on taking the amply-documented information (it's practically all on DVD) that makes Leong notable, and removing it from the article, for no other reason that what makes Leong notable is not what makes other actors notable, and therefore should be removed. And once that is gone, of course, Leong himself will cease to be notable enough to warrant an article (it will be labeled fancruft or some such thing), and the article will be nominated for deletion. And why not? What made the article worthwhile will have long since been removed. Whatever. I tire of fighting the endless battle to keep Wikipedia sane. This was my last battleground; I surrender to the barbarians. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-26 19:03Z

It saddens me to see this - the article in its previous format was a wonder, and contained all the information I required when I looked into Al Leong a few months ago. To see it deteriorate to its current level is upsetting. Hopefully, someone can do something to improve it to at least a fraction of its former glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.15.8 (talk • contribs)

Am I the only one who thinks it's HILARIOUS that someone who kept calling the guy "Al Cheong" is the one who seemed hell-bent on cutting this Wiki post down to nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.46.56 (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck happened?
What happened to this article? It used to have buckets of information about Al Leong, and now it's like a stub. What the heck?!? This is pitiful. 67.62.201.69 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al Leong. 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/20071004230227/http://www.alleong.com/taurus.html to http://www.alleong.com/taurus.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) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Al Leong


text:
Talk:KDevelop

NPOV
I really like KDevelop and KDE, but the Features section seems a bit un-NPOV. --ajdlinux 09:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Outdated
This page really is outdated and needs to be redone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.230.28 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who uses it?
Any notable projects acknowledging Kdevelop as their main/recommended IDE? 81.154.157.213 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 * KDE… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Let me rephrase. Projects that it might be useful for a novice to run using KDevelop's debug mode, as a learning exercise. 81.154.156.177 (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Outdated and seriously bad article
The KDE Frameworks now contains much more information and links to get even more information directly up-stream. However, articles like this one and a couple of others look abandoned. Aren't there more KDE people around to polish up the entire article series? I rather bother with GNOME and GTK+, because that is what I use on a daily basis. User:ScotXW t@lk 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:KDevelop


text:
User talk:PBS/Archive 5

 * Indented line

Archives

 * User talk:PBS/Archive 1
 * User talk:PBS/Archive 2
 * User talk:PBS/Archive 3
 * User talk:PBS/Archive 4

=Page five=

Request:
Can you please vote for our good old friend LordAmeth for his adminship here? I'm sure he would greatly appreciate having such a valued member of Wikipedia like yourself vote for him. Spawn Man 04:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain Teasers:
Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of the Seelow Heights
Hi Philip,

You've made major reverts to Battle of Seelow Heights and Battle of Berlin just now. I have left them unchanged to prevent a revert war, but please consider the following and modify accordingly:
 * 1) Battle of the Seelow Heights does not contain all info in the old Battle of Seelow Heights (e.g., post-war criticism of Zhukov). While I agree that Battle of Seelow Heights should be merged into Battle of the Seelow Heights, a simple redirect erases all the extra info.
 * 2) Battle of Berlin, IMHO, was much better with a shorter section about The battle of the Oder-Neisse, linking to the main article. After all, this article is about the Battle of Berlin, and this sub-battle should certainly not outshine the much more important, difficult and longer battle in Berlin proper. Also, it is against Wikipedia conventions to repeat entire paragraphs already present in another main article (Battle of the Seelow Heights). Folding entire articles into a large article defeats the purpose of a hyper-linked encyclopedia.
 * 3) Heinrici's defensive preparations are a part of the Oder-Neisse battle (which is why they're rightly included in Battle of the Seelow Heights), so they should be placed within that section in Battle of Berlin - you moved it outside for some reason I cannot understand.

To summarize, I think Battle of Berlin changes should be reverted, and the old Battle of Seelow Heights should be merged, not deleted. -- altmany 01:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, your points were taken. Actually, it was your specific comment in the Talk about the different section development levels that got me started on the reduction edit in the first place (consider that a compliment). I still think that if detailed information is available in a sub-article, it shouldn't be repeated in the parent, but I agree with you that instead of reducing the data in Battle of Berlin, we should instead expand the data in Battle of the Seelow Heights (as you said, a paragraph for morning, noon etc.).

 * I'll just restore the reference to the main article. While true that strictly-speaking the battle of Seelow Heights was just part of the larger battle, in practice that article includes information about the wider battle (for both 1BF and 1UF), so it's reasonable to refer to this article as the main article for the battle.

 * In any case, note that the Battle of Halbe sub-section is exactly the opposite in size - a very short note linking to the main article. All these inequalities in sub-section detail level may cause reader misperceptions, so the Halbe sub-section needs to be beefed-up too. I'll try to get around to it in the next few days, keeping the standard detail level of a paragraph per day.

