text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:56, March 19, 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Jersey Devil | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

User:Jersey Devil needs to be admonished for not heeding the advices he received after he afd'd a bunch of my articles, and instead proceded to afd a new bunch of articles.--Striver 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

User:Jersey Devil afd'd wantonly, without even bothering to check for notability, often using invalid or just silly arguements for nomination. All those articles he afd'd are created by me, and he is also following all my edits via user contribution.

He got a rfc on him earlier: User:Jersey Devil/RFC, but it got deleted due to a technicality:

 * ''Just to let you know that the RFC against you was deleted as it did not have the required two certifiers within 48 hours of creation. If you want to preserve the content, please let me know on my talk page or by email, and I will move it to your userspace. Stifle

On that, Georgewilliamherbert wrote to that admin:

 * I have to strongly object here; I realize that I didn't sign the Cerify section, but had I realized it hadn't been done I would have done so immediately, and I am reasonably certain there are 3-4 other people who would do so. Stifle, you may have acted in accord with the letter of WP policy, but you have done the spirit a huge disservice here. This was an active ongoing discussion, and the particular subject of it (Jersey Devil AfD'ing stuff) just happened again'' with another dozen or so nominations of striver's articles.

Stifle asked Georgewilliamherbert to "get two people to sign it at User:Jersey Devil/RFC". So Georgewilliamherbert proceded to do just that, just as the admin told him. Jersey Devil answered by reverting him.

He had earlier already received this advice by Computerjoe:
 * ''I am not willing to act as an advocate in your dispute with Striver, however I am going to give you some advice.

 * ''I suggest, very simply, you stay away from Striver; and when he does 'vandalise' ask another member, such as me, for a third opinion. Thanks.

He heeded that advice by puting twentytwo (22!) of my article up for afd on the following day and keept reverting some of my edits. Most of his afd's will fail misserably to be deleted. Here is a taste:

Lambiam: "User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad."

Bobby: "this article is part of a clear series of articles on Muslim comedy that is being created by User:Striver...nearly all of which have been nominated for deletion, regardless of notability. Guy is an up-and-comer, and already notable."

Irishpunktom: "Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point"

Err..You have blanketly nominated over 20 articles created by a Wikipedian you have repeatedly said you want to see banned. You are clearly acting in bad faith, and I dislike that you are disrupting Wikipedia to make your point. You are not "attacking islam" .. and don't add quotes to statements I have not made, you are attacking Striver for your own personal reasons as part of your bad faith endevour to have a fellow wikipedian banned, and I do not like that one bit, so I voted against.

Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy. " Simply "sister of Umar"" - Simply a member of one of the most important families in world history.. what a ridiculous reason to out up an AFD.

Alba: In this case, Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan, the article does indeed need verification per WP:V, but the idea of the article itself has merit. It can't be WP:OR because the family relationships of Uthman have been public record for upwards of 1400 years. The other, and apparently primary, reason for your AfD nomination seemed to be its authorship and your content dispute therewith. Again, I have no dog in that hunt. All I care about is quality content. The family tree needs a lot of work, but it can be quality content, hence my vote. The WP:OR comment and unnecessary mention of authorship did not seem apropos, hence WP:POINT.

joturner: Hmm... I may have to re-consider on my above statement after looking at the comments on your RfC. I get the impression that you may in fact be nominating articles for deletion just because they are from Striver. If that is indeed the case, I do not support that. If articles appear to have a decent amount of potential, they be noted for expansion. If they don't, then they do deserve an RfC. But if you have in fact been attack Striver for his Shi'a point-of-view, that is just plain wrong. Adding an article about every single Shi'a that every lived and every single topic of Shi'a Islam certainly can be annoying (and at times unnecessary), but that is not point of view. That is educating others about Shi'a Islam. If you want to add an article for every place (of significance) in New Jersey, that is fine. Not point-of-view. And to echo the words of a few other users, you may want to wait until your current AfDs are exhausted since, although many of your AfDs may be legitimate, the appearance of carrying out a vendetta against Striver will prevent others from voting Delete.

Northmeister: rv: Jersey Devil is engaged in stalking and harassing users

Ardric47: "Question: what in there is original research?"

And a heep of other users that i wont bother to mention.

The will of the comunity was made clear to him in the previous RFC (that got deleted), so i suggest a short block to give him a signal indicating that the comunity does not condone this kind of behavor with impunity.--Striver 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I also advice the comunity to take a look at this afd's he created:

 * Articles for deletion/Family tree of Ali
 * Articles for deletion/Family tree of Abu Bakr
 * Articles for deletion/Fred M. Donner
 * Articles for deletion/Recommended precaution 2
 * Articles for deletion/Qutaylah bint Abd al-Uzza 2
 * Articles for deletion/Sa'id ibn Zayd
 * Articles for deletion/Mughira ibn Abd Ilah
 * Articles for deletion/Tufail ibn Abdullah
 * Articles for deletion/Allah Made Me Funny
 * Articles for deletion/Jihadunspun.net 2
 * Articles for deletion/Dean Obeidallah
 * Articles for deletion/Abd-Allah ibn Rawahah

--Striver 00:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * User:Jersey Devil/RFC
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Articles_for_deletion

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

I need help here from somone more familiar with this issues, what policies could apply in this case?--Striver 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:DP
 * WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * User:Jersey Devil/RFC

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )
 * Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * --Striver 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * I second what User:Striver says.--Zereshk 05:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * --Irishpunktom\talk 15:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Northmeister 07:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dhimwit 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Response by Jersey Devil
What can I say about this second Rfc? The fact of the matter is that all of the articles that I tagged for deletion were reasonable. I would like to point to the following articles. Tell me if you think I was wrong in tagging these articles:

 * Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan
 * Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba (Sunni doctrine)
 * Family tree of Maymuna bint al-Harith
 * Family tree of Aisha
 * Family tree of Abu Bakr

I am not saying you necessarily have to say that they should be deleted, but I was wrong in tagging them for afd altogether? If any other user had made these articles there would be no debate about this what so ever and the afds would be justified.

I would like you to take a look at this, that is the contribution summary of Striver. His total edits amount to 12453 with 976 deleted edits, this shows us that 7.8% of Strivers edits as a whole get deleted. Let me use myself for comparison, this is my edit count. My total edits amount to 1758 with 27 of my edits having been deleted. Thus making the total percentage of my edits that get deleted 1.5% (Striver has more than 5 times this amount). I would suggest you also go here and compare your percentage of edits deleted to Strivers, I am more than sure you will find similar differences between your percentage and Striver's.

The problem with Striver is not only limited to this. Part of the reason that many of Striver's articles get kept is because he lists them all in pages in his Wikiprojects to get people to systematically vote "keep" for his pages regardless of the contents thus resulting in a "no consensus" and an automatic keep. As a matter of fact, in the last rfc (User:Jersey Devil/RFC) Striver falsely claimed many of the articles that I put up for afd as "kept" while they were in fact only kept by way of no consensus. In the past Striver has created entire projects for the sole purpose of getting keep votes on afds.

 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild: The result of the debate was delete, a strong consensus that the WikiProject structure is not to be used in such a way. Hiding talk 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild: The result of this was no consensus with 8 delete and 4 keep, 66% delete. He used the talk page of his Shia Guild to list his articles that were up for deletion to try and get keep votes. The mfd was originally on the talk page itself, not the entire Wikiproject.

Striver also has a tendency to create false edit summaries claiming "vandalism". See the following examples:

 * "rv mass vandalism"
 * rv anon vandalism
 * rv vandal
 * rv vandalism
 * rv vandalism

There are many more examples if you check his contributions. I presented this to the user IrishPunkTom, who systematically votes keep in any Striver articles that are up for deletion, and he responded by saying what Striver quoted above

 * On five occasions on my talk page you have referred to legit edits as vandalism. That, in itself, is vandalism and/or a personal attack. Don't be a vandal. Listing an article for an AFD is a content dispute, not vandalism.  If you disagree with the listing you can vote against.  Now, are you suggesting it coincidence that all those articles you listed for AFD happened to be created by Striver, a Wikipedian you want banned? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I plead you fellow Wikipedians to look at the five edits above and tell me that they were not cases of Striver falsely claiming vandalism. There is no way you can make such a case and if you do so, as this user has, well then I simply can not take your opinion seriously as it is clear you think that Striver is above Wikipedia policy.

There is another user who is quoted in Striver's initial statement, User:Northmeister. If you see his blocking log you will see that the user has been blocked 3 times within the last four weeks (two for 24hrs and another for 48hrs). I also ask that you see his talk page and judge for yourself how credible the quotes from this user are.

To come back to Striver, on another occasion, he has broken with WP:POINT in the past and in a way that most Wikipedians would argue would require at least a 24 block (however, he did not recieve a block for this action either). As a revenge tactic for so many of his articles being put up for afds (in particular one on Muslim Athletes) he tried to target other "religious lists articles" by putting up afds to try and prove a point.

