text:
Talk:Dave Anthony

Edit request
Would someone please italicize "Damn Interesting" throughout, since it's the title of a website and podcast? I thought I had done them all, but there seems to be some I missed or that got undone. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 11:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
Before the page was locked the social media was removed, and that included a named reference, so now there is a broken reference on the page. Can someone please replace the broken one with the following reference... Cheers- MichelleFranklin(talk)
 * ✅ --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Social Media section
I don't agree with this section being removed, as it is interesting, and the content is certainly established in more than one place, as it's been discussed regularly by Anthony over many years on various podcasts, however I admit that I only provided one reference so I'm not going to fight it, I only added it in because the page was so small and someone had stripped out anything that was not related to the plagiarism section, and I wanted to put back more interesting content. Next time I'll provide multiple references for each item if that's what's necessary. Cheers- MichelleFranklin(talk)
 * Well, as far as I'm concerned, and the protecting admin agreed, this is trivial (the edit summary by makes a valid point). So, at the very least you'll have to win three editors over, which means you'll need to produce serious secondary sourcing... Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I won't try to win over three editors, if you all think it's too trivial that's fine. I still disagree because it's a common topic in the subject's work, but it's by no means important, I only added it because it was interesting. I'll just add in different interesting stuff and use more references in the future. Cheers- MichelleFranklin(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to get further help with edit warring
Anonymous user <IP_ADDRESS> has a personal issue, not entirely unwarranted, with the subject of this page. This user is claiming to "balance the bias" by removing and adding large chunks of text. We have a clear disagreement on the best way to get to an acceptable resolution. AnnieBee3 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * When I arrived at the page, the Plagiarism Allegations section was written in the basic format a) party accused Anthony of plagiarism; b) here is why that accusation is unfounded; c) repeat. It was clearly biased toward suggesting that Anthony did nothing seriously wrong in any of these occasions. I attempted to correct the bias by removing the defensive language, to let the facts stand on their own merits, but user AnnieBee3 repeatedly reverted my changes. Maybe I was mistaken in my approach, so I took a different tack to add context. I added two things: a direct quote from Anthony to include his explanation of events, and a link to a third-party assessment of the controversy from the publication Plagiarism Today. No surprise, AnnieBee3 then removed the third-party source that was critical of Dave, but left the quote from Anthony defending himself. I feel that the third-party impartial link is key here to striking a balance, especially relating to a legal matter (plagiarism). I'm not here to attack Dave, but Wikipedia shouldn't take sides in an unsettled controversy when no general consensus or legal decision exists. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you pretending that you are unbiased? You go around on your white horse editing out bias where you see it? It's just that the only place you you've ever spotted bias is Dave Anthony's page. Oh, and one update to an award won by Damn Interesting. Coincidence? Am I tempted to edit Damn Interesting's page? Absolutely. It's poorly sourced, incomplete and very biased. This seems like a poor use of my time. I'd prefer to settle on reasonable wording for one page instead of escalating. I attempted to write the Plagiarism Allegations as a) Dave was accused b) Dave has regrets c) here's another guy that accused him of plagiarism d) here's another guy that accused him of plagiarism. d) here's what Dave did and said in response.

Your version has a)Dave was accused of plagiarism b)Dave doesn't agree that the incident arises to plagiarism and here's what he believes in a full quote c)Here's an expert opinion that agrees that it's plagiarism d)here's another guy that accused him of plagiarism e)here's another guy that accused him of plagiarism. I can find quotes that say this wasn't plagiarism, you can find more that say it was. We can fill paragraphs and paragraphs of competing sources. Meanwhile, Dave will never see this as plagiarism. He just won't. So I suggest we can find a happy medium and let this rest. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)AnneBee3

 * It seems obvious that I am a fan of Damn Interesting, you are a fan of Dave Anthony. We both have bias, but unbiased parties won't have much interest in this controversy, so we have to do our best. I propose a compromise: You said "I can find quotes that say this wasn't plagiarism." If you can find such a quote from an impartial third-party publication, why not add something like this after the Plagiarism Today quotation?: 'However [author] at [publication name] reached a different conclusion, stating, "[quote]"'. If you can find such a publication to quote from, that seems like a fair way to support two conflicting viewpoints. Regarding "Dave will never see this as plagiarism," that's beside the point, convincing Dave shouldn't be the goal here. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

On Feb 2 user AnnieBee3 agreed to stop edit warring with user <IP_ADDRESS> (see above), but they have once again resumed deleting important, cited details. User appears to be trying to 'whitewash' the actions of Dave Anthony; most of the user's edit history consists of adding positive information to Dave Anthony's entry and deleting anything that can be perceived as negative. AnnieBee3 is apparently a fan of his, someone working in reputation management, or Anthony himself. I have been undoing the vandalism, but AnnieBee3 keeps deleting it again. Based on the discussion above, I don't think they can be reasoned with, they already agreed to stop doing this, and now they are doing it again. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I did agree initially, but upon further investigation of the source I realized that instead of posting the agreed upon counter-viewpoint, this needed to be removed. For you to call it vandalism is an attempt to invalidate the legitimate concerns about the legitimacy of the source. If anyone is acting inappropriately, it is the anonymous person who is attempting to settle a disagreement between Dave Anthony and Alan Bellows via Wikipedia. I am fan of Dave Anthony, I am not paid by him or anyone else. I am doing this because it's the right thing to do and for no other personal gain. AnnieBee3 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

I added ALL the information, not just the positive information. Do you see the information about his anger issues? I wrote that. The part where he was dating a woman and ended up in Al Anon. I wrote that. Because I am a fan of Dave Anthony, I happen to know a lot about him. I don't edit many other articles because I don't have a wide range of knowledge on the Empire State Building or the city of Paris. But I know about Dave Anthony so I wrote the article. I am aware of Alan Bellow's dislike of Dave Anthony, yet I have never touched his Wikipedia page as is specifically against the rules to bring personal issues into a BLP and if this person continues, I will continue to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieBee3 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC) AnnieBee3 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3. Sorry, forgot to sign

 * You mention a concern with the source plagiarismtoday.com, but you haven't specified what it is – why do you think it is not a good source to use here? The website is factually and neutrally written, and although it is the product of a single person, he is clearly identified and appears to be a legitimate authority in his field – I notice that the website is used as a source in various academic papers, and I have not (yet) seen anything on the site in my perusal of it that raises any red flags. I simply do not see how this source fails to meet WP:RS in general. As for the specific use of the source in this article, the claim is again factual, neutrally phrased, correctly attributed, and certainly does not violate WP:BLP.  --bonadea contributions talk 15:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I have multiple issues with this quote being used. First, the anonymous editor who posted it should not be allowed to add things to this page because they are using it to continue an outside dispute which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This person does not like that Dave Anthony plagiarized, in their opinion, from the site Damn Interesting. The same quote is posted on Damn Interesting's Wikipedia page with a template warning that this section may not be balanced. I recognize that I am not the appropriate person to get involved with that page and left it alone. The same should be required of people with a personal issue with Dave Anthony, they should not be editing his page. So I am not accusing the quote of violating the WP:BLP per se, I am accusing the editor for using it inappropriately in their personal vendetta.

 * However, if it is deemed that this is not reason enough to remove the quote, my second issue is that the author of Plagiarism Today is not qualified to make a "ruling" on the case. He has the disclaimer on his page, "I am not a lawyer. I am just a legally-minded Webmaster/Writer." I'm a legally minded person too, but I'm not being quoted on Wikipedia. Further, his free site is set up with multiple links to his paid consulting service where he charges to help people accusing others of plagiarism. I am saying that this individual has compromised his ethics for money, but the fact remains that he only gets paid if something is plagiarism, not if it isn't, so his opinion is open to criticism.

 * If this is also deemed not removal-worthy, my third problem is that the quote is not a fair representation of the article as a whole. The full article seems fair balanced, but this quote was picked specifically to bias the readers against the subject of this page. Wikipedia is a place to present facts, not hash out a dispute that has already been covered.