 * Regarding the armchair generalship, I fully agree with your aversion from it. But the fact remains that several critics did raise the issue, and the fact that they did is in fact encyclopedic. We're not here to judge - just report the facts - readers can judge for themselves if they agree or not. I'll add the section with a warning.
 * -- altmany 12:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Scanian
You have supported a move of the article Skånska over at Talk:Skånska that is not compatible with the concept of NPOV and general guidelines over at WikiProject Languages. I would appreciate if you'd read the objection I've posted and reconsider your vote.

Peter Isotalo 11:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh. I got one of those too :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

White City
On Talk:Weissenburg in Bayern there is again a discussion on whether to move the article to the ß-spelling. I thought I'd give you a heads-up lest someone accuse us of attempting to sneak something past community oversight. I know that the wait-for-6-months guideline is a useful one but I really feel we need to harmonize the names of Weissenburg in Bayern and Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen. Both votes were originally started around the same time and one may have been closed prematurely, based on the recent interest. Of course ideally we'd discuss the issue of ß in general somewhere rather than vote on each article individually. Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

On ASCII and the English Alphabet
Hi again, Philip!

Just thought I'd clarify one thing in my terminology. I prefer to speak of ASCII rather than the English alphabet because the former is completely clear and exactly defined whereas the second means different things to different people. Take this question: "Is 'é' a part of the English alphabet?" Some will say "no", some will say "yes" and some will say "well, 'e' is so 'é' sort of is because it's not really thought of as a separate character in English". The question: "Is 'é' a part of ASCII?" has an easy well-defined answer: "No!"

I just thought I'd make this clear lest you get the feeling I don't think there is an English alphabet or some such unusual opinion. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You keep using the phrase ASCII but as Noel pointed out in an earlier discussion:

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 1)
 * Look at Wurttemberg, Riksdag, Goering, Tweede Kamer, Zurich (that's one's particularly ludicrous - walk up to the average person on the street in Auckland or New York or Sydney or London or Toronto etc and ask them to write "Zurich" on a piece of paper [so keyboards don't come into it] and they'll write "Zurich", not "Zürich"), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 * Using the term ASCII makes it a technical argument not the cultural one that it really is. That is not to say that technical issues do not come into it (but few today care that shift and control are bitmaps 0x41 "A" + 0x20 is 0x41 "a" or -0x20 gives "^A"). When programming in Germany or Switzerland, I always ask for an American or British keyboard so that the Hex 0x21 to x0x2F characters are easily accessible, which of course means that German characters are then not easily available.

 * In summary please use the term "26 letters of the (basic) English Alphabet" or something simlar rather than ASCII as its more neutral and not everyone knows or cares what ASCII is. PBS 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It is still completely unclear to me whether the "26 letters of the (basic) English Alphabet" include 'é' or not. It is completely clear to me that ASCII does not. Sometimes it's a technical issue, sometimes it's not - but ASCII is at least well defined. But if you want to strive for neutral terminology please consider using "diacritics" instead of "funny foreign squiggles". I could accept "the 26 letters of the basic English Alphabet without diacritics" as clear and well defined (if annoyingly long). Would that be acceptable to you? - Haukur Þorgeirsson'

 * As a curiosity I use Icelandic keyboard settings on my Windows laptop (useful for writing e-mails in Icelandic and arguing about the use of diacritics on Wikipedia) and British keyboard settings on my Linux desktop (useful for programming). - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia
I've noticed you have worked on an article that is covered by the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia. While a religious resource, there is a great deal of impartial information about historical events, persons and ideas that are covered by the CE. I've created a project page for the Catholic Encyclopedia as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles project to coordinate incorporation of relevant information from the CE into wikipedia. I would appreciate any help you can offer in the project. Reflex Reaction 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Úbeda RM
For what it's worth, and for the information of all the voters in the March requested move vote, there's now a new requested move vote at Talk:Ubeda. -- Curps 01:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert
Philiph, please stop changing votes drastically right in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Encourage people to vote according to the standing vote, not one you decided by yourself. Please read my objections about the validity of RM as a policy maker. I do not recognize RM as any kind of arbitrator of NPOV.

Peter Isotalo 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested moves
Hello. I know you've dealt with many requested moves. Could you look at Talk:Großglockner please. Ryan Norton put a "not moved" tag on it, but looking at the numbers, this appears to be inconsistant with the threshold normally used. Jonathunder 01:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Old Norse names
Philip. I hope you realize that the people who have actually written articles on Old Norse matters have given the spelling standard a lot of consideration. Personally, I would have preferred the modern Scandinavian standard for the same reasons as those you put forth. However, there is only one international benchmark for the spelling of Old Norse names, and that is Old Norse spelling. This is Wikipedia where compromise is an important virtue.--Wiglaf 13:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It is just my comment on the issue of Old Norse spellings which you have had opinions on. I saw your post on Haukurth's talkpage and had the impression that the matter is not settled. I have had (and still have) my focus elsewhere at the moment, but I thought I'd just explain where I stand in the issue and why. Best,--Wiglaf 13:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still not a democracy
Philip, you are currently editing against both my own and RN's wishes as well as trying to uphold an interpretation of "consensus" which as no support anywhere else on Wikipedia. You are acting as if you have some sort of senior authority over RM and the right to interpret community consensus as you see fit. Please make some kind of acknwledgement that you've understood my arguments before make all kind of reverts.