 * ''wtf, why not including this as well:

 * List of Jews
 * List of Christians
 * List of Hindus
 * List of atheists
 * List of Buddhists

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)'' (For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes)

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting "afd" on the page history.

 * List of Hindus Afd
 * List of Jews Afd
 * List of Christians Afd
 * List of atheists Afd
 * List of Buddists Afd

When the contributors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.

 * Rv Vandalism List of Christians
 * Rv Vandalism List of Jews
 * Rv Vandalism List of Hindus
 * Rv Vandalism List of atheists
 * Rv Vandalism List of Buddists

I am not the first person that has had problems dealing with this poster, he had his own RFC for these actions before (See Requests for comment/Striver). Unlike Striver's claim that "he had an Rfc place on him before" however the first Rfc for Striver wasn't placed by me it was placed by other contributors long before I had ever contacted the user. Therefore proving that I am not the only one that sees his contributions as harmful.

In this response I would also like to address one point made by GeorgeWilliamHerbert in his "Outside View" statement. In part of his statement he claims the following regarding Striver:

 * I believe that it is widely agreed that Striver turns many of those into useful and sometimes very valuable articles.

I have to again, strongly disagree with this point. For one thing, he assumes that it is "widely agreed" that Striver turns those stubs into large well made articles. I haven't seen anyone but him make these claims. If anyone actually looks at the articles that Striver created several months ago (if not more than a year ago), you will rarely seem them out of the stub stage now. I am not just stating this as speculation but rather it is documented here User talk:Zora/Striver new article

 * The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary-Page by Striver created in November 2005, still one sentence long and never updated again.
 * The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (book)-Page by Striver created in November 2005, still one sentence long. Updated on March 2006 solely to redirect no content update.
 * History of the Saracens-Page by Striver created in November 2005, two sentences long and not updated by Striver since it was created.
 * Abu Turab-Created November 2005 by Striver, without the quote it is three sentences long and hasn't been updated since then.
 * Sunan al-Tirmidhi-Created November 2005, still a stub with a long period in between when Striver started to update it in which he added this.
 * Fatwas by Suyuti-Created November 2005 and hasn't been worked on by the user since except for a revert in December 2005.
 * Many more here.

So that claim is in fact baseless. I suggest people see the comment made by User:Mmx1 below with regards to Internet2, Internet, Google and Google and privacy issues (as well as Slobodan Milošević and 2006 Osama bin Laden tape which wasn't mentioned). In these, as well as various other articles, the user refuses to accept that his Alex Jones, Prisonplanet.com, Informationclearinghouse.info, etc... sources are not reliable sources, in particular they violate the partisan websites policy which states:

 * Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

If this is the case then why is Prisonplanet.com being used as a source for the Slobodan Milosevic article? I can not be the only person who sees that this is wrong. You can see the revert wars that Striver has started in these articles at the following page histories and decide for yourself:

 * 2006 Osama bin Laden tape Page History
 * Internet2 Page History
 * Internet Page History
 * Google and privacy issues Page History
 * Slobodan Milosevic Page History
 * Google Page History

Along with this Striver has also broken with WP:NPA and WP:Civility several times. In the Muslim Guild he created an entire page in order to attack the User:Zora which has since been speedly deleted for the comments found there. You can find the Mfd page at (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Zora). One of the comments that I quote is from the User:Zereshk whom is supporting Striver (since it has since been deleted I can not show you the diff link however I am sure that the people who voted in that Mfd can back me up in saying that the following quote is factual and I do quote it in the Mfd itself).

 * ''Striver,

 * She's really not a Buddhist. Buddhists act nothing like what Zora does. She insults Siddhartha Gautama with her arrogant and hostile actions. She's a Buddhist wanna-be. Maybe somebody should teach her about the ethical conduct of the Eightfold Path, so that she wont make such a joke out of eastern faiths.

 * She's actually Jewish.' (see her last sentence here). She says she's against Zionists. But she's doing them the greatest favour by so viciously attacking the Shia (and others).--Zereshk 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)'

 * Well, at least we know now that she's Jewish.--Zereshk 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So, considering this statement. I think it is fair to say that the credibility of this user's statement in this rfc is extremely questionable. Similarly, Striver throughout that page went on saying "buddist Zora" as to imply that she is a "fakebuddist " to attack her. On other occasions Striver has cursed at her explicitly. (See the following ).

Considering all of this, I am well within my right to do what I did with reverting Striver's edits and putting up his articles for deletion.--Jersey Devil 03:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Agree with JD, but too much time is being spent on this. Merecat 04:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Response by Joturner
Jersey Devil was in the wrong, but the emphasis is on was. The issue Striver brings up is that Jersey Devil did not back off of him after being advised to do so on his talk page. On the contrary, there is no evidence (at least brought up by Striver here) to suggest that after March 16 Jersey Devil continued to add articles by Striver for deletion. Jersey Devil appeared to back off of Striver and his articles as requested by several users on talk page. The whole situation seemed to calm down. But now it looks like Striver is trying to dig up a conflict that should have ended days ago just to rub it in. All of the evidence presented here may look damning, but it all relates to Jersey Devil's past transgressions and not the fact that Jersey Devil ignored the requests of other users to calm down. Certainly, Jersey Devil was at some point wrong as he was beginning to nominate some of Striver's articles for deletion simply because they were by Striver. And thus, the first RfC for Jersey Devil (also initiated by Striver) was warranted. But now this appears to be an attempt by Striver to chastise Jersey Devil for something for which he has already been sufficiently chastised. joturner 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Striver mentions in his RfC that The will of the comunity was made clear to him in the previous RFC (that got deleted). Contrary to how it sounds, that RfC got deleted because he didn't get necessary two endorsements in the first 48 hours. The first RfC is located at User:Jersey_Devil/RFC. joturner 02:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) Zora 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Green Giant 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Pepsidrinka 04:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Mmx1
User:Striver has not heeded advice either, continuing to create shoddy articles that are largely posts of quotes or lists of questionable notability (e.g. Geneaology lists). In particular, his repeated attempts to insert Alex Jones' uninformed speculation on Internet2, Internet, Google and Google and privacy issues have been disruptive and borderline speculation. It is one thing to insert POV on hotly debated issues in his extremely poor manner of block quotation, it is another to insert POV on technical articles by grossly uninformed commentators. If action is to be taken, Striver is equally culpable if not more so. I do not believe a block of either is warranted. --Mmx1 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) mtz206 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I have no prior contact with this debate or Striver, but his (Striver's) repeated attempts to add Mr. Jones' grossly uninformed opinion to Internet2 under the false pretext of NPOV are rather annoying.  This especially after being reverted by multiple users who agree that the opinion has little basis in reality. uberpenguin 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I concur with Uberpenguin and Mtz206.  If anyone should be banned, it is Striver.  From what I have seen, Jersey Devil's actions have been in good faith and in compliance with Wikipedia policy.  --Coolcaesar 19:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't know about Striver's non-Islamic side, but his pattern of Islamic-related article-creation activity on Wikipedia has its definite annoying aspects, and Striver doesn't seem to be able to change his pattern of behavior at all when other people point out problems with this.  AnonMoos 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Merecat 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Pegasus1138
''This RFC is a blatant example of not assuming good faith just because someone disagrees with having articles they have worked on AFDed. This is a pointless and hostile RFC.'' '' Pegasus1138 Talk 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) joturner 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Mmx1 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) MONGO 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Tom Harrison Talk 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Bobby1011 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) rogerd 06:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Pecher Talk 07:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Ter e nce Ong 09:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Weregerbil 10:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Computerjoe 's talk  16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) -Will Beback 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 04:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Sandstein 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) WiKinny 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) MaxSem 11:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) -Colin Kimbrell 19:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Merecat 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) doktorb | words 15:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Whisp e ring 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Evilphoenix
I find that there is an inverse relationship between the quantity of verbiage generated in disputes and the quality of the discussion contained therein. Here's what needs to happen: People need to slow down, and talk, calmly, and politely. I'm seeing a lot of names and heated words getting thrown about. This is not good. Remember Civility. Remember NPOV. Remember NPA. I'm not talking to the other party in this dispute, I'm talking to all of you. Take what I'm saying personally. If you find your editing is generating a lot of discussion and dispute, that's a sign you should slow it down and take it slowly. The path to NPOV is Verifiability and WP:CITE good quality citation, and balancing viewpoints. It is not mass creating articles and generating lots of verbiage. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) joturner 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Pegasus1138 Talk  03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Mmx1 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) mtz206 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Feezo  (Talk) 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Ter e nce Ong 10:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Isotope23 16:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) I generally agree with this statement adding AGF as a priority that can limit such disputes in the first place. --Northmeister 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) kingboyk 09:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) WiKinny 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) OMGOMG so true!!! *tears* M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Isopropyl
I am of the opinion that User:Jersey Devil is facing unnecessary double jeopardy with a second RFC so soon after the close of the first. After examining the evidence (which appears to be very similar to that presented in the first RFC), I see no indication that the situation warrants another RFC. Jersey Devil may have previously erred, but I believe in letting what's done and said stay in the past. Isopropyl 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) joturner 11:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Isotope23
It was bad form for Jersey Devil to mass nominate a large number of Striver's articles for AfD and I would hope that this RfC will dissuade him from doing it again. This does however illustrate a very good point: if you don't source your articles, or provide context that shows how/why something has importance or relevance to someone who is unfamiliar with a topic, you run an extremely high risk of that article ending up on AfD. I suggest Jersey Devil take a self imposed moratorium on editing/AfD nominating Striver's work. I suggest Striver concentrate on cleaning up the articles he's already created, adding context and biographical information, before creating more stubs that don't establish context or notability to readers unfamiliar with the topic.--Isotope23 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Ill try to follow that, and i hope JD rethinks his ways and does not make a third 15+ afd run.--Striver 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Lambiam Talk 03:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Pretty much agree Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Nigelthefish 15:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Very well rounded. --Northmeister 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Georgewilliamherbert
This is not double jeopardy, as:
 * RfCs aren't a trial
 * Prior RfC was deleted on a technicality, not shut down due to proper conclusion
 * RfC's are just a focused place for people to comment on incidents and carry no administrative or judicial weight within WP