 * I did initially agree to the quote standing and I would post an opposing opinion from a different source, but when I found time to take this issue back up I started with reviewing the article on Plagiarism Today and it raised enough concerns that I either needed to delete the quote or add an explanation similar to above to Dave Anthony's Wikipedia page. This would lengthen the entire section. You have already been active in removing information deemed overly specific so I'm not looking to lengthen the section, both for that reason and because I don't want to give the accusation more weight than it deserves. The allegations (aka Alan Bellows' side) are presented, then Dave's response is presented. (the anonymous editor added an additional quote to including an apology from Dave and I'm fine with that staying or going) and then there are the facts about 2 other plagiarism allegations. Josh Levin, one of the accusers, had posted on Twitter that it was not plagiarism in his case, but the tweet is gone now so I do not mention it. I believe that that is plenty of information on the subject for the Wikipedia user, but if they want more information on the entire situation, they'll easily be able to find additional reading, including the article in question and Damn Interesting's Wikipedia page. I don't believe Dave Anthony's Wikipedia page is the appropriate place to debate an old matter. AnnieBee3 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * Just to add: I know you have cautioned me to assume good faith. And I promise I am trying. When I say that the anonymous user is doing this because they are a fan of Damn Interesting, it is not an assumption, it is something they stated. AnnieBee3 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * The only thing that is relevant here is whether the source is relevant for use in this article – other Wikipedia articles, and whether somebody is a fan of this comedian or that one, doesn't affect the reliability of the source.

 * The author of Plagiarism Today is not a lawyer, but plagiarism is not a legal concept, so that is a non-issue. And in any case, one doesn't have to be a lawyer to be an authority on legal matters – if this were a legal issue, there's no reason I can see why Wikipedia would necessarily want to quote a lawyer! Yes, he does link to his consulting business, but I do not see how that is a problem. Plagiarism Today is not a commercial website, and obviously does not exist to drive business to the business website. Please give a link to where it says that "he charges to help people accusing others of plagiarism" and that "he only gets paid if something is plagiarism, not if it isn't", because that really doesn't seem to be the case (although it also doesn't affect whether the Plagiarism Today website is reliable or not). This part of your argumentation is similar to how a person might argue if they wanted to remove a source and were looking for reasons to do so.

 * As for your final point, we do indeed want to avoid placing undue emphasis on a specific episode, and this article does indeed need to lose a lot of trivial details, but since this is a secondary, independent source about this particular issue while the other two sources are primary and not independent, it is hard to see why this source should be removed and the others remain. It could in fact be argued that it is this kind of secondary coverage that makes it worth mentioning the issue at all; the article has too many primary sources and not enough secondary ones. --bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I disagree. It's not that the editor is a fan, it is that the editor is using the source to continue an outside dispute by editing the page of a person they don't like to include undue negatively biased information. And that is specifically disallowed in the Wikipedia rules. I refer you again to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_BLPs_to_continue_disputes This is not a one time issue, this is a years-long vendetta waged by Alan Bellows and/or fans of Damn Interesting in defense of Alan Bellows. Deleting this quote will set a precedent that they need to let it go and stop editing this page to avenge a perceived wrong against their "side." It is a misuse of Wikipedia and it is stupid and exhausting.

 * How can you say Plagiarism Today "obviously does not exist to drive business to the business website."? Do you have proof that it wasn't created for this specific purpose? It is absolutely not out of the question to create a site that starts out giving free advice and if you want further help, they will provide it for a fee. I made it clear that I have no evidence that that is the reason he runs the site, I'd like to see you provide evidence to back up you claim that that isn't why he's doing it. Here is the link on plaigiarismtoday.com to the paid consulting service. https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/visit-copybyte-com-for-consulting-services/ Following said link, you will find that he represents people making plagiarism accusations, not those being accused. As such, logic tells us that he gets paid for his services by accusers, not accusees. Which I will say again does not, in and of itself, invalidate his opinion, but is a valid piece of information to take into consideration when evaluating potential bias. And just to put a finer point on it, what he is offering is his opinion, not a fact. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions. The facts have been presented. There is no need to hammer the reader over the head with "expert" opinions. This goes back to the "overly specific" details Bonadea is looking to remove. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * AnnieBee3, by deleting lines from a Wikipedia article, you are assuming bad faith on the part of the original author of the lines you are deleting (not user <IP_ADDRESS> who said that they are a fan of Damn Interesting above). I don't think you've shown that Plagiarism Today is biased just because they make money on the side catching people doing the thing they specialize in writing about... that is way too vague and broad of a disqualification. Half of the citations on Wikipedia would be disqualified by that standard (including many on this very page).

 * It might help you to look at an example of a Wikipedia entry for a similar high-profile writer who has been involved with plagiarism, one where you (I assume) have no emotional investment. Here's a good example: Ben Domenech. See the quotations and citations from third-party analysis in the Plagiarism section? It adds valuable context that elevates it from mere accusation/denial. If you can find an impartial third party source that concludes that Anthony has not plagiarized, that can add even more context... either as an addition to the section, or grounds to remove the quote that is currently there (but please don't remove the quote again without proving your case with citations here on the talk page). If you cannot find any such source, that might be telling you something.

 * You seem to be making some assumptions about other editors' identities and intentions. Do you have any sources for the claim that this is part of "a years-long vendetta waged by Alan Bellows and/or fans of Damn Interesting"? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 * what he is offering is his opinion, not a fact Some of the content of the article "How a Comedy Podcast Sparked a Plagiarism Debate", is Bailey's opinion (and clearly signposted as such), but the sentence that is quoted in this Wikipedia article is a fact and not an opinion, so I'm not sure what you mean. As for The facts have been presented. There is no need to hammer the reader over the head with "expert" opinions no, that is a misunderstanding of how sourcing works. Plagiarism Today is the only secondary and independent source for this controversy – the other two sources are Anthony himself and whatever the other guy is called, and if anything, those primary sources should be removed (especially since Anthony posted his comments at Reddit!).  Experts are certainly what Wikipedia want as sources. --bonadea contributions talk 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I have cut down the paragraph so as not to place too much emphasis on it, and have also removed the primary sources. The secondary source reports on the entire process so there is no need for primary sources here. --bonadea contributions talk 22:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes. I still don't agree with much of your argument, but it looks better. I will hope that other users are able to leave it alone. AnnieBee3 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3
 * Thank you for fixing my spelling! I saw it just after I'd posted, but you got there before me :-) I did manage to fix "plagiarised" --> "plagiarized" before posting, but missed the "apologised".  --bonadea contributions talk 22:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing Maintenance Template
I realize that there are a lot of primary sources cited and that that is not ideal. In some cases they are used as back-up for secondary sources. I went a little citation-happy because information has been removed in the past for not being sourced so many facts have 2 or 3 sources just to make sure they aren't challenged. Additionally, because the subject is famous, but not super-star famous, some things like his Irish ancestry we're going to have to take his word for it. In addition to his album, I can provide 5 other places he's said it. Other occasions where primary sources are used are trivial matters, like using the subject's personal Instagram to identify the names of his dogs. I have not found any of the secondary sources to be spammy or otherwise disreputable. If there are specific sources that are objectionable, please provide information and I will correct them. Thanks in advance. AnnieBee3 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * Indeed, there are many primary sources and several other inappropriate sources, so the template should stay for the time being. Looking at the ten first sources, eight of them are primary (and several are clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia), one is not accessible so I can't say anything about it, and one looks OK. As for please provide information and I will correct them – no, there is no need to ask you to make edits to the article, as you are not responsible for it. Your close personal interest in the subject means that although you don't have any actual connection to him, you should avoid editing the article about him directly. It is hard to look objectively at a topic one is particularly intereste in. Avoid removing any maintenance templates (they are there to make the article better, after all). Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 17:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Which one is inaccessible? Which ones are clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia? Where is there specific instructions on the number of primary sources allowed? If I am going to learn to be a decent editor, I would appreciate specific guidance. I understand that there may not be a need for me to make edits to the article, but I happen to have chosen this as my hobby and there is no rule against me making edits. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