Peter Isotalo 14:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Höðr
Hi!

Could you check Höðr for me? It's still a work in progress, long on quotations and short on commentary, but I'm mostly interested in your view of the pronunciation and anglicization information. What's the best way to make things clear and helpful? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for looking into it. In addition to listing the various anglicized forms in the article redirects have been created from most of them (not by me, actually). I thought I'd also share one more thought with you. While I think we should try to be roughly consistent in that if the article on this Norse god is on Höðr other articles on Norse mythology should refer to the god by that name - I don't mind that articles outside that scope mention the god with some anglicized form. For example Dart_(missile) mentions Hod and Baldur and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Once a user zooms into a specialized field it seems natural to me that the terminology grows more specialized or scholarly. This is also a part of avoiding the winner-takes-all mentality that can give rise to ill will. For example I see nothing necessarily wrong with having one article at "Zürich" and another at "Battle of Zurich". Just thinking aloud here. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

How do I do it?
How do I go about removing foul language on an article, if the creator, keeps reverting my edits? Can you block him? I've explained on the talk page of the article the laws surrounding it, but he wont listen. See Here & Here. I just want the foul language &/or the explicit external links removed. The article should be neutral, meaning it contains no foul language or pornographic links. Any help would be appreciated. Spawn Man 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Sigh, why is this still going on? To avoid wasting space on your (and all the other people he pasted that to) talk page, I replied at the bottom of Talk:Strap-on dildo.  Thanks, Bushytails 01:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

 * I asked for advice, from people who know what they're doing. Admins, not weasely people who just because they think swearing in public is okay, that it should be allowed!! Swearing is not allowed on wikipedia! It is a blatant link to a near complete porn site! It even has at the bottom, "Buy Your Strap on Dildos Now!". Why should that be allowed? I'll ask the whole wikipedia community & get a consensus if I have to. Why do I always have to fight for morals? Spawn Man 01:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.
I have made my final point, & will be partially walking away, partially replying toany comments he may have. Spawn Man 23:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

New template for characters outside of the 26-letter-English-alphabet-without-diacritics
Hi, Philip. We're developing a template to do essentially what you've been advocating - the inclusion of ASCII basic English alphabet versions of non-English names.

We're still hashing out a wording on the template's talk page. Your contributions would be valued. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks for moving the comment of the move-page. I was already wondering why I was the only one interested in commenting on any of these proposals to move.. DocendoDiscimus 10:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerns about policy interpretation
I'm very concerned about your behavior here at Wikipedia. While it is clearly not done in bad faith, you seem far more concerned with following a very strict (mostly your own) interpretation of policies and guidelines that are intended to be secondary or mere recommendations. I've already refered you to pages such as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not a democracy and (I hope) polls are evil. Despite the fact that these are general policies or recommendations that are widely respected elsewhere, you insist on that these should overridden by very minor local wording of guidelines, such as those of Requested moves. I feel that you're actively or passively ignoring these common practices and focusing only on minor documents that you yourself have helped write. The same seems to go for any objections made at the RM talkpage, where you demand that anything that once been slightly agreed on must be removed with some sort of bureaucratic decision.

I believe you should take a break from RM. Your presence in the RM discussions, your reverting of other editors' suggestions and the quite extreme rules lawyering you always display in individual votes are not constructive and none of these things promotes a good environment for discussions or consensual decision making.

Peter Isotalo 12:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Foz do Iguaçu
Hello, Philip. I think it might amuse you to take a look at Talk:Foz do Iguaçu. Basically, the Foz do Iguaçu town council has voted to change the town's name to Foz do Iguassu because: (1) that's what it was historically, prior to some orthographic mucking about in the 1940s, and (2) "of the 198 UN member states, 146 don't use ç" and "we cannot ignore 655 million internet users". Related matter: I've not see you comment on Foreignchar. Are you unaware of it, opposed to it, or just biding your time? Cheers, –Hajor 14:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