There was further action after first RfC was terminated which had been advised against during the first RfC, specifically Jersey Devil tagging a bunch more articles for AfD. Due to that, a re-filing is appropriate.

That said, there has been productive discussion with Jersey Devil and Striver regarding the subjects. I have certified above, and am including this comment here, to reinterate positions and my recommended course of action ahead.

To reinterate prior points:
 * 1) I believe it is generally agreed that Striver is creating a lot of stubs or near-stubs.
 * 2) I believe that it is widely agreed that Striver turns many of those into useful and sometimes very valuable articles.
 * 3) I believe Jersey Devil has a good faith interest in improving and cleaning up Wikipedia, and that doing so is a reasonable and good thing to do.
 * 4) I believe Jersey Devil had previously been shortcutting the AfD process which recommends that articles should be tagged with,  and the like prior to AfD process initiation, in cases where the article is lacking content or references or other repairable issues.  Articles should only go straight to AfD if they are flawed or against policy by mere title/subject matter or the content is so hopelessly against WP policy that repair / rewrite is unlikely to credibly succeed.

I urge that:
 * 1) Striver slow down on stub creation; place more fully formed articles into main namespace, and utilize sandboxes more when working on potential articles, so that they are properly formed when they reach main namespace.
 * 2) Jersey Devil refrain from AfDing Striver's articles without first having applied the relevant WP policies regarding cleanup tags, and waiting a reasonable amount of time for Striver to work on improving articles.  In the absence of significant improvement of an article after say two weeks, I have no objection to Jersey Devil proceeding to AfD on articles that he has tagged.
 * 3) Striver not remove cleanup tags from articles that have not clearly exceeded stub status, such as greater than 100 words of main body content, at least one reference, etc.

Users agreeing with this viewpoint should sign below:
 * I can live with that. Ill try to make my future articles less stubby. --Striver 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lambiam Talk 11:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC). (Additionally I think Jersey Devil would do well simply to stop monitoring Striver.)
 * Nicely Put.. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Striver has said he can live with this, we should take his word for it on AGF grounds. I also agree with Lambiam above about Jersey Devil not monitoring Striver. --Northmeister 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by MONGO
Jersey Devil has generally acted in good faith in his numerous nominations for deletion of Strivers articles. Jersey Devil is not obligated to tag articles that lack coherence and substance and that appear to be POV forks, with cleanup or expand tags. Especially if the articles nominated for deletion fit the standards for nomination...ie:lack references, appear to be incoherent and unsalvagable, violate no original research, are not notable, or are POV forks deliberately created after other editors have made it clear that the information isn't even substantive enough to go in any article. In fact, several articles created by Striver were speedy deletes. Striver rarely returns to his articles to do much enhancement, aside from when they have been nominated for deletion and he tries to then rescue them. Best thing for both editors is to not edit the same articles for 30 days.--MONGO 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) For the most part I agree, although thirty days may be too long. joturner 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with most of this view, but think the time limit should be set to two weeks. Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Green Giant
This RfC makes it quite clear that there are significant issues which need to be dealt with.
 * Striver is creating a lot of friction with numerous stubs, inappropriate articles and edits (too often accusing other editors of ''vandalism), albeit sometimes Striver's actions are unintentional.
 * I have noted Striver's repeated attempts to modify the Nishan-E-Haider article despite objections from Zora. For anybody who doesn't know, the Nishan-E-Haider is the highest military award in Pakistan. The dispute is about who the award is named after with both sides naming internet sources, but it will remain unresolved because there is no official word from either the Government of Pakistan or the Pakistani Army. To this end I will personally email President Musharraf and ask if an official comment could be placed on the government website.
 * It is pertinent to note that a significant proportion of the recent articles put up for AfD by Jersey Devil included inappropriate family trees centred on single individuals like:

 * These family trees were created despite the fact that none of these individuals formed a separate dynasty of their own. Every one of those named individuals is part of the same first Muslim Dynasty centred on the Prophet Muhammad and the four Caliphs who succeeded him. I noted that amongst Striver's repeated examples of similar articles was Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt - but Striver seemed to be unaware of the fact that there has never been an Egyptian pharaoh by the name of Eighteenth Dynasty. In addition are two inappropriate forks :- Timing of Sahaba becoming muslims and Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba (Sunni doctrine) which should both have been part of Sahaba.

 * Jersey Devil should have been more circumspect and perhaps in future should avoid mass nominations. The family trees would have been good starting point to see if there was any consensus for deleting. Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps most importantly, I don't see much evidence that either party has engaged in talking on each other's talk pages. Do you think the two of you could swallow your pride and actually talk to each other in a civil manner? Green Giant 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) Esquizombi 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Isotope23 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Esquizombie
Striver suggests an admonishment and block of Jersey Devil (hereinafter JD) would be appropriate. I do not think either would be appropriate at this time.

His complaint is that JD AfDd many of Striver's (WP:OWN) articles. It is true he did AfD many articles Striver created. I note that Striver on a number of occasions has invited or dared people to AfD his articles; he should not be disappointed or angry if they do. E.g. "vfd them if you belive you have the majority support" Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/User_comments/Striver "Now, lets just wait for someone to AFD this, claimin he is not notable..." Talk:Robert_M._Bowman.

He states that JD "afd'd wantonly, without even bothering to check for notability, often using invalid or just silly arguements for nomination." I disagree. It may be true that JD did not check them for notability, I don't know, though I do not believe that is the responsibility of a person proposing something for deletion; the article—even if a stub—should assert its own notability. The arguments JD offered were not silly and in most if not all cases there were people who agreed with them or who identified other WP policies that would recommend deletion. Striver and some of the people he cites argue that WP:OR as used by JD was "silly." That policy states "the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." The articles in question were OR under that guideline; though WP:V may have been better in some cases WP:OR still applied. Striver states "Most of his afd's will fail misserably to be deleted." On the contrary, it seems that if they are kept in most cases it will be by reason of no consensus (not infrequently with more deletion recommendations than keeps), which is nothing to take pride in at all. Some of the comments Striver cites are not merely ones in which good faith was not assumed, but some are inflammatory attacks. For a muslim to say a non-muslim was on a "Crusade" was quite uncalled-for; there's no evidence JD harbors anti-muslim much less murderous anti-muslim sentiment.

Striver states "He got a rfc on him earlier." This is not true. It leaves out the fact that Striver had authored it, and that it was deleted. He claims it was deleted due to a "technicality." The boldly emphasized 48 hour limit is a requirement, not a technicality. The fact that it had not been met was noted on both the Project Page and Discussion page in some detail; Georgewilliamherbert had been party to it. I would also say "The will of the comunity was made clear to him" was hardly true of that failed RFC; criticism was falling as much as if not moreso on Striver. Incidentally, I am not sure if Adrian's certification qualifies on this RFC, though it at least comes close. Striver's clearly does not qualify since there is no evidence on JD's talk page or the talk pages mentioned in the dispute that he tried to address the subject of this dispute as required. I also question whether the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" given qualifies.