March 2021
What is appropriate on Wikipedia is entirely relevant. You have pointed to other pages on Wikipedia as relevant, don't tell me I can't do the same. This does NOT violate BLP. Truth is a defense to defamation claims. Would it be out of line to say that his father had cancer? Why are you shaming his father for his alcoholism? Are you the arbiter of which diseases are valid to mention. Growing up with an alcoholic parent absolutely shapes the way a human turns out. There's an article about it on Wikipedia you might find helpful. Dave being open and willing to talk about his difficulties is a positive for readers, not a negative. Stop edit warring and stop putting bullshit tags on my talk page just because you can't tell the difference between valid information and defamation. AnnieBee3 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * "Dave being open and willing to talk about his difficulties" is fine, he is welcome to do so in interviews and in media he controls but Wikipedia is not interested in his own narrative.  Anthony's parents are not notable, and WP:BLP is very clear about adding that kind of information about non-notable people, in particular when it is based solely on primary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

bonadea I'm happy to respond here if you'd like to discuss in good faith instead of just changing your reasoning each time I raise a counter argument. Your current stance is "negative information about non-notable people (the parents of the subject), supported only by a primary source" are unacceptable yet when I pointed you to examples of negative information about non-notable people (the parents of the subject), supported only by a primary source, you changed your stance to include the following at various points: nobody cares what Dave Anthony has to say about his life; he's not a celebrity like those other people; and showing comparable situations elsewhere on Wikipedia is irrelevant. We aren't going to get very far if you just keep changing my edits and making up new reasons why and I'm not going away. As I said in the edit summary, you do not own this page and I am not less important than you. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * I will try to respond to all the points above. I am assuming good faith and would ask you to do the same. Feel free to strike the personal attacks in your post; for the future I will ignore any such posts entirely.
 * There are multiple issues with this article, and I have brought up a few different issues at different times. This does not invalidate any of the other problems.
 * Non-notable people should not be discussed beyond an absolute minimum, per WP:BLP. Negative claims about a living person (notable or non-notable) that are not supported by independent sources do not belong in a Wikipedia article.
 * If there are similar issues in other articles, that does not affect this article. It is also possible that the other articles you mention had independent sourcing, and/or that the people who were discussed were in fact notable. But that's not what we are discussing here.
 * Wikipedia does not, in fact, care about what a person wants to say about their own life.
 * I should not have used the word "celebrity", since the content of a Wikipedia article is not affected by whether a person is a "celebrity" or not. It was careless of me, even if I only did use it in an edit summary. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I don't even know which part you are referring to. The part where I repeated what you said, or the part where I clarified that I am not less important than you? Those are just facts. I did not attack you and I don't appreciate your implication that I am acting in anything other than good faith. My intent is to improve this Wikipedia article by making it an accurate reflection of the individual. How about we focus on the article instead of my perceived slights against you?

I don't agree that we should leave out an essential part of a person's character because my sources don't meet your standards, which you have yet to define beyond primary and unacceptable. I believe it is important to not whitewash unpleasant parts of a persons existence. It might be easier to pretend that his dad wasn't an alcoholic and that he didn't suffer as a result, but that isn't true. There are myriad reasons to allow this information. I'll list some if you like, but it all comes back to accurate representation.

I never asked for the plagiarism allegations to be removed, because I recognize that it is something that happened. I advocated for fair representation. I do the same here.

You would know whether the articles I mention had independent sourcing, and/or that the people who were discussed were in fact notable if you had looked at them. But you dismissed them because Dave is not a celebrity in your eyes. I am not talking about other issues with this article. I am parroting your responses to this edit and this edit alone. I will continue to edit parts of this article and we will obviously deal with those issue when they arise because it would appear that you have taken a personal interest in either this page or me. I should probably ask you to certify that you're not being paid to make these edits and/or threaten to have you blocked, maybe post some notices on your talk page about gaslighting re personal attacks, but that's not my style. I'd rather just work on the page. AnnieBee3 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * So... last time I did this it bit me in the rear... but I'm going to try to clarify a few things for both of you. 1) WP does sometimes care about what a person says about themselves. But- there are guidelines to use self-published sources. 1st- they can't be self-promotional. 2nd- it does not involve claims about an event the person isn't associated with. 3rd- there is no reasonable doubt that they really are published by the subject, 4th- they are not the main sources in the article- and, finally, that they are not claims the person is making about 3rd parties. So that is the reason your source is unacceptable- they are self published and making a claim about third parties- even if those parties are the subject's parents. WP strongly discourages primary sources- they are only to be used in rare circumstances when nothing else exists AND they meet guidelines.
 * Now... from an outside perspective- both of you are not giving the other good faith, you are both being rude, and both are being condescending to the other. This will not lead to solutions. So take my suggestions or not- but I think you both need to step away from this article for a few days and come back with clear heads. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nightenbelle for the clarification. I admit that I am new to this and I appreciate your guidance. I did find a better source and I posted it before reading your suggestion to step away for a few days. I will now take your advice and step back for a few days. Thanks. AnnieBee3 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

 * Patronising much, Nightenbelle? I am removing this article from my watchlist. I am grateful to have found it as I like the podcaster very much and would never have heard of him if it had not been for this, but I hope I will never see this fucking mess of a BLP again. Bye. --bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sub header
David notMD, this is more explanation than you were probably looking for, please bear with me because I'm honestly trying. When I posted in the Teahouse, I was looking for guidance on article length and specificity. No one replied, but you did come edit this page, so if it was to assist in my goal of removing maintenance tags then I thank you. What I could really use is help/information/guidance. I'm new to Wikipedia. I have already learned quite a bit, but mostly I feel like I'm being punched down again and again. I told Nightenbelle that I would step away from editing for a few days. I thought that I could learn more about Wikipedia in that time and return a more informed editor. Instead I feel like I just drew more attention to the page. So I am taking a slight break from my break to build on one of your edits. I think it's a great idea to have career subheader, I think stand-up is a legitimate subsection of his career. Now I'm really gone for a few days. Thanks. AnnieBee3 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3
 * Leaving comments on your Talk page. To the long discussion above, all I will write is that disagreement does not mean vandalism, nor does edit warring mean vandalism. Hoping everyone can cool off. David notMD (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dave Anthony


text:
Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/OHNY2017

The Open House New York event is the concluding "upload party" to the Wikipedia @ Open House New York Weekend photo scavenger hunt, and an accompanying Wikimedia Commons tutorial and multimedia hackathon, to be held Sunday, October 15, 2017, 4:00 pm - 8:00 pm at the Ace Hotel in Manhattan.

Learn how to work with your photos to illustrate New York City articles!

Note that this is part of the larger Open House New York Weekend activities on Saturday and Sunday, when sites normally closed to the public are open for public visits and photography.

If you can, bring your camera/photos to the event, and a laptop if you'd like to engage in adding photos to articles. But this is not necessary.

For photos from last year's event, see the OHNY campaign 2016 on Wikimedia Commons.

Details

 * Date: Sunday, October 15, 2017
 * Time: 4:00 pm - 8:00 pm

To enter

 * Submit photo online at Campaign:OHNY2017 by 11:59 pm on Sunday, October 22, 2017
 * Note: A Wikimedia Commons account is required to submit photos
 * Include email to be contacted if you are selected as a category winner

Requirements
From OHNY
 * Photo submissions should:
 * • Be taken during OHNY Weekend on Saturday or Sunday, October 14 or 15, 2017 at a participating OHNY Weekend site or tour
 * • Be properly labeled in the “description” field with the name of the site or tour in which the photo was taken. Photo descriptions that do not name the site will not be eligible
 * • Highlight architecture and design excellence, and not your fellow explorers including OHNY participants, volunteers, and guides.

 * Eligibility
 * • Entrants must be 18 years or older
 * • The entrant guarantees that (s)he is the copyright holder of the work
 * • In keeping with the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons, photos will be considered to be freely licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, permitting free use for any purpose and the creation of derivative works.