List of national coats of arms
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I am working on this page. I am adding links to articles about the coa and I am adding/deleting countries according to the list of sovereign countries. Any comments? Or maybe lending a helpful hand? Because at the same time I am adding the link to coa article in the country's infobox. So it's a lot of work. Also, what to do with those removed countries and teritories? Renata3 20:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Death by Rugging
Hello: I had placed the merge template on this page after discovering it on RC patrol. I cannot find any references on google. What are your thoughts on placing it for AfD vote? The article asserts that it was a method used during the French Reign of Terror, but as you point out, not verified. thanks. — Gaff ταλκ 00:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting stuff...thanks. — Gaff ταλκ 18:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ubeda
Thank you for your interest in the article Úbeda. You will be aware that this article has suffered from the vandalism of one user. Any issue you have about the name of the town should be taken to the article's talk page. If you decide to make edits to the article about the name of the town, you are not only participating in a rather lame edit war with the vandal, but also giving the vandal reason to keep on being silly. If you wish to make a change, suggest it on the talk page: there is already sufficient consensus to keep the article as it is. Thank you. --Gareth Hughes 16:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The extended majority support for keeping the article at its current location doesn't necessarily indicate the same support for keeping the ASCII (sorry, Philip ;) version out of it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The following may be of interest: User_talk:David_Gerard (and the earlier Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents). -- Curps 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II
Re your comment on your edit of 20:56, 3 November 2005: the court did not call the Dresden bombing a Holocaust, it said Voigt's usage of the term did not violate the Holocaust denial laws: there's a big difference there! I don't like the "can legally be termed" construction, though both the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Telegraph used it, better to say they are both constitutionally protected forms of free speech. I'll make the change. --- Charles Stewart 19:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Würzburg radar
As far as I know a compromise was worked out to use diacritics in the title and the "foreignchar" template to satisfy those who insist on seeing a non-diacritic version. Frankly, I think the latter is superfluous and yet to maintain the compromise I've been busy reverting and blocking the sockpuppet vandal who keeps removing it from various articles... I hope you are not going to argue over each and every article, I don't think thousands of "requested moves" votes would be acceptable. Given the survey and the outcome of Úbeda, can you please just accept the consensus and then we can move on. -- Curps 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The notion of "primary author" doesn't really apply on Wikipedia, see No ownership of articles. I'm not sure what you refer to as a "primary source", Google shows tens of thousands of hits (the majority of which seem to use the "Würzburg" spelling, there's no one source of information that would be considered "primary". Again, I've been spending quite a lot of time battling the sockpuppet vandal who keeps removing any trace of the non-diacritic version from more than a hundred articles even though I consider the non-diacritic version to be superfluous.  I believe that accepting a compromise and defending it is how Wikipedia should work. Do we really need yet another Requested Moves vote? -- Curps 19:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked P.B.S. who is obviously simply another incarnation of the same vandal who was hitting Úbeda. Regarding the broader issue, there are many thousands of pages involving diacritics and case-by-case voting at each and every one is completely unwieldy and really not acceptable, barring any exceptional circumstances such as famous names where a debate might be applicable. The survey is fairly clear and the result of the Úbeda vote is in line with it, and I assert that for routine non-famous names pages can be moved to the diacritic version without further ado.

The "spelling style" refers only to British vs. American spellings such as "color" vs. "colour", and normally applies to words within an article, not to the title (since titles are proper names, there will usually be a definitive official spelling). The reason we have to be flexible here is becuase of national sensitivities, we don't wish to favor one dialect of English over another.

However, in cases where no national sensitivies or characteristic dialect differences are involved, Wikipedia like any other publications uses a style guide and in general we expect consistency of usage. For instance titles that are created in all-lowercase by the original author are modified to the capitalized versions. Titles that use the disambiguation "(movie)" are modified to use "(film)" instead, and we don't have a case-by-case vote for each and every one.

In the case of diacritics, it is not the case that British and American usages diverge, so it is really purely a style-guide issue, and we need to have a consistent style, not case-by-case voting.

Case-by-case voting over thousands of articles simply isn't acceptable. We need to pick one style and stick with it. Unanimity would be nice, but in the absence of unanimity a healthy majority will have to do. In the case of Úbeda we had the WP:RM vote at your insistence, but we can't endlessly travel down that same road over and over again. The basis of successfully working with others on Wikipedia is willingness to accept compromises, and I am once again asking you to accept the need for a consistent style. -- Curps 20:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), well, please re-read what I wrote above (before you wrote your proposal). Diacritics are purely a style-guide issue, not a "British vs. American dialect" issue where flexibility is required, and therefore we need consistency for routine cases (with possible exceptions and debate for famous or exceptional cases).  The first contributor has no special rights, see [[Wikipedia:No ownership of articles. -- Curps 21:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mythology again
I'm sorry that you feel you're being suckerpunched, Philip. That certainly has never been my intention.

Would you be willing to comment on the current status of Naming conventions (Norse mythology) and my most recent comments on it? From my point of view this is quite a compromise - I'd personally prefer Valhöll to Valhalla, Ásgarðr to Asgard and even Óðinn to Odin. But I'm willing to concede these in the name of using common English names where they exist and in the hope of establishing a convention that everyone can at least live with. I've also tried to sweeten the deal for you by pledging to include alternative anglicized forms prominently in the articles.