At most one could argue for a temporary block on JD limited to AfDing articles Striver created. However, he has not AfDd articles Striver created for several days AFAIK, thus he seems to have self-discipline in this regard and to have followed the advice given him in this respect. Striver, on the other hand, historically disregards advice, or follows it only briefly. The wanton creation of new articles in particular has been a longstanding problem, see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Striver where Turnstep, BrandonYusufToropov, a.n.o.n.y.m, and Zora all advised him to slow down back in October and early November 2005. Sometimes these articles have redundancy (existing articles on the same subject) or copyvio problems. For further remarks see User:Jersey_Devil/RFC

If it is possible, I would suggest blocking Striver from creating new articles for a period of time. This may help give him the discipline to revisit his old articles in order to get the substubs up to proper WP:STUBs and to perhaps expand the stubs, or perhaps try to get other articles up to WP:GOOD article status. See Guide to improving articles. Esquizombi 10:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) Well put.--Mmx1 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Zora 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Green Giant 23:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) AladdinSE 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Quite so. Isopropyl 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by WiKinny
Seems to me there are 2 separate streams to be dealt with here :
 * 1) The validity of this RFC
 * 2) The underlying matters that have brought us to this point

I think we can sort out #1 pretty quickly.

 * The Description section is substantively scant. There are only really 2 claims. That the AFDs were wanton etc, and that User:Jersey Devil is ignoring a previous RFD.  Both claims are dealt with effectively by EsquiZombie in his paras 3 & 4.  The remainder of the Description section is largely irrelevant to the RFC as each AFD stands or falls on its own merits.

 * The Evidence of disputed behaviour provides no new material. It re-lists info from the Description.

 * The Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute only shows that there has been a previous dispute. It provides no evidence of attempts to resolve it at all.

 * The Applicable Policies listed are extremely tenuous. If WP:DP was as clearly breached as Striver believes, I'd expect the AFDs to be 'speedy kept' and for an RFC to be cited with that evidence AFTER they were all closed. Likewise for WP:POINT, or the arts AFDd would need to be substantive, established, and clearly already meeting WP:GOOD.

I suggest that these points together with the fact that this RFC was lodged while the AFds were still going through community process, show that this RFC itself is a violation of WP:AGF. This is what Pegaus1138 summarises and with which succinct summary most have concurred.

So that's #1 - This RFI, as it stands, should never have started.

(And for what it's worth, I consider that those who subscribed to it have done themselves a disservice in aligning with a poorly constructed and premature RFI.)

What about #2 - the underlying matters that have brought us to this point ?

This is harder :-) - given the scope, history and personalities involved, but I hope we can indeed make some progress in addressing this (so that people spend their energies constructively editing rather than on spurious RFIs).

If I have correctly identified the core problems here they are :

 * Striver doesn't think that ANY of the articles he originated should be Deleted and takes objection to anyone who nominates them for AFD.
 * He has created numerous small stub-like entries which the community has previously agreed should be deleted or merged/moved into other articles, but continues to follow this pattern.
 * There is an ongoing question about whether his submissions follow WP:CITE and WP:V. (I would also add to that NN (not notable) on some).
 * On his own admission, he is here to present a POV, and this sometimes extends to defending his contributions with religious zeal.

(Please note that I have not listed any historical Civility issues here - I'd suggest we leave that area in abeyance for now. Everyone gets hot under the collar sometimes :).

However, I do suggest that these core issues mean that there is likely to be a significant amount of work for the community in improving, categorizing and incorporating Striver's work into the appropriate places as well as addressing the inherent NPOV problem likely to be present in much of his material.

This will mean either having to rework the original material, or create meta-articles that refer to the many points of view on the issue and perhaps cite his material as representing one POV on an issue - but only where the presence of any dispute on the subject matter in question is actually noteworthy itself. Otherwise such material is the stuff of "See also" external links.

The fact of this extra work that Mr Striver is generating is not an insurmountable problem per se, (not everyone submits WP:GOOD articles all the time !) but his non-NPOV stance certainly is at odds with Wiki's stated goals, and the apparent difficulties that he has in following WP Policies and Guidelines mean that it is definitely harder for the material he wants to share to be included.

Although Wiki IS an open forum and ideally everyone is welcome to contribute, the aim is to produce a comprehensive quality on-line encyclopedia. Just because the technology means that everyone can contribute, it does not in any way imply that every contribution must be allowed to stay, or that they should not be improved. There are community-developed policies and guidelines, and effectively functioning community processes to try and apply them.

If Striver is not happy with the community consensus in the way his material is treated, he needs to either demonstrate what is wrong with the community processes, or perhaps he should question whether Wiki is the right place for some of his submissions.

In the meantime, let's hope that he is more circumspect in his submission of articles, more diligent in following existing guidelines and policies, quicker to apply them to his existing partly-completed submissions, slower to launch RFI's, and is able to embrace the community editing process rather than taking it as a personal attack.

Time will tell. :) WiKinny 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) Zora 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Mmx1 23:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) mtz206 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) joturner 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Esquizombi 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Sandstein 06:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Green Giant 08:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This account is an obvious sock-puppet of another user and I ask that all comments be stricken from the record unless the said user identifies himself by his original user name. The above user knows to much about wiki policy for someone who just came here on March 22nd. Further I will also contest the tone and manner of the above. It is an obvious polemic disguised in legalese meant to demean the character of Striver and uplift the obvious violations of wiki standards of AGF by Jersey Devil regarding Striver. The whole issue here is the manner in which Jersey Devil has acted towards Striver from day one. That is the only issue of importance. It describes fully why Striver is angry and upset. I can understand it because of the tactics used against myself when I crossed paths with Jersey Devil at the Gatekeeper page when I was trying to defend the integrity of wikipedia from personal attacks Jersey Devil engaged in there against the creator of that page.  There is a lot of passion here.  I do not defend all the articles and stubs Striver has created. It is not the defense of his plethora of such that is in question but whether any user administrator or not can wantonly disregard proper etiquette, good manners, and policy in reviewing and cleaning anothers work.  There are many methods that could have been used by Jersey Devil to deal with the before said stubs and he chose not to use them.  He has been here longer than Sriver and should know not to incite a new user but to engage him with cordiality; to open dialog with him on his stubs rather than submitting them to immediate deletion.  Do not shoot the messenger however invalid some of that messengers submissions in the past have been.  Rather look at the real issue and do justice here. That is what wikipedia needs, that is what we all should want. --Northmeister 11:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * How sad it is when one needs to use suckpupets to give support.--Striver 13:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This isn't a vote and sockpuppetry or not, the comments remain valid. Nor is Striver at this point a new user, and the arguments we have been having have been reported to be identical to the arguments he's incited while editing Islam pages; he has clearly not heeded the advice given. --Mmx1 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by SFGiants
I don't think this RfC was a good thing, but rather the results of two users acting in bad faith toward each other. I agree with Joturner about the fact that this should have been settled days ago, and Striver is rubbing it in. Some of Jersey Devil's AfD noms were good, but others were frivolous. I think Jersey Devil has been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and that he should have tagged the articles first if he thought that they were not encyclopedic. I think we should let what happened in the past stay in the past—that means no blocks. However, I agree with Georgewilliamherbert's last points:

I urge that:
 * 1) Striver slow down on stub creation; place more fully formed articles into main namespace, and utilize sandboxes more when working on potential articles, so that they are properly formed when they reach main namespace.
 * 2) Jersey Devil refrain from AfDing Striver's articles without first having applied the relevant WP policies regarding cleanup tags, and waiting a reasonable amount of time for Striver to work on improving articles.  In the absence of significant improvement of an article after say two weeks, I have no objection to Jersey Devil proceeding to AfD on articles that he has tagged.
 * 3) Striver not remove cleanup tags from articles that have not clearly exceeded stub status, such as greater than 100 words of main body content, at least one reference, etc.

ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 00:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Common sense. --Northmeister 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) joturner 01:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by M1ss1ontomars2k4
I wholeheartedly believe that Jersey Devil was simply trying to keep Wikipedia free of POV cruft. It is my belief that, should a "X view of Z" article created, a "Y view of Z" article should be created as a means of balancing the POV. However, we could then hypothetically triple our number of articles, with POVforks like "Customers' view of cylinder heads" and "Mechanics' view of cylinder heads". Additionally, no such action has been taken by Striver. It is clear (to me) that Striver is attempting to push the Shi'a view of the world (though it's not necessarily wrong or bad) rather than presenting both sides of the issue.

At the same time, however, Jersey Devil does appear to have something against Striver, though not without reason. Striver's efforts to keep his POV on Wikipedia have understandably frustrated Jersey Devil .Therefore, I suggest that...

 * 1) Striver refrain from creating obvious POV articles and instead add balanced views to already-existing articles
 * 2) Striver refrain from taking offense and assuming bad faith when articles are nominated for deletion (or in general, really). Everyone makes mistakes in AfD sometime or another
 * 3) Jersey Devil refrain from immediately AfD'ing Striver's articles, as he is not an obvious vandal but a POV editor
 * 4) Jersey Devil keep a cool head and continue making good contributions to Wikipedia

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

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


text:
Help:WordToWiki

While it is possible to paste formatted text from MS Word directly into a Wiki edit page, the results may disappoint you.