 * By submitting a photo for the Wikimedia @ OHNY Weekend Photo Competition, you agree to all of the above rules and conditions.

Event links

 * 2017 Wikipedia @ OHNY Weekend Photo Competition
 * Wikipedia @ OHNY Weekend Photo Competition

Sign up

 * Pharos (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC) -- though unsure of when in that time frame I'll be there. Doing some open housing in Queens that afternoon. :) not looking like I'll get there in time :/ —  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 * MusikAnimal talk 15:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Jim.henderson (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Don't know how late I'll be.

 *  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/OHNY2017


text:
Bharathi Women's College

Bharathi Women's College, is a women's general degree college located at Chennai, Tamil Nadu. It was established in 1964. The college is affiliated with the University of Madras. This college offers courses in arts, commerce and science.

History
During the centenary celebration of Tamil poet Subramania Bharathi in 1981 and 1982 this college was renamed Bharathi Women's College. Today the college has more than 4000 students and over 180 faculty members serving in 13 departments. The college is located in the fairly large eight-acre campus, nested in the crowded George Town, Chennai. This institution caters to the needs of economically and socially weaker sections of the society, especially the first generation of women learners providing curricula as well as sports and other activities.

The college was conferred with autonomy in 1998 and was accredited by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in 1999 with four-star status and subsequently it applied for re-accreditation in October 2004. A peer team constituted by NAAC visited the college and re-accredited the institution with B grade. The autonomy status was extended for the next five years for this college for the 13 undergraduate and 13 postgraduate courses by the University Grants Commission (UGC) team which visited the college in 2012. Third cycle of assessment by NAAC was done in 2015 and re-accredited with A status.

Science

 * Physics
 * Chemistry
 * Mathematics
 * Computer science
 * Biochemistry
 * Geography
 * Botany
 * Zoology

Arts

 * Tamil
 * Telugu
 * Hindi
 * English
 * History
 * Economics

Science

 * Mathematics
 * Chemistry
 * Zoology
 * Applied geography
 * Biochemistry
 * Botany
 * Computer science
 * Physics

Arts

 * Historical studies
 * Economics
 * English
 * Tamil

Commerce

 * Commerce (general)

M.Phil courses

 * English
 * Biochemistry
 * History
 * Geography
 * Zoology

Ph.D. research courses

 * English
 * Biochemistry
 * Geography
 * Tamil
 * Botany
 * Historical studies

Student welfare
The NSS of Bharathi Women's College has five units, comprising five programme officers and 500 volunteers. Inspired by the motto "Not me but you", the NSS units actively organize and participate in regular community outreach activities like awareness programmes, rallies, blood donation camps, medical camps, cleaning drives (on and off campus), wall painting, pond cleaning, collection of relief materials during time of natural disasters, observing and celebrating significant dates throughout the year in association with NSS University of Madras, Stanley Medical College, Sankara Nethralaya, Vasan Eye Care, the Election Commission, Greater Chennai Corporation, RPF, Environmentalist Foundation of India, etc. The NCC is a youth development movement which provides exposure to cadets in a wide range of activities. It emphasises social services, discipline and adventure training. The NCC is open to all regular students of the college on a voluntary basis. The motto of NCC is "Unity and discipline". The main objective of NCC training in Bharathi Women's College is to give the student an opportunity to experience the military life, discipline, basic arms training, team ethics, following orders, various kinds of physical activities, sports, tours to remote areas, etc. RUSA is a centrally sponsored scheme launched in 2013, which revolutionized higher education in India. It aims to provide strategic funding to eligible state higher educational institutions. Bharathi Women's College (Autonomous) Chennai – 600 108 accredited Grade 'A' by NAAC in April 2015 had further been empowered by funds sponsored by RUSA. In order to enhance skill development a separate component to synergise vocational education has been included to RUSA.
 * National Service Scheme (NSS)
 * National Cadet Corps (NCC)
 * Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA)

College committee
Functions to redress the complaints and carry out suggestions given by students in matters related to students health, and other services provided by the institution Is constituted to look into serious matters related to violation of discipline by the students. Its rules are preventive and pro-active to avoid disorderly behaviour by the students Bring to light the innate student talents related to music, dance, drama, off stage events like rangoli, painting and to build her character in a holistic manner. This is a service oriented committee that restores, mends and repair issues related to civil work, electricity and water management. This committee deals with dissatisfaction and objections raised by stakeholders regarding the general functioning of the institution.
 * Student's Grievance Committee
 * Anti-Ragging Committee
 * Fine Arts Committee
 * PWD Committee
 * Internal Complaints Committee

Student clubs
Functions to serve the community at large. In Entrepreneurial Development club culture is inculcated in students to initiate startups. This is an on campus mediating body that creates awareness about HIV and encourages blood donation among students. This club enables development of leadership skills. It helps blending profession with service to society. Promotes noble and righteous temperament among youth. Its chief motto is to protect health and life and provide service to the sick and suffering. This club integrates friendship, understanding and service to the public. Ekta Bharat Shrestha Bharat strengthens India's diverse cultures and binds our shared traditions and values.
 * Lions Club
 * ED Club
 * Red Ribbon Club (RRC)
 * Rotaract Club
 * Youth Red Cross (RRC)
 * Inner-wheel Women's Club
 * EBSB Club

Other highlights
This cell facilitates gender sensitization on the social, economic, political, cultural and legal fronts. This centre focuses on maintenance of essential information of college in databases. Data are made available as digital resources. Go Green aims at advancing environmental friendly and ecologically responsible decisions. Honest Bazaar seeks to enhance ethics and righteousness in buying and selling practices.
 * Women Empowerment Cell
 * Knowledge Resource Centre
 * Go Green
 * Honest Bazaar

Ranking
Bharathi Women's College (Autonomous), Chennai ranked under [101-150] band among colleges in India by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) in 2021.

Notable faculty

 * Tmt. N. Zacharia Asiammal, IPS, deputy inspector general of police, intelligence, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai

Notable alumni

 * List of Notable Alumni

Accreditation
The college is recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

title: Bharathi Women's College


text:
Gnaeus Claudius Severus

Gnaeus (or Cneius, Cnaeus) Claudius Severus may refer to these following Romans:
 * Gnaeus Claudius Severus Arabianus, consul in 146
 * Gnaeus Claudius Severus (consul 167), son of Arabianus, consul in 167 and 173
 * Gnaeus Claudius Severus (consul 235), consul in 235

title: Gnaeus Claudius Severus


text:
Talk:Dale Willman

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Dale Willman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101224134311/http://www.antiochseattle.edu/alumni/documents/Journeys_August10.pdf to http://www.antiochseattle.edu/alumni/documents/Journeys_August10.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100815005719/http://www.metcalfinstitute.org:80/fellowships/fellows_sciences.htm to http://www.metcalfinstitute.org/fellowships/fellows_sciences.htm

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dale Willman. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saratogawire.com/

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dale Willman


text:
bronwater

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) mineral water, such as spa water
 * 2)  a glass or drink of it

title: bronwater


text:
Talk:Bill Berg (politician)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Berg (politician). 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/20110807044630/http://pwnhc.learnnet.nt.ca/programs/downloads/gazetteer1.pdf to http://pwnhc.learnnet.nt.ca/programs/downloads/gazetteer1.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bill Berg (politician)


text:
Talk:Spanish/Vocabulary

es:b
This topic is quite developed on Español/Como lengua extranjera/Vocabulario. I hope it can help you. --Javier Carro 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mondomunchies 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC) What format are we supposed to use to add vocabulary?

 * I would add the vocabulary to the Spanish Wikibook or to the Vocabulary page here. For now, you can just list the word or phrase under a topic such as "Verbos (Verbs)" with an English translation next to them. - J.Steinbock 01:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know... this part: (vosotros) aprendáis - you learn (plural familiar) is wrong, it should say (vosotros) aprendeis - you learn (plural familiar). A spanish guy in Germany.

title: Talk:Spanish/Vocabulary


text:
Wedding of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, and Mary Donaldson

The wedding of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, and Mary Donaldson (later King Frederik X and Queen Mary) took place on 14 May 2004 in the Copenhagen Cathedral.