As you can see from the talk page Wiglaf is somewhat territorial about this (and I can't fault him - he's made an absolutely immense contribution to the field on Wikipedia) but I feel it would mean a lot if we could get you on board with this. Even though mythology isn't your field you've been paying attention to spelling issues on Wikipedia for a long time. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with you that there's got to be a certain idea of live-and-let-live here. I'm personally happy to leave the military terminology to you and the German city names to those interested in German cities. Thus, Würzburg and Wuerzburg radar can reasonably coexist in my opinion. Same thing with Battle of Zurich. On the other hand I think that we should try to be consistent in using or not using diacritics in German/Spanish/etc. city names. I'm willing to make an exception for capital cities, though. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ivory Coast
Thanks for inviting me to the request for move. I have commented at talk:Ivory Coast (oops, hope that redirects!).

I checked the history of the talk page, and I don't think there ever was an archive. Uncle Ed 15:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
You've been here forever, you've got lots of edits, you use edit summaries well, you know the rules, from what I've seen you're always civil and you participate in activities where you could make good use of admin options. Can I nominate you for adminship? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the offer stands if you ever feel the need :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You would surely deserve it more than anyone else (me included). Think about it :) Halibutt 02:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I was about the say the same as Haukur Þorgeirsson. Pace Halibutt, for me, it is not so much a question of whether you deserve to be an admin (adminship is not a reward or a mark of approval) but rather whether you would find the extra couple of buttons useful.  I take it as read that you can be trusted not to abuse them. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to your latest comment on my talk page I just sent you a private e-mail on the matter. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Convention up for a vote
I called a vote on our text at Naming conventions (Norse mythology). I hope you don't think it was premature, hadn't heard from you in a while. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Quoth Curps: "First of all, Philip, you failed to address the main point. If you can live with "æ" in Britannica, why not in Norse names? Answer that or drop your opposition."

This is the weirdest ultimatum I've seen in a while. The whole issue hinges on the æ in Britannica? And what opposition is he talking about anyhow? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful!
You deleted a large segment of List of military engagements of World War II, declaring it was a copy of List of theaters and campaigns of World War II. Regretfully you did not notice that the segment you removed differed from and was larger than the other one. I with many others have been working hard on it, so please do not make such drastic changes without suggesting it first on the talk page. Furthermore, I think the extent of List of military engagements of World War II as it is now is legitimate, and I am sure others agree. I am however open for new suggestions, but I think the organization of pages/campaigns/theatres/battles/operations etc etc must be thoroughly discussed and thought through. Maybe some hierarchical organization of pages is needed? Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 06:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There are rare instances when editing a talk page is necessity; this is one of them. I have replaced all links to "List of World War II theaters and campaigns" with a link to the page it moved to: List of theaters and campaigns of World War II, to avoid double-redirects. Thanks. — Chidom   talk   18:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UE
I made a couple of changes to WP:UE as I note on that talk page. Would appreciate your help in trying to rewrite that guideline for clarity. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Great Calamity
Hi Philip. In situations such as these, I'm usually happy to take a course of action that I think will leave most people least-unhappy. However, this time, it is far from clear that there is a consensus to discard the content, as a redirect would do, but not much actual support for a merge. Clearly we can't delete it with this kind of distribution, and it's not an outright keep. Even if I had declared it a merge, I wouldn't have gone further than a tag on the article since the debate doesn't make clear what should/not be merged. This is one of those cases where which of the three main directions we should take (del, merge, redir) is not clear from the debate, and nor is it clear that supporters of two of those are likely to have been satisfied by choosing the third. Since I didn't declare an outright keep, you can still go ahead and merge/redirect as you see fit so long as you are prepared to defend your course of action on the relevant talk pages. I hope that helps explain my thinking. -Splash talk 22:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't revert a revert directly, always discuss inbetween
Remember to always do at least one line of discussion before you hit revert, it's a good rule of thumb to at least allow some semblance of civility. Dry edit-wars have never gotten anyone anywhere. But editwarring while shouting at each other sometimes at least resolves, eventually. :-) (in fact it was the only solution before 3rr came along ;-) )