Wiki formatting is not the same as Word formatting or even HTML formatting. Some of the Word markups simply don't work. Others produce surprising behaviors, making the disply look odd. Particular problems will be found with tables, which must be completely reformatted using the Wiki|Pipe Syntax].

Generally speaking, you can get a preview of what your Word text will look like in a Wiki environment by copy-pasting your text into Wordpad.

When copy-pasting from Word into Wiki, be sure to preview your work before saving it. This will show you the difference between what you expect, and what the Wiki will actually display.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Help:WordToWiki


text:
User:Kku/T-Commerce

T-Commerce is a term describing trade via a (smart) digital TV-set which - besides its main functionality - acts as a marketing channel enabling bidirectional communication enabling interactive advertising and addressable advertising. It is part of Electronic Business and e-Commerce which themselves are the most prominent parts of u-Commerce. The promise of T-commerce is to enhance shopping channels as well as regular TV ads by offering consumers a "One-Click" "Buy It" possibility.

"Television" or "Tablet"?
An alternative reading of T-Commerce expands the "T" to tablet which would - owing to the fact that tablet computers are predominantly mobile devices -then belong to the realm of mobile commerce. Irrespective of the interpretation of the "T", the extra value of the marketing channel lies in the direct interactivity the devices offer.

Examples
Interactive television with pre-built-in T-commerce app that allows buying online through the television remote control was introduced by Samsung in 2012/13. H&M was one of the first companies to air a commercial with t-commerce enabled during the Super Bowl in 2014.

title: User:Kku/T-Commerce


text:
User:Dreamchaser eb/sandbox

Ebrahim Jawo, better known by his stage name Kvng eb is an American rapper from Atlanta, Georgia Background information Birth name	ebriama jawo Born	November 10, 2000 (age 14) Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Genres	Hip hop Occupation(s)	Rapper

title: User:Dreamchaser eb/sandbox


text:
rags and tatters

Noun

 * 1) very old, torn clothes
 * 2)  something ruined; fragments
 * 3) * December 17 2001, Russell Thomas, The Guardian Sports section.
 * Fulham's defence was a thing of rags and tatters long before the end.
 * Fulham's defence was a thing of rags and tatters long before the end.

Translations

 * Azerbaijani: cır-cındır
 * Czech:
 * French:
 * German:
 * Spanish:, estrazas, , ,
 * Ukrainian: лахмі́ття

title: rags and tatters


text:
Prima Tower Revolving Restaurant

Prima Tower Revolving Restaurant was a Chinese restaurant in Singapore owned and managed by Prima Tower Pte Ltd.

The restaurant opened in 1977, and was touted for being the "world’s only revolving restaurant nestled on a grain silo". It served Beijing cuisine and offered views of Sentosa, Mount Faber and the Cable Car.

History
The restaurant was built on top of a grain silo.

It was popular as a wedding venue for Chinese couples, offering wedding banquets and packages

Closure
On 6 April 2020, the restaurant closed due to the Circuit Breaker measures implemented by Singapore. Although scheduled to open on 1 August, it was closed permanently, after 43 years in operation.

Jian Yongyao, chairman of the restaurant, stated that it was a difficult decision to close the restaurant and "It's a shame that a 43-year-old business has come to this".

title: Prima Tower Revolving Restaurant


text:
Andrew Moir (anatomist)

Andrew Moir (1806–1844) was a 19th-century Scottish anatomist linked to the body-snatching scandal which swept Scotland in the late 18th and early 19th century.

Unlike his Edinburgh equivalent, Dr Robert Knox, Moir was said to have actively undertaken body-snatching himself. This is highly unlikely, but the strange stories that surround Moir extend into the 21st century due to illogical thinking and bad reporting.

Life
He was born in Aberdeen in 1806. He was probably the son of Dr James Moir of 9 Carmelite Street.

He studied Medicine at King's College graduating MA in 1826. He then went to London, where he became a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1828. He then returned to Aberdeen and opened a new anatomy room with some other surgeons.

Dr Moir lectured in anatomy at King's College, Aberdeen.

Following the exposure of the Burke and Hare murders in Edinburgh in 1828, anatomists came under scrutiny, and the anatomy rooms were nicknamed "Burkin' Houses" by the public, relating to the newly created verb "to burke". The actions initially resulted in the Offences Against the Person Act 1828.

However, stories relating to Moir, such as his finding "a body" on the surface, whilst bodysnatching in a graveyard, and the body "recovering" because they were only drunk, hold no water at all. It must be remembered Moir was a qualified surgeon and would know a dead body from a live body. What appears to have happened is a mythology has built up, based on very little, and worsened by Moir's early death, offering him no chance of self-defence. This is sad, as the actual evidence indicates a highly capable anatomist.

In December 1831 a crowd burned down the anatomy rooms (the Burkin Hoose). Although three of the rioters were imprisoned, Moir escaped punishment and continued to work. This indicates that much of the stories were fanciful. The estimates of the crowd at 20,000 are equally ludicrous, as it would not be possible to place this number in the adjacent streets around the anatomy room. This figure would also represent 100% of the adult Aberdeen population at that time. A more realistic figure is probably 200 persons.

The Anatomy Act 1832 regularised the whole situation, allowing parish councils to give the bodies of paupers for dissection, immediately stemming the demand for body-snatching.

It is not "impossible" that Moir partook in body-snatching between the critical dates of 1828 and 1832. It is, however, unlikely. The stories appear more a product of public outrage. What is more likely (as it was accepted throughout the anatomy profession) was that the bodies received were not all legitimate bodies as these only included executed criminals, and the demand far outstripped the supply. It appears that all anatomists prior to 1832 were happy to "turn a blind eye" to where bodies were obtained. In terms of the authorities and prosecution, even the highly culpable Robert Knox avoided prosecution. Indeed, no anatomist had any charges raised against them, despite their knowing collusion.

In 1843 his lecture rooms are listed as Kingsland Place and Flourmill Lane, and he lived at 63 Guestrow.

He died of typhoid in February 1844, aged only 38, and is buried in the church of the Kirk of St Nicholas. His grave is an old-fashioned table stone on the east side of the path near the north entrance to the churchyard.

Family
Not known.

title: Andrew Moir (anatomist)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati calendar

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Illuminati calendar
Since the Illuminati is supposed to be such a secret conspiracy and society (if it exists at all), I wasn't surprised at all that there are no Reliable sources supporting this. One occultist's website does not count. No papers on Google Scholar referencing the term (so that discounts it as a cultural phenomenon that has been independently studied before). 54 unique Google hits for "Illuminati calendar" Fails:  Verifiability --   Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Brother Netsnipe Gazpacho 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: ZOMG Gazpacho! You blew our cover on Wikipedia. Now the trolls and POV-pushers will always accuse us of being part of a larger coverup. There goes my chances at being promoted into the Rouge admin cabal. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete —  per holy nom -- Chris Griswold 07:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If my memory serves me, an Illuminati calendar (not this one) is featured in The Illuminatus Trilogy, so a redirect to that would make sense (someone who has access to a copy of the book might want to check that). JoshuaZ 08:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Your hunch was right JoshuaZ. This article is based on a work of fiction: Designed by Robert Anton Wilson in 5969-5971 AL for the Illuminatus trilogy (co-written with Bob Shea)... --   Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect Per Netsnipe's above research. JoshuaZ 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nuttah68 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Calendar Doctor Bruno 15:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Speedy delete as it has been verified that this is based on a work of fictionDoctor Bruno 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a Verifiability problem that needs to be resolved first. We can't even tell if this Illuminati calendar is fact, a hoax or pure fiction right now. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. At least as per and  it is verifiable. I based my decision on these links. The question is perhaps notability. Any how, if it does not seem to be notable, I am ready to revise my opinionDoctor Bruno 17:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete —  Although I love Robert Anton Wilson and his work, this should not have its own article. SynergeticMaggot 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


text:
htjeti

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to wish, want, desire
 * 2)  ; shall, will, going to
 * 3)  to feel like, want
 * 1)  to feel like, want
 * 1)  to feel like, want

Usage notes
In some dialects and colloquial speech, there is no aspiration so the initial h sound in all forms is never pronounced (e.g. hoću and htio become oću and tio respectively). In formal speech, aspiration is preferred.

title: htjeti


text:
Gonoshikha

Gonoshikha (Гоношиха) is a rural locality (a selo) and the administrative center of Gonoshikhinsky Selsoviet, Zarinsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 593 as of 2013. There are 9 streets.

Geography
Gonoshikha is located 15 km southeast of Zarinsk (the district's administrative centre) by road. Novokrasilovo and Starokopylovo are the nearest rural localities.

title: Gonoshikha


text:
Talk:Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa

I received news last year - 2005 - that Credo Mutwa had died. Apprarently this was published in South African Press.

This would need to be verified.