Courtship and engagement
Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark met Mary Donaldson on 16 September 2000, during the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney. Frederik identified himself as the Crown Prince of Denmark at the height of their courtship. Their relationship was kept low-profile, although some Danish media reported the two were dating. On 24 September 2003, it was announced that Frederik's mother, Queen Margrethe II, intended to give her consent to the marriage at the State Council meeting scheduled for 8 October 2003.

Frederik and Mary became officially engaged on 8 October 2003. Frederik presented Mary with an engagement ring featuring an emerald cut diamond and two emerald cut ruby baguettes. Prior to the wedding, Mary, who had previously been a dual citizen of Australia and the United Kingdom, was granted Danish citizenship. She also converted from Presbyterianism to the Lutheran Church of Denmark. The media portrayed Frederik's and Mary's relationship as a modern "fairytale" romance between a prince and a commoner.

Wedding ceremony
The wedding ceremony of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, and Mary Donaldson was held on 14 May 2004 in the Copenhagen Cathedral in Copenhagen, Denmark, followed by the wedding festivities at the Fredensborg Palace. Mary's sisters Jane Stephens and Patricia Bailey, and her friend Amber Petty served as bridesmaids, while Frederik's brother Prince Joachim of Denmark was the best man. Mary's nieces Erin and Kate Stephens and Madisson Woods were flower girls, and Frederik's nephew Prince Nikolai of Denmark and first cousin once removed Count Richard von Pfeil und Klein-Ellguth were pageboys.

Mary wore a wedding dress created by Danish fashion designer Uffe Frank with a veil first used by Crown Princess Margareta of Sweden, and then by her daughter Queen Ingrid of Denmark. The veil, made from Irish lace, was later worn by Ingrid's daughters Margrethe, Benedikte and Anne-Marie as well as her granddaughters, Alexia and Alexandra. (Nathalie would since wear it at her wedding in 2010). This makes Mary the first and only person not born into a royal family to wear the veil. Mary's wedding tiara was a gift from Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik.

The bride's bouquet contained white roses, creme lathyrus, rhododendron, azalea, green gloriosa, Australian eucalyptus, and, in keeping with a Swedish royal tradition brought into the Danish royal family by the Swedish-born Queen Ingrid, a sprig of myrtle.

Music
Two choirs, the Copenhagen Boys Choir and the Church of Our Lady's choir; one orchestra, Concerto Copenhagen; and the fanfare ensemble from the Royal Life Guards Music Band played the music for the service.

The bride processed down the aisle accompanied by her father to the anthem "Zadok the Priest" which is traditionally used for British coronations. It was composed by George Frideric Handel for the coronation of Crown Prince Frederik's ancestor King George II of Great Britain, in 1727.

The congregational hymns sung at the wedding included "Den signede dag med fryd vi ser" and "Eternal Father, Strong to Save". The latter is traditionally associated with the maritime armed services. Crown Prince Frederik notably served with the Danish naval elite special operations forces, the Frogman Corps. The motet "Sicut cervus" by Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina was performed by the Copenhagen Boys Choir during the ceremony. The motet holds a special significance to the Danish royal family and was played at the Queen and Prince Consort's wedding in 1967, at King Frederik IX's funeral in 1972 and at Prince Joachim's wedding to Alexandra Manley in 1994.

Charles-Marie Widor's Symphony for Organ No. 5 was played as the recessional music as it was for the wedding between Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik of Denmark's wedding almost 37 years before.

Titles upon marriage
Upon her marriage, Mary assumed the title of her husband and became the Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess of Denmark. With Frederik's accession to the Danish throne in 2024, Mary automatically became the queen consort of Denmark. She was also honoured with the Order of the Elephant, and her father John Donaldson with the grand cross of the Order of the Dannebrog. In accordance with the statutes of the Danish Royal Orders, both of them were granted a personal coat of arms.

On 29 April 2008, Frederik and Mary were also created the Count and the Countess of Monpezat.

Danish royalty

 * The Queen and Prince Henrik of Denmark, the groom's parents
 * Prince Joachim and Princess Alexandra of Denmark, the groom's brother and sister-in-law
 * Prince Nikolai of Denmark, the groom's godson and nephew
 * The Princess and Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, the groom's maternal aunt and uncle
 * The Hereditary Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, the groom's first cousin
 * Princess Alexandra, Countess von Pfeil und Klein-Ellguth and Count Jefferson von Pfeil und Klein-Ellguth, the groom's first cousin and her husband
 * Count Richard von Pfeil und Klein-Ellguth, the groom's first cousin once removed
 * Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, the groom's first cousin
 * Queen Anne-Marie and King Constantine II of the Hellenes, the groom's maternal aunt (and godmother) and uncle
 * Princess Alexia and Carlos Morales, the groom's first cousin and her husband
 * Crown Prince Pavlos and Crown Princess Marie-Chantal of Greece, the groom's first cousin and his wife
 * Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark, the groom's first cousin
 * Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark, the groom's first cousin
 * Princess Elisabeth of Denmark, the groom's first cousin, once removed
 * Count Ingolf and Countess Sussie of Rosenborg, the groom's first cousin, once removed and his wife
 * Count Christian and Countess Anne Dorte of Rosenborg, the groom's first cousin, once removed and his wife
 * Countess Josephine of Rosenborg and Thomas Schmidt, the groom's second cousin and her husband
 * Countess Camilla of Rosenborg and Mikael Rosanes, the groom's second cousin and her husband
 * Countess Feodora of Rosenborg and Eric Patte, the groom's second cousin and her fiancée
 * Countess Ruth of Rosenborg, widow of the groom's second cousin, once removed
 * Count Axel and Countess Jutta of Rosenborg, the groom's third cousin and his wife
 * Count Carl Johan of Rosenborg, the groom's third cousin
 * Countess Karin of Rosenborg, widow of the groom's second cousin, twice removed
 * Count Valdemar and Countess Charlotte of Rosenborg, the groom's third cousin, once removed, and his wife
 * Count Nicolai of Rosenborg, the groom's fourth cousin
 * Countess Marina of Rosenborg, the groom's third cousin, once removed
 * Christian Castenskiold, the groom's first cousin, twice removed, son of Princess Dagmar of Denmark
 * Countess Thyra of Castell-Castell, the groom's second cousin, once removed, granddaughter of Prince Harald of Denmark

Monpezat family

 * Countess Françoise Laborde de Monpezat and Claude Bardin, the groom's paternal aunt and uncle
 * Xavier Bardin, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Antoine Bardin, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Guillaume Bardin, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Count Étienne and Countess Isabelle Laborde de Monpezat, the groom's paternal uncle and aunt
 * Count Raphaël Laborde de Monpezat, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Count Bertrand Laborde de Monpezat, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Count Arthur Laborde de Monpezat, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Count Jean-Baptiste and Countess Jill Laborde de Monpezat, the groom's paternal uncle and aunt
 * Countess Clémence Laborde de Monpezat, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Count Grégoire Laborde de Monpezat, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Countess Maurille Laborde de Monpezat and Jacques Beauvillain, the groom's paternal aunt and uncle
 * Pierre Beauvillain, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Thomas and Mie Beauvillain, the groom's paternal cousin and his Danish wife
 * Anne-Marie and Vincent Diego, the groom's paternal cousin and her husband
 * Vincent Beauvillain, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Cécile and Jérôme Beuste, the groom's paternal cousin and her husband
 * Bénoit Beauvillain, the groom's paternal cousin
 * Louis Beauvillain, the groom's paternal cousin