Kim Bruning 23:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh so you did, I was misled by the edit summary. Sorry about that. Kim Bruning 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that and it was a bulk revert, so you threw out some babies with the bathwater I guess. See if the new section layout is any good, and edit in your changes separately. (I could do it for you if you like, but that'd be tricky for me :-) )
 * Kim Bruning 00:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:V citations
You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Re WP:UE
I agree. The two or three most common versions should be in the lead. - Haukur 16:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Again I agree with your change. Let's call a function rather than hardcode the functionality into every guideline which needs it :) - Haukur 17:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You've been following WP:RM much longer than I have. Can you tell me from the top of your mind some votes where a diacritics-free version has been chosen for article titles? I know that the first Battle of Ubeda went that way and there was one at Talk:Guantanamo too. I assume there have been many more but searching through the archives is quite time-consuming and I wonder if your memory provides faster access to the data :) - Haukur 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * No worries, there's no hurry :) - Haukur 12:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:C%C3%A1diz
Hi there. You bring up a very interesting point concerning the accent in Cadiz/Cádiz. I've written a response, but my only conclusion is that its difficult to argue either way here. -Rebelguys2 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Flakturm
Your additions to the Flakturm articles are much appreciated. I had some nice pictures posted, but they were taken down. The pictures were over 60 years old, but they still deleted them !! WritersCramp 21:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed your page from Category:Wikipedia
FYI I just edited your user page to include the ':' at the start of Category:Wikipedia. -- Mark Hurd 09:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Camouflage Peer Review
Hello, you once edited Camouflage. You might be interested to know, this article has been nominated for peer peer review. novacatz 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad-Sudan conflict (War)

 * sigh* Whether or not it's okay to declare war under international law is meaningless here. The Chadians did it anyway! Whether or not Wikizach is telling the truth is also meaningless because we know Chad has violated Sudan's national sovereignty by invading in the north. There's also (arabnews.com) news that several people have died in a new attack on Madioun village, see the talk page. KI 04:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history
While I generally agree with your rearrangement, I've reinserted the announcements/tasks box at the top; I think that for project "regulars", it's really the only section of importance, since we've all read the guidelines. Hopefully you don't mind too much ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vocabulary
From Wictionary:
 * Verb
 * effect

To make or bring about; to implement. The best way to effect change is to work with existing stakeholders. Usage notes
 * Don't confuse effect with affect. The latter is used to convey the influence over existing entities, while the former indicates the manifestation of new or original ideas. For example, "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have EFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that major changes were made as a result of new governing coalitions, while "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have AFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that before new governing coaltions, major changes were in place, and that the new governing coalitions had some influnce over these existing changes.
 * Transitive verb
 * to affect (affects, affected, affecting)

1 To influence or alter. The experience affected me deeply. The heat of the sunlight affected the speed of the chemical reaction. 2 To move to emotion. He was deeply affected by the themes in the play. 3 To make a false display of. He managed to affect a smile despite feeling quite miserable. 4 Of an illness or condition, to infect or harm (a part of the body). Hepatitis affects the liver. Usage notes
 * Do not confuse affect with effect. The former is used to convey the influence over existing entities, while the latter indicates the manifestation of new or original ideas. For example, "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have EFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that major changes were made as a result of new governing coalitions, while "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have AFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that before new governing coaltions, major changes were in place, and that the new governing coalitions had some influnce over these existing changes.

(RJP 16:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Genocides in history
Hello, I just wanted to apologise for being a bit curt at Genocides in history. You were doing the right thing, and I was more interested in my own opinion than a good article. I do believe that the view 'Norman invasion = genocide', although a minority opinion, does deserve a mention somewhere, but I am not the person to write it. If I can't keep cool when writing about something, I oughtn't be writing about it, hence I walked away. Thanks. Oswax 17:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex
Your islands voyage link doesn't seem to work.--shtove 22:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Public school
Discuss on the talk page of Public school why you think it is a disambiguation page.--Commander Keane 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Facade
My apologise, I never intended to overstep my mark, was just attempting to be bold, I apologise if I have distressed you in anyway. I did not think the alterations made were drastic enough to warrant posting a notice, since (the way I understand it) it was against the general wiki convention, so to correct this I standardised the Disambig page and divided the largest definition into it's own article, thats the typical convention. The way it has been altered since my contribution is an improvement, but I figured someone had to take the first move and I had wikifaith that any lapse in judgement I might have would be corrected. But again, if you feel I overstepped my power, then I appologise. - UnlimitedAccess 11:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rwanda, Historical revisionism, Unlawful combatants...
Hi! So, as said before, let's take those issues separately as not to bash our heads against walls.

 * Historical revisionism (political)

First of all, the distinction between a "true historical revisionism" and a "political" historical revisionism is more than controversial. This is the reason for the creation of two different articles, as it seems in the US some claim historical revisionism as a valid scientific way of reviewing fact. In Europe, dis is not the fact, as it is an evidence that historical studies requires reviewing of facts all of the times. Thus, revisionism only designs "political" historical revisionism (beside, historic studies as a whole are a political matter, it is quite artificial trying to divide between objectivity and ideology, as both are always mixed together. True NPOV is not for human beings).