Untitled
I don't think he's dead - everyone in the country would have heard about it. I haven't heard anything like that! Was it last year or the year before when he (reportedly) claimed that he had been abducted by aliens? This article looks good, so far... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 22:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone told me that he was stabbed to death after revealing that Cecil Rhode's has a living descendant named David Rhodes (aka Fantana) of Britain. A Muslim <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I saw/heard him at a talk in Cape Town in 2007. Wizzy… ☎ 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Credo Mutwa and Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa
Nothing new on that page. Just redirect to this. Wizzy… ☎   12:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no place named "Natal" in South Africa and the guy's not a "witchdoctor". I actually think that the article should be deleted and this article should be moved there, since his first name is important (and Credo Mutwa would redirect to there). Good idea? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Wizzy… ☎   14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So who'll do the deleting? Or do we need to VfD AfD MfD StD it? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs an admin to :-

 * 1) remove Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa
 * 2) move this page there.

That would preserve the history of this page. OTOH, we could :-
 * 1) edit Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa to redirect here.

The second does not need admin privs, and leave the primary page as Credo Mutwa. (but it wouldn't be hard to find an admin). It is basically about which history we want to preserve, which would be this history. Wizzy… ☎   14:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the history, but I think the title with his first name is more appropriate. Yes? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 15:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Merged. I copied and pasted the article text to this location. The history is available here.  I moved the talk page without copying and pasting, so the talk history is available through the usual history link on the talk page. Zaian 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaian. Who needs article histories anyway? But some people might complain (not likely in this case)... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 12:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with me that this page should address Credo's claimed experiences with the chitauli? A good interview is here:http://www.metatech.org/credo_mutwa.html

Removal of frivolous link.
The fact that he and David Icke are friends does not merit their pages being mutually linked in their respective "See also" sections. It sounds like someone doesn't care for Credo Mutwa forever reason and wants to damn him by association with an iconic crackpot. You might like conservapedia better if that's how you think an encyclopedia should work. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

predictions
i hear he predicted Chris Hani's death, former President Thabo Mbeki not finishing his term and that former President of the USA was going to have problems in the month of September how true or accurate are these predictions<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

IS IT TRUE?
Is is true that he was the official storyteller and historian of the zulu nation?
 * Yes, Credo Mutwa confirmed to me around 2002 he is the historian of South African people including Zulu, his own tribe. --Ramon Thomas 21:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, is it true that when he published indaba, my children (from which he received not one cent), he was telling the sacred stories of the zulu nation, and for this he was 'excommunicated' from the zulu nation as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is a myth. He received a lump sum payment from the Van Selm family. I confirmed this after an exhaustive research into this matter by contacting publishers worldwide, identifying where royalty payments were going, and finally the daughter of the man who bought the rights to Inbaba, My Children from Credo Mutwa. Remember he is over 90 years old, and maybe his own memory has failed him due to the stress of the 1976 incident which forced him to leave Soweto. --Ramon Thomas 21:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Um. If it is true that "he was the official storyteller and historian of the zulu nation" then maybe the article should mention that??? Even if it's not true the fact that he claims this should be mentioned. Either or... MrN9000 (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox - duplication?
The infobox contain two elemenst that to my mind duplicate the same concept: "Occupation: Author" and "Known for: Sangoma, Story-Telling, Sculptor" Why can't all tjose go under "occupation"? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa


text:
Talk:George W. Magee Memorial Trust Fund

Improvements
Possible improvements to this article include adding Mr. Magee's birth and death dates (I know the former is August 6 from the referenced material, but don't have a year; with the latter I have only the year, 1939, but not the date.) Getting more recent market value and distribution numbers would be good, too, as the numbers given are from 12 years ago. They're the most recent I have, unfortunately. I have a few queries out to try and get more recent numbers.

I'd love to find a picture of him as well; seems like he was prominent enough to have appeared in a newspaper at least once, but haven't found anything just yet. - Djwtwo 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Which Opera House?
Given the dates Mr. Magee managed the Grand Opera House (1890s through 1916), it doesn't seem to be that it can be the same facility as that described at Boston Opera House, since that opened in 1901. It seems more likely that it is the building pictured here, but I have no address to confirm, nor any additional detail on the building pictured. - Djwtwo 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


text:
User:Mihangel Mawr

I wanted to leave a comment after reading the article on Stanley Loomis. It must be now several years ago when I bought a second hand ex library copy of Stanley Loomis' book, 'Paris in the Terror'. Recently, I was looking in my library for some book in French and found some short stories by Maupassant and read a few of these - my lexicon seems to have lessened with age so one had to have a dictionary at hand to remind oneself of the meaning of the unusual or forgotten words.

I subsequently found Mr Loomis' book and am now about three fifths through reading it. I would not be sufficiently scholarly in this field to be able to assess the degree to which this tome describes either accurately or comprehensively the history being described. I can, however, say that the approach which is to focus on the main 'actors' in the events described and develop an understanding of their characters makes reading this enjoyable and interesting. However, in the present day when English is too often used inappropriately or even abused, the expressions of this writer show him to be a master of the language. There are some citations when I read this book for the second time to absorb more of the detail, which I would hope to record as they are so acutely excellent in the form of their language and their meaning.

If only more writers today in the press and popular magazines were to read this book, it would no doubt encourage them to strive to be ecrivains also and not merely scribblers.

It was sad to read that this writer was killed at so young an age. Perhaps he may have written another chef d'oeuvre - but this masterpiece is so much more than many more popular writers would ever achieve. May he rest in peace and write in paradise!

Mihangel Mawr

title: User:Mihangel Mawr


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/henysison.com

Links

 * henysison.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Selected additions

 * Displayed 2 additions out of 2 total.	 For more info see WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/henysison.com

Entry
Log entry for the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist:

\bhenysison\.com\b          # ADMINNAME # see  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/henysison.com ]]

Discussion
See COIBot report for more details.

New data reported. --COIBot (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/2015/9/picture/caption

Trailer Trash is a US derogatory term for poor people living in trailers or caravans. It appears that these trailer trash happen to live on a trailer park.


text:
Film Scoring/Theory of Film Scoring/What is Narrative Music?

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" style="width: 100%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" This repeats and expands on the previous page.
 * style="background-color: #ffffa0; border: 1px solid #777777; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px; height: 60px;" colspan="2" | Theory and random thoughts Understanding the different kinds of music in a film score.

If you are getting bored, click here to have some fun!

 * style="width: 60%; background-color: #ffffe0; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="4" |
 * style="width: 60%; background-color: #ffffe0; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="4" |

What is narrative music?

 * There are many kinds of music in a motion picture but narrative music is the most fun.

 * Narrative Music simply means "music which tells a story".

 * Before we begin, you must understand what is narrative music and how it differs from other kinds of music such as background music and songs.

Narrative music is the most important music

 *  Just another actor
 * Narrative music is like another actor in the movie. Narrative music is like the announcer for a movie.  Narrative music tells the audience what mood they should feel.  Without narrative music, the audience might not know how to feel.  The audience needs someone to guide them.

How long is narrative music?

 * Narrative music has an average length of 3 seconds but each theme can be as short as one second or as long as ten seconds. Often narrative music will be linked together to make a single, long piece of music with many different moods, one mood after another.

 * However, be aware that for all of your homework assignments in in the course on film scoring are all three (3) to five (5) seconds long. Keep it simple!

Narrative music vs. dialog (Dialog always wins)

 * Narrative music is usually very loud therefore narrative music can never be used when there is dialog. In motion pictures, dialog is always the most important thing.  Therefore, never have narrative music when there is dialog because you will not hear the dialog.

 * A Confict!!!
 * Do you see the conflict?

 * By now, you should be thinking, "When there is dialog, I need narrative music to explain the moods to the audience. But when there is dialog, there is no place to put narrative music."

 * This seems to be a major conflict. "I need music but I have not place to put it."

 * So how do you add the necessary music if there is no room? That is the question!!!!

 * Dialog is the winner
 * By the way, when there is dialog and narrative music together, only one wins. The winner is the dialog.  The looser (the musical sound track) will be turned down by the movie's mixer at the last stage of movie post-production.  Therefore, you must find a way to add narrative music while not stepping on the dialog.  How can that be?

The Solution

 * Below, I explain the solution to this problem. To make room for the dialog, you edit the scene, adding gaps for the music.  These gaps will stick out horribly unless the gaps are exactly the same length as the narrative music.

 * And there is a perfect solution for that problem too. You must learn to be both the film editor and the film composer.

 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |

What is Musical Sound Effects?
Filmmakers do not need to create music. They only need to create the proper mood. Many times, filmmakers can do this with just musical sound effects.

Musical sound effects are extremely short and simple musical tones, rhythms, or melodies.
 * style="width: 40%; background-color: cornsilk; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px; height: 200px;" |
 * style="width: 40%; background-color: cornsilk; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px; height: 200px;" |

Foreground music
The music (and musical sound effects) for a motion picture can be loud or can be soft.