Donaldson family

 * John and Susan Donaldson, the bride's father and stepmother
 * Jane and Craig Stephens, the bride's sister and brother-in-law
 * Alexander Stephens, the bride's nephew
 * Erin Stephens, the bride's niece
 * Kate Stephens, the bride's niece
 * Patricia and Scott Bailey, the bride's sister and brother-in-law
 * Michael Woods, the bride's nephew
 * Maddison Woods, the bride's niece
 * John and Leanne Donaldson, the bride's brother and sister-in-law
 * Ben Moody, the bride's stepbrother
 * Peter and Alison Donaldson, the bride's paternal uncle and aunt
 * Margaret Howard, the bride's paternal cousin
 * Jacqueline and Brendon Johncock, the bride's paternal cousin and her husband
 * Alison Donaldson, the bride's paternal cousin
 * Roy and John Pugh, the bride's paternal aunt and uncle
 * Margaret Cunningham, the bride's paternal grandaunt
 * Catherine Murray, the bride's maternal aunt
 * Jack and Barbara Maton, the bride's maternal cousin

Members of reigning royal families

 * 🇸🇪 The King and Queen of Sweden, The King is the groom's first cousin, once removed, through Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
 * 🇸🇪 The Crown Princess of Sweden, the groom's second cousin
 * 🇸🇪 The Duke of Värmland, the groom's second cousin
 * 🇸🇪 The Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, the groom's second cousin
 * 🇸🇪 Count Carl Johan and Countess Gunnila Bernadotte of Wisborg, The Count is the groom's maternal great-uncle through Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
 * 🇳🇴 The King and Queen of Norway, The King is the groom's second cousin, once removed, through Christian IX of Denmark
 * 🇳🇴 The Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Norway, the groom's third cousin and his wife
 * 🇳🇴 Princess Märtha Louise of Norway and Ari Behn, the groom's third cousin and her husband
 * 🇧🇪 The King and Queen of the Belgians, The King is the groom's second cousin, once removed, through Frederick VIII of Denmark
 * 🇧🇪 The Duke and Duchess of Brabant, the groom's third cousin and his wife
 * 🇧🇪 Princess Astrid of Belgium and the Archduke of Austria-Este, the groom's third cousin and her husband
 * 🇧🇪 Prince Laurent and Princess Claire of Belgium, the groom's third cousin and his wife
 * The Queen of the Netherlands, The Queen is the groom's fourth cousin, twice removed, through William I of the Netherlands
 * The Prince of Orange and Princess Máxima of the Netherlands, the groom's fifth cousin, once removed, and his wife
 * Prince Constantijn and Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, the groom's fifth cousin, once removed, and his wife
 * 🇪🇸 The Queen of Spain the groom's third cousin once removed through Christian IX of Denmark (representing the King of Spain)
 * 🇪🇸 The Duchess and Duke of Lugo, the groom's fourth cousin and her husband
 * 🇪🇸 The Duchess and Duke of Palma de Mallorca, the groom's fourth cousin and her husband
 * 🇪🇸 The Prince of Asturias and Letizia Ortiz, the groom's fourth cousin and his fiancée
 * 🇯🇵 The Crown Prince of Japan (representing the Emperor of Japan)
 * The Earl and Countess of Wessex, The Earl is the groom's third cousin, once removed, through Christian IX of Denmark (representing the Queen of the United Kingdom)
 * 🇱🇺 The Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, The Grand Duke is the groom's third cousin through Frederick VIII of Denmark
 * 🇱🇺 The Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, the groom's third cousin, once removed
 * 🇱🇺 Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg, the groom's third cousin
 * 🇲🇨 The Hereditary Prince of Monaco (representing the Prince of Monaco)
 * 🇲🇨 Princess Caroline of Monaco and the Prince of Hanover The Prince is the groom's third cousin, once removed, through Christian IX of Denmark
 * 🇱🇮 Prince Wenzeslaus of Liechtenstein (representing the Prince of Liechtenstein)

Members of non-reigning royal families

 * Empress Farah Pahlavi of Iran
 * The Aga Khan
 * Crown Prince Alexander and Crown Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia, The Crown Prince is the groom's fourth cousin through Christian IX of Denmark
 * The Prince of Prussia, The Prince is the groom's third cousin through Frederick Francis III, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
 * Prince Phillip of Hesse, The Prince is the groom's fourth cousin through Queen Victoria
 * Princess Xenia of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, The Princess is the groom's fourth cousin through Christian IX of Denmark
 * Prince Wilhelm and Princess Ilona of Schaumburg-Lippe, The Prince is the groom's second cousin, once removed, through Frederick VIII of Denmark
 * Princess Désirée of Schaumburg-Lippe and Hofjægermester Michael Iuel, the groom's third cousin and her husband
 * Princess Eleonore of Schaumburg-Lippe, The Princess is the groom's third cousin through Frederick VIII of Denmark
 * Archduchess Francesca of Austria
 * Prince Dimitri and Princess Dorrit Romanov, The Prince is the groom's third cousin, twice removed, through Nicholas I of Russia
 * The Prince and Princess of Turnovo
 * The Duke and Duchess of Braganza
 * The Prince and Princess of Naples
 * The Duke and Duchess of Castro

Politicians and diplomats

 * 🇫🇮 Tarja Halonen, President of Finland, and Dr. Pentti Arajärvi
 * 🇮🇸 Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, President of Iceland, and Dorrit Moussaieff
 * 🇩🇰 Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, and Anne-Mette Rasmussen
 * 🇬🇱 Hans Enoksen, Prime Minister of Greenland, and Aaliiaraq Enoksen
 * 🇫🇴 Jóannes Eidesgaard, Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands, and Anita Joensen
 * 🇫🇷 Bernadette Chirac
 * 🇦🇺 Michael Jeffery, Governor-General of Australia
 * Richard Butler, Governor of Tasmania
 * 🇩🇰 Anker Jørgensen, former Prime Minister of Denmark
 * 🇩🇰 Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, former Prime Minister of Denmark, and Lone Dybkjær
 * 🇬🇱 Jonathan Motzfeldt, former Prime Minister of Greenland, and Kristjana Gudmundsdottir
 * 🇫🇴 Edmund Joensen, former Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands, and Edfríö Johnsen
 * 🇩🇰 Jens Kramer Mikkelsen, Lord Mayor of Copenhagen, and Connie Mikkelsen

Nobility

 * 🇩🇰 Count Michael Ahlefeldt-Laurvig-Bille
 * 🇩🇰 Count Gregers Ahlefeldt-Laurvig-Bille, the groom's godson
 * 🇩🇰 Countess Helle Knuth (author and wife of the founder of Knuthenborg Safaripark)
 * 🇩🇰 Count Christoffer Knuth (owner of Knuthenborg)

Other notable guests

 * Joen Bille (actor) and Bente Scavenius (art historian)
 * Thomas Blachman (jazz musician)
 * Tatiana Blatnik (future wife of Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark)
 * Bitten Clausen (widow of the founder of Danfoss)
 * Jørgen Mads Clausen (chairman of Danfoss), and wife, Anette Nøhr Clausen
 * Bent Fabricius-Bjerre (pianist and composer)
 * Nils Foss (founder of Foss A/S), and wife, Dorte Foss
 * Kjeld (Lieutenant General in the Danish Army) and Birgitta Hillingsø (former classmate of Queen Margrethe II)
 * Ellen Hillingsø (Danish actress and goddaughter of Queen Margrethe II), and husband, Christoffer Castenskiold
 * Kasper Holten (stage director) and Kamilla Bech Holten (tv host)
 * Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen (CEO of The Lego Group), and wife, Camilla Kristiansen
 * Bo Lidegaard (historian), and wife, Vibeke Sejrbo Nielsen
 * Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller (shipping magnate)
 * Sir Roger Moore (actor), and Danish wife, Kristina, Lady Moore
 * Else Pedersen (former nanny of the Crown Prince)
 * Amber Petty (friend of the bride)
 * Thomas Vinterberg (film director), and wife, Maria Vinterberg
 * Peter Zobel (businessman), and wife, Henriette Zobel (designer)

Bridesmaids and best man

 * Jane Stephens, bridesmaid
 * Patricia Bailey, bridesmaid
 * Amber Petty, bridesmaid
 * Prince Joachim of Denmark, the best man

Flower girls and page boys

 * Erin Stephens, aged 8 – Mary's niece, daughter of Jane and Craig Stephens
 * Kate Stephens, aged 6 – Mary's niece, daughter of Jane and Craig Stephens
 * Madisson Woods, aged 8 – Mary's niece, daughter of Patricia Bailey
 * Prince Nikolai of Denmark, aged 4 – nephew and godson of Crown Prince Frederik and son of Prince Joachim and Princess Alexandra of Denmark
 * Count Richard von Pfeil und Klein-Ellguth, aged 4 – son of Frederik's cousin Princess Alexandra of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg and Count Jefferson von Pfeil und Klein-Ellguth

Carriage procession
A carriage procession followed the wedding ceremony, during which the couple was transported from Copenhagen Cathedral through the streets of Copenhagen to Amalienborg Palace on a route that was two kilometers long. The couple was transported in the Danish royal family's Barouche from 1906. The newlyweds subsequently appeared with their immediate family on the balcony of Amalienborg Palace in front of more than 20.000 people at Amalienborg's courtyard.