Second, the Rwandan Genocide has been included in this entry as it is a major theme of debate about revisionism currently in France. Of course, since France's responsibility is questioned, it may not seem that important to you. But may i remind you that we are talking about a genocide... Pierre Pean's book, recently released, as caused an uproar, as he deliberately ignore France's role and claim there was a "counter-genocide". This is exactly what we are talking about when we talk about revisionism (as when Holocaust deniers talk about a "counter-genocide", refering for example about the Dresde bombings).

 * Unlawful combatants

This entry should be treated according to a juridical point of view. We are discussing the Geneva Conventions here, which precisely don't even use the term "combatant" (let alone "unlawful combatants"). This term has been used prominently, as added another user recently, by the Bush administration. Why deny it? According to you, this term has been in existence for a 100 years... especially in the US. Well, if i read well, only the 1942 Quirin case talks about it. And we're speaking here of international law (laws of war fall under this category). The problem of what i or you think of the Bush administration or about this new concept is irrelevant; the thing is that this "enemy combatant" status has been an invention of the Bush administration after 11-S, and as such causes considerable juridical problem. This is why the Supreme Court has to think about it... The only point of a Wikipedia entry on it is to explain this juridical problem and new concept. Cheers! Kaliz 17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel
I left a long discusssion on the talk page. On the Boer War: it is quite possible that neither the British nor the Boers meet Rummel's standards of demcoracy, but this is because Rummell's standards are so strict that hardly anybody qualifies: which may well make his theory meaningless. Have I misunderstood what you want my comments on? Septentrionalis 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gunpowder warfare
I've changed a lot of this article in line with what we were talking about on my talk page. See what you think. Jdorney 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert Thompson
Philip, before I saw your request for a rename of this article, I saw that someone had renamed it to drop the "expert", so I put the previously disputed hyphen back in, with another move. If the status quo is acceptable, you may want to cancel your request, otherwise you may want to update your request. If you get it renamed again, I'll be glad to fix the double redirects. I finally found a dictionary that listed counter-insurgency and not counterinsurgency, and it was allwords.com, which is American. Go figure. Let me know if there is anything else I can do, or "No, you've done quite enough already!" Chris the speller 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a section to American and British English spelling differences. I used counter-attack as an example, because there was a better sampling of that word in the dictionaries. Just to make things more fun, OED uses the hyphen in counter-insurgency, while cambridge.org omits it; of course, the Cambridge dictionary includes a fair amount of American sources.
 * The River Plate discussion is a howl. Yes, most Americans only know that name because of the battle, and only if they are WWII buffs. The other thing to remember is that an awful lot of English-speaking Americans take Spanish courses in high school, and are used to Spanish place names in California, so it may be easier for them to absorb other Spanish place names, and easier yet since the country has no grudges against Argentina. Chris the speller 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

battle of berlin
well,maybe no two sentences are alike,but if you have indeed altered the main article from the webpage,then you should have also wikified it,added sufficient templates and discussed this on the talk page prior to this.you could have atleast removed the numbering,which wasnt done.you can still write the article,but since i am not a admin,i cant direct you,maybe you can change the whole stylr of the article.--Jayanthv86 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Rugby union
Although I haven't seen any rugby union edits from you for a while you were in the past one of the main contributors. If you are still interested in the rugby union sections, there is a rugby union project that you might be interested in joining, we currently have 11 members. You don't have to join, of course, but any contribution you made would be welcomed.GordyB 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Names
In regard to River Plate, I can sympathise with the Latin Americans, even though they are not following Wiki naming policy, because most people thinks that everyone else should use their name for their things, but what do the Americans care? They don't play soccer, so they haven't heard of CA River Plate, they weren't in the war when the battle took place and the film was retitled Pursuit of the Graf Spee for the US market. Of course they haven't heard of River Plate (unless they are into naval history).

I use "British Commonwealth" in WW2 articles because it was the official name in 1926-46 and because it also reflects the changes that took place in the structure of the beast betwen WW1 and WW2. Allies is an even better word. Grant65 | Talk 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism
You mass-reverted again everything. This is going into edit war, so we will have to find a solution. We may be able to agree on something written together - that's the beauty of Wikipedia - but we will certainly not agree if we keep rv our changes. Henceforth:

 * can you give me a good reason for deleting the Rwandan genocide example except that's its far away from your concerns?
 * can you give me a good reason for deleting the Serdar Argic spam-attempt concerning the Armenian genocide?
 * can you give me a good reason to center the lasting controversy concerning the Japanese downgrading or outward denial of war crimes committed during the period which the Japanese imperialism article refers to? Why should it be centered on the textbooks controversy, which is only one of the aspects of it, beside, for example, visits by the Prime minister - he is the official representant of Japan - to the famous Yasukuni Shrine?
 * I am open to any suggestions about improving the article concerning the February 2005 French law on colonialism. However, we should'nt mistake everything. If you really feel like the British colonization was "globally good" (i'd like some references though, as i was asked to provide ref for something that the French historian community agreed on), why not put a disclaimer such as: the French historian community believes that the colonization wasn't "globally good", as did the law stated, but this point of view is not shared by the world-wide historian community, in particular concerning the British colonization, which is considered, by example by such and such, as globally positive?