Loud music is called foreground music.

Many timess, loud music helps tell the story so it is called narrative music.

 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #ffff88; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |
 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #ffff88; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |

"Don't forget the background music"

Background Music
Background music quietly adds to the mood of the scene.

Since narrative music is loud (just like the actor's dialog), narrative music can never be on top of dialog. But background music, being much softer, can play when the actors says their dialog.

Even though background music often contains rhythm (which you will learn about in the lesson about the "Sound of Joy", you must never use drums. This is the same frequency as the voice and creates spikes in the volume.  This makes listening to the dialog harder.)
 * Rule for background music : No drums
 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |
 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |

Exceptions to the rules
Above, you learned that you must never have narrative music when you have dialog because narrative music will drown out the dialog. Naturally, there is an exception to this rule.

 * What if you do not want the audience to hear the dialog? What if you want the audience to fight to hear the words of the actor?  What then?

Silence of the Lambs
Watch Silence of the Lambs. Listen to when Dr. Hannibal Lecter is saying very bad things. The dialog by itself is very simple. But by adding narrative music on top of the dialog, the audience cannot hear the dialog clearly. The audience must strain to hear the words. This creates tension and makes the audience feel uncomfortable.
 * }

You need to be a film editor, too!

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" style="width: 100%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="width: 55%; background-color: BlanchedAlmond; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |

How to make room for narrative music?
The solution -- ( You are going to learn a great secret of extreme value! )
 * If narrative music is so important, how do you fit it into the scene? Since narrative music is never supposed to be on top of dialog, where do you put it?  Narrative music is so loud, it would drown out the dialog so it must be placed before or after each sentence or phrase, never on top.

 * So how do you find space between actor's dialog for the narrative music?

The answer ( Pay attention!!! This is very, very, very important! )
 * You make room. You physically cut the dialog apart in the motion picture to leave a gap for the narrative music.  During post-production, it is too late to ask the actors to pause in the middle of their dialog.  Therefore, you must add the gaps as you edit the film.  You must change the timing of the dialog using a film editing program.  (Do you see a problem with this?)

 * style="width: 45%; background-color: Lavender; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px; height: 200px;" |

Wear two hats

 * Working with the film's editor
 * How do you convince the editor of the motion picture to create the necesary gaps for your music between the lines of dialog of the actors? This is not easy!

 * The perfect solution
 * The perfect solution is you should learn film editing as well as film scoring so you can become both the film's editor and the film's composer. Then you have completed control.  Then you can create the music and add the gaps in the dialog at the same time!  That saves a huge amount of time.

 * This way, you will always have the correct length of the music and the pauses between the dialog. This is the best way to get a perfect edit of a dramatic scene.

 * Think about this. You can do it!!!

 * }

{| cellpadding="20" cellspacing="5" style="width: 100%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="width: 100%; background-color: LemonChiffon; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

The next page

 * To understand narrative music, take this pop quiz
 * Page 3: A very fun pop quiz! [[Image:Crystal Clear action forward.png|24px]]

 * }


text:
User:ZayZayEM/todo

BAD BAD IDEA TO START ONE
 * Influenza Pandemic
 * Common gamma chain
 * Merge List of MMORPGs
 * Public Health Genomics - yet another crappy buzzword - possible shift to Genomics in public health or at least Public health genomics
 * Emergent science
 * Shingo katori, less fancruft
 * Marsupial immunology or at least Marsupial biology/Marsupial physiology
 * Dasyuromorphia
 * Phascogale calura or Red-tailed phascogale
 * Bridled nail-tail wallaby
 * Interferon, Interferon gamma, Type I Interferon expand
 * Disease surveillance expand, copy edit; make congruent with Clinical surveillance
 * List of cryptids cleanup and creation of a separate cryptid article
 * Monodelphis domestica
 * X-SCID
 * Severe combined immunodeficiency (non-human)
 * Japanese Devils
 * GetUp!
 * Chromera velia
 * Meditech Media
 * Alexander Project
 * Changjiang Scholar
 * Verbal autopsy
 * Hand-foot-uterus Syndrome - wtf
 * BEACH or Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health by USyd

title: User:ZayZayEM/todo


text:
Daniel Baker (businessman)

Daniel Baker is an American businessman. Baker is the founder and CEO of FlightAware, a worldwide flight data and tracking company. In the 1990s, he was a principal of distributed.net, which pioneered Internet distributed computing. Baker was the head of the systems department at NeoSoft, the first Internet provider in Texas during the early 1990s. He was also a founder and Vice President of Superconnect, an enterprise cable/telecom monitoring software company.

FlightAware
In 2005, Baker started FlightAware, an aviation and commercial flight tracking system. He started the company with no outside investments and the business produced over a million dollars of revenue in the first 18 months.

Other projects
Daniel Baker authored for Macmillan Computer Publishing's TCP/IP Unleashed book, published in 1999.

He was also the founder of the I Travel, You Travel community and network, which was sold to a social networking company for an undisclosed sum in 2006.

Baker is a member of the board of directors of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association and the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum.

Personal
Baker is a commercial pilot and lives in Houston, Texas.

title: Daniel Baker (businessman)


text:
User:Waseem Shahzad.s/sandbox

positive pakistan helping qaid e azam muhammad ali janah and m.r yousaf haider Transcript: Inauguration of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on 14th August, 1947 Your Excellency, I thank His Majesty the King on behalf of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly and myself for his gracious message. I know great responsibilities lie ahead, and I naturally reciprocate his sentiments and we are grateful for his assurance of sympathy and support, and I hope that you will communicate to His Majesty our assurance of goodwill and friendship for the British nation and himself as the Crown head of the British.

I thank you for your expressions of goodwill and good wishes for the future of Pakistan. It will be our constant endeavor to work for the welfare and well-being of all the communities in Pakistan, and I hope that everyone would be inspired by the idea of public service, and they will be imbued with the spirit of co-operation and will excel in their political and civic virtues which go to make a great nation and help to advance its greatness.

I once more thank you and Lady Mountbatten for your kindness and good wishes. Yes, we are parting as friends and sincerely hope that we shall remain friends.

I wish to emphasize that we appreciate the spirit in which those in the Government service at present and in the Armed Forces and others have so willingly and ungrudgingly volunteered themselves provisionally to serve Pakistan. As servants of Pakistan we shall make them happy and they will be treated equally with our nationals. The tolerance and goodwill that great Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslim is not of recent origin. It dates back thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with those humane and great principles which should be followed and practiced.

Finally, I thank you for your good wishes for Pakistan, and I assure you that we shall not be wanting in friendly spirit with our neighbors and with all nations of the world'Bold text'Bold text

title: User:Waseem Shahzad.s/sandbox


text:
Ami Foster

Ami Foster (born August 5, 1975) is an American actress and singer. She is best known for her role as Margaux Kramer in the TV series Punky Brewster.

Biography
Foster, a native of California, won the National Tap Dance Championship after which she was discovered on Star Search as a singer at age eight. In 1984, Foster landed her most notable role, in the NBC series Punky Brewster as Margaux Kramer, the spoiled upper class friend of the title character. During the run of Punky Brewster, Foster appeared on Circus of the Stars; she shared an act with actor-musician Corey Yothers, whose sister Tina (of Family Ties fame) was also featured that year in COTS.

Following the end of Punky Brewster in 1988, Foster appeared in various guest roles: on The Wonder Years, Quantum Leap, and Life Goes On. In 1986–87, she was the voice of Holly, the young owner of the Puppy Pound in the Pound Puppies television series. She also voiced Sally Brown in the 1988 animated Peanuts special Snoopy!!! The Musical and Lucy van Pelt in an episode of This Is America, Charlie Brown. In 1989, she had a role in the film Troop Beverly Hills. Foster's last role before taking an extended hiatus was in a 1995 episode of CBS Schoolbreak Special. In 2021, she returned to acting and reprised her role as Margaux Kramer in the Punky Brewster revival of the series in a guest appearance.

title: Ami Foster


text:
Rick Comley

Rick Comley (born January 20, 1947) is a former collegiate ice hockey player and former head coach at Michigan State University. He finished his 38-year coaching career with a 783–615–110 (.556) record. In 2007, he became the third coach in NCAA history to win a national championship at two different schools. Comley is currently serving in his second stint as the athletic director at Northern Michigan University, hired in 2022.

Playing career
Comley played at Lake Superior State University in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (1967–1971) under head coach Ron Mason, at one time, college hockey's career coaching victories leader. In his senior season, Comley was named LSSU team captain and Most Valuable Player and was selected NAIA All-American. He was also named LSSU's Most Outstanding Athlete that year.

Lake Superior State
Comley rejoined the LSSU program as an assistant coach for the 1972-73 season. When head coach Ron Mason took the head coaching position at Bowling Green State University, Comley was named his successor. Comley compiled a 59-46-3 mark in the three seasons at Lake Superior winning the CCHA regular-season title and NAIA national championship in 1974.