Wedding banquet
The wedding banquet was held on the evening of the wedding day at Fredensborg Palace. The newlyweds arrived in Fredensborg from Amalienborg Palace by carriage, The Prince's Landau, from 1889. Approximately 400 guests were invited for the banquet which took place in a tent in the Palace gardens. Prince Henrik, Queen Margrethe II, John Donaldson and the groom all made speeches during the dinner. After the dinner, Frederik and Mary danced the traditional wedding waltz to "The Wedding Waltz" from Niels W. Gade's A Folk Tale in Fredensborg Palace's Dome Hall. According to tradition, the waltz must take place before midnight which the couple succeeded in despite being slightly behind schedule.


text:
Talk:Endeavour (yacht)

Interior image is from Ranger - some kind of cruel joke?
If you look at the, you see it's actually from the competitor J Class yacht Ranger. This has to be a joke/prank by a Ranger fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robot1125 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Robot, that piece of equipment displayed in Endeavours saloon is called a "transom". Before you edit articles, please learn how to describe equipment; A simple WWW search would have yielded the information that you sought: The transom from the 1937 Ranger (not that of her 2002 replica) featured in Endeavours saloon between 1989 and 2010. The photograph was taken in May 1996. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 03:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endeavour (yacht). 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/20081019212913/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&refer=muse&sid=a9ntbuntWVYE

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Endeavour (yacht)


text:
Talk:International Relations

Start
OK -- I've started this article. It is nowhere near finished, and is probably filled with all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes. I will fully flesh out the Liberalism section tomorrow, and then move on to Constructivist theories.

If anyone has any problems with the way I am classifying these theories, we should probably sort them out now, before more work is done by anyone to this article. PanzerKardinal

How about the following classification:

 * realism
 * liberalism
 * marxism
 * institutionalism
 * constructivism
 * feminism

--Filip 23:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You may also want to add Postmodernism.--Dnjkirk 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're linked ;)
I've set up a link to you from the Strategic Studies Curriculum. Hope I can help in future!--Dnjkirk 18:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging ?
What about merging this page with Topic:Introduction_to_International_Relations ? It shouldn't prove too difficult, both are rather complementary, and it would help to prevent IR courses on Wikiversity from overstretch: School of Pol. Sci. and of Strat. Studies, Dept. of IR and Division of Peace Studies all do IR in their own way. Why using wiki pages if the work here isn't collaborative ? ;) --CorentinB 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging ?
Let's copy/paste my initial comment:
 * What about merging this page with Introduction_to_International_Relations ? It shouldn't prove too difficult, both are rather complementary, and it would help to prevent IR courses on Wikiversity from overstretch: School of Pol. Sci. and of Strat. Studies, Dept. of IR and Division of Peace Studies all do IR in their own way. Why using wiki pages if the work here isn't collaborative ? ;)

--CorentinB 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Merged -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:International Relations


text:
Talk:Derek Hugh Taylor

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Derek Hugh Taylor. 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/20120422105008/http://votepdm.com/derektaylor.htm to http://votepdm.com/derektaylor.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422105008/http://votepdm.com/derektaylor.htm to http://votepdm.com/derektaylor.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Derek Hugh Taylor


text:
Talk:Physics with Calculus/Mechanics/Energy and Conservation of Energy

What is the source of 1st law of thermodynamics ? When was the conservation of energy principle first espoused ? What is the motivation for this ?

Physics symbols
Could someone change this page an possibly others to make: - kinetic energy represented by K, and not KE - potential energy represented by U, and not PE

Potential energy can have a subscript to indicate the type, for example gravitational potential energy $$U_g$$

Update: Ok, I just changed it myself. Looks much better now, IMO.

Jeff.


text:
1950 SMU Mustangs football team

The 1950 SMU Mustangs football team represented Southern Methodist University (SMU) as a member of the Southwest Conference (SWC) during the 1950 college football season. Led by first-year head coach Rusty Russell, the Mustangs compiled an overall record of 6–4 with a mark of 2–4 in conference play, tying for fifth place in the SWC. SMU played home games at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas. Kyle Rote and Bobby Collier were the team captains.

title: 1950 SMU Mustangs football team


text:
William Ragsdale Cannon

William Ragsdale Cannon (April 5, 1916 – May 11, 1997 ) was the dean of Candler School of Theology (1953-1968) and an American bishop of the United Methodist Church, elected in 1968.

Birth and family
William was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the son of William Ragsdale and Emma McAfee Cannon. Bishop Cannon was raised in Dalton, Georgia. He never married.

Education
William graduated from the University of Georgia in Athens in 1937, and from Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Connecticut in 1940. He earned his Ph.D. degree from Yale University in 1942.

Ordained and academic ministry
Cannon served churches in Oxford before joining the faculty of Candler School of Theology, Emory University in 1943. From 1953 until 1968 Cannon served as the dean of the seminary. In the mid-1960s Dean Cannon defended Emory's retention of Religion Professor Thomas J.J. Altizer, a proponent of the death-of-God position. This position later came to be known as the God is Dead controversy. Cannon also guided Candler through racial integration.

Cannon was regularly elected as a delegate to Methodist Jurisdictional and General Conferences, beginning in 1948. During the administration of Jimmy Carter, Cannon served as an unofficial envoy of the President.

Cannon had the high honor of being a Protestant observer at the Vatican II Council of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome in 1965. Later, as a bishop, he also observed the Extraordinary Synod of the R.C. Church in 1985. He became friends with Pope John Paul II, who sent a statement to be read at Cannon's funeral in 1997.

Episcopal ministry
Cannon was highly influential in the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church. For example, he delivered the episcopal address at the 1984 General Conference, the highest honor conferred on a bishop by his/her episcopal colleagues. As a bishop, Cannon stressed Christian education and evangelism, and was known for his classically orthodox, Wesleyan positions.

As a bishop he was assigned, successively, to the Raleigh Episcopal Area (1968–72), the Richmond Area (1970–72), the Atlanta Area (1972–80), and the Raleigh Area again (1980–84). Cannon also served as a member of the board of trustees at Emory, Asbury College, and Duke University. He was President of the World Methodist Council from 1981 until 1986.

He retired to Georgia in 1984, becoming bishop-in-residence at the Northside United Methodist Church in Atlanta and professor at Candler School of Theology at Emory University. In 1994 he was one of the principal founders of The Confessing Movement of the United Methodist Church. This movement focused on the Church's mission to "retrieve its classical doctrinal identity, and to live it out as disciples of Christ."

Bishop Cannon died in 1997 at the Crawford Long Hospital in Atlanta. He is buried in West Hill Cemetery in Dalton. Cannon Chapel at Emory University is named in his honor.

Selected writings

 * The History of Christianity in the Middle Ages
 * The Journeys After Saint Paul
 * The Theology of John Wesley: With Special Reference to the Doctrine of Justification, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1946
 * Evangelism in a Contemporary Context, Nashville, Tidings, 1974.