Lapaz 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire
Dear sir; I was hoping you would consider this proposal. Under the "World War I", "Middle Eastern theatre of World War I" is listed. If you look where the battles had been performed, also between the armstice to "threaty of serves" most the allies were in the anatolian lands. That name does not really cover the material presented under it. If you consider this proposal, either we should rename that to "Ottoman Front" or break it into peaces. I'm specifically objecting the "Caucasus Campaign" and "Dardanelles Campaign" listed under the Middle Eastern, even if you like to interperet that word liberally. --user:Tommiks

title: User talk:PBS/Archive 5


text: User talk:80.97.187.65

title: User talk:80.97.187.65


text:
Van Sweringen railroad holdings

In addition to streetcar lines, the Van Sweringen Brothers of Cleveland, Ohio owned a vast network of steam railroads.

History
The New York Central Railroad had owned the closely parallel New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad since 1882, soon after its opening. Due to fears of prosecution under the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act, the NYC sold the line on July 5, 1915 to the newly formed Nickel Plate Securities Corporation, a holding company formed by the Vans. They were at first only interested in the line to provide a right-of-way for their Shaker Heights Rapid Transit to downtown Cleveland.

By 1920 the Vans had decided they wanted control of other railroads, including the Lehigh Valley Railroad, Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, Western Maryland Railway, Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway, Pittsburgh and West Virginia Railway, Pere Marquette Railway, Cincinnati Northern Railroad and Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad (Clover Leaf), as well as partial ownership in the Lake Erie and Western Railroad and Philadelphia and Reading Railway.

The Vaness Company was incorporated in Delaware on January 9, 1922 as a holding company to own all the other holding companies. The Clover Leaf Company was incorporated February 25 to own the Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad, and the Western Company March 11 for the Lake Erie and Western Railroad. The LE&W was bought for $3 million from the New York Central Railroad on April 26. On July 1, 1923 and LE&W and Clover Leaf were merged into the Nickel Plate.

For the next several years, the Vans bought up the stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway (including its Hocking Valley Railway), the Pere Marquette Railway and the Erie Railroad. On August 20, 1924 they announced plans to merge the four companies into the New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad (Nickel Plate) to form a new New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railway. They applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission on February 21, 1925, but were denied March 2, 1926 due to unsound financing. The plan was opposed by many C&O stockholders.

On February 3, 1927 the Vans, along with the New York Central Railroad and Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, bought the Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway. Four days later the Vans announced that they would make the C&O the centerpiece of their system, selling the Erie and Pere Marquette to them.

The Alleghany Corporation was incorporated January 26, 1929 in Maryland to hold the Vans' stock in the Nickel Plate, Chesapeake Corporation, Erie and C&O, as well as a partial ownership of the Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway (traded to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in March for the B&O's part of the W&LE; the Vans acquired the rest of it from the NYC at the same time). In April 1930 the Alleghany Corporation bought the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad and 46% of the Missouri Pacific Railroad, gaining a majority of the MoPac on May 13. The Hocking Valley Railway merged into the C&O April 30, 1930.

Due to the Great Depression, the planned "Fourth System" failed. The new Midamerica Company bought most of the old assets on September 30, 1935 in an attempt to reorganize. The primary financial backer of the Midamerica Company was George A. Ball, the youngest of the Ball Brothers of Muncie, Indiana.

The Pere Marquette Railway merged into the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway on June 6, 1947. The Nickel Plate leased the Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway on December 1, 1949, and on October 16, 1964 the Nickel Plate was merged into the Norfolk and Western Railway. The Erie merged into the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad on October 17, 1960. This left three pieces of the old system - part of the N&W, part of the EL, and the C&O. On August 31, 1965 the N&W and C&O announced a planned merger, with a holding company named Dereco to own the EL and several other lines. Dereco was incorporated March 1, 1968, acquiring the EL April 1. But the planned merger never happened. The C&O has since become part of CSX Transportation, the N&W part of the Norfolk Southern Railway, and the EL part of Conrail, split between CSX and NS in 1998 (at which time most of the former Erie went to NS).

title: Van Sweringen railroad holdings


text:
Smiths Beach, Victoria

Smiths Beach is a small town on Phillip Island in Victoria, Australia. It is located on Back Beach Road, on the shores of Smiths Beach. It is home to a short-tailed shearwater (Australian muttonbird) colony.

The beach itself is about 1 kilometer long. It has been said to be great for surfing, paddle-boarding, swimming, and body surfing.

title: Smiths Beach, Victoria