Northern Michigan
In 1976, Northern Michigan University launched a varsity hockey program, and approached Comley to become its first head coach. NMU's offer included a recruiting budget twice the size of LSSU, which was too much for Comley to resist. NMU finished its first season with a winning record of 19-13-1. In the program's fourth season, Comley guided NMU to their first of two consecutive CCHA regular-season and play-off championships. With those championships in 1980 and 1981, Northern Michigan earned automatic bids to the NCAA Tournament. The 34-6-1 1980 team defeated University of Minnesota in Minneapolis advancing to the NCAA Frozen Four where they defeated No. 1 seed Cornell University to make the national championship game. The team lost the national championship to North Dakota, 5-2. Again, Comley guided NMU to the NCAA Frozen Four in 1981 with a victory over Cornell before losing to eventual national champion Wisconsin and archrival Michigan Tech in the consolation game.

In 1984 Comley and Northern Michigan followed Michigan Tech to the Western Collegiate Hockey Association. In the WCHA, Comley coached NMU to seven 20-win seasons in nine years. He won the WCHA MacNaughton Cup as regular-season champions in 1991 and won the Broadmoor Trophy as play-off champions in 1989, 1991 and 1992. During Northern Michigan's time in the WCHA, the Wildcats made the NCAA tournament in 1989, 1991, 1992 and 1993 winning the 1991 NCAA national championship in a dramatic triple overtime game against Boston University.

In a university-wide effort to gain more presence in the lower peninsula of Michigan, Comley switched NMU's hockey program back to the CCHA in 1997. The move proved to re-energize hockey at Northern Michigan which had three straight losing seasons prior to 1997-98. Comley coached NMU to five straight winning seasons and three trips to Joe Louis Arena for the CCHA championships. In 1999, Northern Michigan made the CCHA title game, but lost to University of Michigan. The championship appearance earned Comley and NMU their first berth in the NCAA tournament since 1993.

During his time at NMU, Comley also served as athletic director from 1987-2000 highlighted by: major improvements in facilities including the building and completion of Superior Dome and Berry Events Center, several Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference championships, two NCAA Division II titles in women's volleyball, and the establishment of the U.S. Olympic Educational Center.

Michigan State
Rick Comley was announced as Ron Mason's successor as head ice hockey coach at Michigan State University in March 2002. Comley was succeeded at NMU by former player and New York Rangers assistant Walt Kyle. Previously, Comley declined head coaching offers at Bowling Green State University in 1979 and 1994 and at University of Denver in 1994.

Comley's tenure at MSU was turbulent replacing the iconic Ron Mason. After missing the NCAA tournament in 2005, Comley guided MSU to a second-place CCHA finish and a CCHA play-off championship in 2005-06. In 2006-07, Michigan State was preseason ranked No. 5, which was MSU's highest preseason ranking since October 2001. The team was, again, inconsistent but earned an NCAA Tournament bid. In a stunning series of games, MSU defeated three higher-ranked teams en route to the national championship, including wins against No. 1-ranked Notre Dame in the Midwest Regional final and No. 4-ranked Boston College in the National Championship game.

Comley retired at the end of the 2010-2011 season. He was succeeded by Tom Anastos.

Administrative career
After previously serving in the role while still the hockey head coach from 1987-2000, Comley was rehired as the athletic director at Northern Michigan University in 2022 after the previous director, Forrest Karr, left to accept the same position at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Legacy
Rick Comley is one of only five coaches to have won more than 700 games, and one of only three to have won NCAA Championships at two separate schools. Comley was the CCHA coach of the year twice (1980 and 1981) and WCHA coach of the year twice (1989 and 1991). He has won the Spencer Penrose Memorial Trophy as the national coach of the year twice (1980 and 1991). He was runner-up for the Spencer Penrose Trophy in 2007.

In his 33 seasons as a head coach, Rick Comley coached 1991 Hobey Baker Memorial Award runner-up Brad Werenka and nine Hobey Baker finalists. He has coached 14 AHCA First and Second Team All-Americans, three CCHA players of the year, one WCHA player of the year, 20 First and Second Team All-CCHA selections, 13 First Team and Second Team All-WCHA selection and 19 players who went on to play in the NHL.

In addition Comley has 25 seasons with a winning record, 17 seasons winning 20 or more games and two seasons winning 30 or more games. Comley has won two CCHA regular-season championships, three CCHA play-off titles, one WCHA regular-season title and four WCHA play-off titles. His teams have advanced to the NCAA tournament nine times making the Frozen Four four times.

Notable players coached
In 38 years of coaching, Rick Comley has coached a number of outstanding players.

Head coaching record
† Lake Superior State was a member of both the CCHA and NAIA for the 1973-74 season.

title: Rick Comley


text:
Talk:Barthold Nihus

Holtorf
It is not obvious which Holtorf; see here. However the French WP has Wolpe in the Duchy of Brunswick instead (presumably Wölpe).--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Barthold Nihus


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2011 Virginia earthquake

The result was   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Impact of the 2011 Virginia earthquake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A complete duplication of the "Impact" section of 2011 Virginia earthquake. According to this discussion, this article was created a couple of weeks after the quake because some editors feared the main article would get too long as more and more information about the tremor came up. Now, however, almost a year later, nothing new has been released in recent times that this article is really not needed anymore since the main article is not that long in the first place. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete - It is sufficiently covered in 2011 Virginia earthquake, no need for a separate article --MLKLewis (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete at this point as an unnecesarry split. As stated, 2011 Virginia earthquake is sufficient for covering the subject.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
The X Factor Digital Experience

The X Factor Digital Experience is a live digital pre-show produced by SYCOtv, FOX, Sony and FremantleMedia North America that aired in 2011 ahead of The X Factor. In addition to watching the program live on television, the audience was able to participate on multiple platforms in real-time.

Participants could start online with the streaming digital pre-show one hour prior to each live televised broadcast. Hosts Taryn Southern, Jim Cantiello and Dan Levy along with guests—including judges Simon Cowell, L.A. Reid, Paula Abdul and Nicole Scherzinger —and participants discussed performances, contestant's fashion, and song choices. Participants could tweet questions live to the hosts and their guests and some fans were selected to join the live-stream via Skype.

X Factor Digital was honored with a Cannes Bronze Lion for Branded Content and Entertainment at the Cannes Lions 59th International Festival of Creativity and was an Official Honoree in the Interactive Advertising category for the 16th Annual Webby Awards.

title: The X Factor Digital Experience


text:
Feyzabad (36°10′ N 58°52′ E), Mazul

Feyzabad (, also Romanized as Feyẕābād; also known as Feyẕābād-e Gonghā) is a village in Mazul Rural District, in the Central District of Nishapur County, Razavi Khorasan Province, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was 453, in 116 families.

title: Feyzabad (36°10′ N 58°52′ E), Mazul


text:
Talk:David Wolstencroft

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Wolstencroft. 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/20120213104810/http://footlights.org/1990.html to http://footlights.org/1990.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Wolstencroft


text:
ferroelastic

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  Of, relating to, or exhibiting ferroelasticity

Noun

 * 1) Such a material

title: ferroelastic


text:
retorika

Etymology
,, from , from , feminine form of , from.

Noun

 * 1) rhetoric
 * 2) The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.
 * 3) Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress.

Alternative forms

 * rétorik

Noun

 * 1)  rhetoric

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) rhetoric

title: retorika


text:
ليس

Etymology 1
. Traditionally taken to be a contracted pronunciation of either an earlier form, whose ultimate origin is in turn unknown or unexplored, or of + an existential  that has a proposed etymology in. This existential would be a native cognate to 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬, although Al-Jallad (2018) expresses doubt that it is anything more than a back-formation from the negative, in other words implying that +  is just a folk etymology from which  was created artificially. Al-Jallad proceeds to attest a form of in a  inscription dated between the first century BC and the fourth century AD, whose form, he says, invalidates the possibility of an origin in a verb ; he thereby argues that  may either be a loan from  or from.

Verb

 * 1)  not to be
 * 2)  except
 * 3) not to exist; there is not
 * 1) not to exist; there is not
 * 1) not to exist; there is not

Usage notes
This is a defective verb. It has only perfect indicative forms with a present-tense meaning. If there is a, it comes up in the accusative or (with ) the genitive.

Conjugation

 * Before consonantal endings, the diphthong -ay- is reduced to a short -a-:

Conjunction

 * 1)  not
 * 2) * "ar"

- أَيْنَ الْمَفَرُّ وَالْإِلَهُ الطَّالِبُ وَالْأَشْرَمُ الْمَغْلُوبُ لَيْسَ الْغَالِبُ

Verb

 * 1) to be valiant, to be brave, to be courageous

title: ليس