Biographies

 * Cannon, William Ragsdale, A Magnificent Obsession: The Autobiography of William Ragsdale Cannon, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1999.
 * Freeman, G. Ross, "Georgia's Methodist Bishops," Historical Highlights 8 (June 1978): 5-23.
 * Article on William Ragsdale Cannon at New Georgia Encyclopedia

title: William Ragsdale Cannon


text:
Chisholm Trail Historical Museum

The Chisholm Trail Historical Museum was a museum in Waurika, Oklahoma which celebrated the historic Chisolm Trail. It covered the history of the Chisholm Trail and the people associated with it. Operation of the museum at one point was given to the Oklahoma Historical Society. The museum has since closed.

There are other museums dedicated to the Chisholm Trail, such as the Chisholm Trail Museum in Kingfisher, Oklahoma, the Chisholm Trail Heritage Center in Duncan, Oklahoma, the Chisholm Trail Museum in Wellington, Kansas, and other facilities in Cleburne, Texas and Cuero, Texas.

title: Chisholm Trail Historical Museum


text:
The Mysterious Mrs. M

The Mysterious Mrs. M is a 1917 silent film drama directed by Lois Weber and starring Harrison Ford and Mary MacLaren. It was a Bluebird Pictures Production distributed by Universal Film Manufacturing Company.

Cast

 * Harrison Ford - Raymond Van Seer
 * Mary MacLaren - Phyllis Woodman
 * Evelyn Selbie - Mrs. Musslewhite
 * Willis Marks - Green
 * Frank Brownlee - Dr. Woodman
 * Bertram Grassby - Clubman
 * Charles Hill Mailes - Clubman
 * Arthur Forde - unknown role

Preservation status

 * The film survives in the Library of Congress incomplete. Reels 1 & 2 survive, reels 3, 4 and 5 are lost.
 * Prints and/or fragments were found in the Dawson Film Find in 1978.

title: The Mysterious Mrs. M


text:
Andrey Bolshoy

Andrey Vasilyevich Bolshoy, nicknamed Goryai (Андрей Васильевич Большой) (14 August 1446 – 6 November 1493), was the third son of Vasili II of Russia who transformed his capital in Uglich into a major centre of political power and ensured the town's prosperity for two centuries to come. He was called Andrey Bolshoy (Big Andrew) to distinguish him from his younger brother Андрей Васильевич Меньшой (Little Andrew).

Life
Andrey Bolshoy was born in Uglich. After the death of his father in 1462, Andrey Bolshoy inherited the cities of Uglich, Zvenigorod, and Bezhetsk. His relations with his older brother, Ivan III of Moscow, were cordial at first. It was ten years later that the death of their brother, the childless Yury of Dmitrov, led to bad blood between the two. Ivan III appropriated Yury's appanage for himself, rather than sharing it with his brothers. At last he granted some of Yury's lands to his other brothers, except Andrei Bolshoy, who had been coveting them more than others.

Another conflict between the two brothers was triggered by the right of boyars to leave their own prince for the courts of other princes. Ivan III would only allow such practice if a boyar were to move to Moscow. In 1479, one displeased boyar, Prince Lyko-Obolensky, left the Moscow Kremlin and settled at the court of his brother Boris, ruler of Volokolamsk. When the latter refused to extradite the boyar, Ivan III ordered to capture Lyko-Obolensky and deliver him to Moscow in chains. Andrei Bolshoy took the side of the offended prince of Volokolamsk. The two brothers joined their armies and marched towards Novgorod and then to the Lithuanian border. There, they began to negotiate with the Polish king Kazimierz IV, who decided not to interfere in the conflict. Boris and Andrey then sought support in Pskov, but to no avail.

In order to settle the conflict, Ivan III offered Andrei Bolshoy the cities of Kaluga and Aleksin, but he refused. The invasion of Khan Akhmat in 1480 reconciled the grand prince with his brothers. Ivan III became more tractable and promised to fulfill all their demands. Andrei and Boris moved their armies to the Ugra River and joined Ivan III in his stand-off with the Mongols. Their reconciliation was mediated by their mother, metropolitan and a number of bishops. As a token of their reconciliation, the grand prince granted Andrei the city of Mozhaisk, the most coveted part of Yury's appanage.

After the death of their mother Maria of Borovsk in 1484, Andrei's situation became perilous because his defiant stance and groundless claims filled Ivan III with misgivings. He was afraid that, in line with the ancient system of Rurikid succession, Andrey would attempt to usurp the throne of Muscovy after his own death. In 1488, Andrey was informed about Ivan's plans to dethrone and imprison him. Upon his epistolary complaint to the grand prince, the latter protested his innocence. In 1491, Ivan III ordered Andrei and Boris to send their armies to help out his ally Meñli I Giray. For reasons unknown, Andrei disobeyed the grand prince. When he came to Moscow in 1492, he was arrested and put in prison in Moscow, where he died in 1493. Thereupon Andrey's sons – Ivan and Dmitry – were imprisoned in Vologda, while their appanage – Uglich – was annexed into Muscovy.

title: Andrey Bolshoy


text:
User:Alphius/List of adult animated films

This is a list of adult animated films that were made from the 1950s onwards, that might contain violence, political messages, nudity and sexual content, or drug and alcohol use.


text:
Jane Dewey

Jane Mary Dewey (July 11, 1900 – September 19, 1976) was an American physicist.

Early life and education
Jane Mary Dewey was born in Chicago, the daughter (and sixth child) of philosopher John Dewey and educator Alice Chipman Dewey. Her parents named her in honor of Jane Addams, an activist, sociologist, and reformer; and Mary Rozet Smith, a philanthropist who was Addams's longtime companion.

She was educated at the Ethical Culture School and then the Spence School, after which she attended Barnard College, graduating in 1922. She moved from New York to New England for graduate studies, earning a PhD in Physical Chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1925.

Career
After graduating from MIT, Dewey worked for two years researching in the newly emergent field of quantum mechanics with Nobelist Niels Bohr and future-Nobelist Werner Heisenberg as a postdoctoral researcher at the Universitets Institut for Teoretisk Fysik in Copenhagen. During this time, she delivered a series of lectures on wave mechanics to the rest of Bohr's research team. She then moved to Princeton University, where she worked with Karl Taylor Compton with support from a National Research Council fellowship. In 1929, she became a faculty member at the University of Rochester, nominally under the geology department but in fact at the university's Institute of Applied Optics. Between her time at MIT and her time at Rochester, Dewey was a prolific author, publishing 8 articles in major science journals, the first being "Intensities in the Stark Effect of Helium," published in Physical Review in 1926.

In 1931, Dewey left Rochester for Bryn Mawr College, where she became an assistant professor in physics and, later, the chair of the department. That year, she was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society, and she soon took on the position of department chair. However, her marriage — to fellow physicist J. Alston Clark — broke apart, and her health worsened, forcing her to take medical leave. During her absence, Bryn Mawr replaced her as chair with a male physics professor (Walter C. Michels), and Dewey was unemployed until 1940, when she found a part-time instructor position at Hunter College. Her health suddenly restored, she moved to industry, taking a wartime job at the United States Rubber Company and then, in 1947, a staff position at the Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, where she headed the Terminal Ballistics Laboratory.

Dewey-Mackenzie estimate
In a landmark paper, while at United States Rubber Company, Dewey derived the elastic constants of a solid material filled with non-rigid particles. In 1950, Mackenzie presented a similar derivation for a solid containing spherical holes. They both made the assumption that the distribution of the inclusions is diffuse enough that neighboring inclusions do not affect one another. This has led to similar derivations using this assumption being called "Dewey-Mackenzie estimates." Mackenzie's solution may be considered a special case of the more general and difficult problem that Dewey set herself and succeeded in solving exactly. As of 2021, her paper has been cited over 130 times in scientific journals. In fact, the approach in her original paper is now so well known that it is often referred to only indirectly, as a "Dewey-Mackenzie estimate," without citation.

Slade-Dewey equation
While at BRL, one of her contributions to ballistic science has come to be known as the Slade-Dewey equation, which empirically relates the critical impact velocity Vt for initiating detonation of a solid secondary explosive or propellant to the diameter d of an impacting projectile, $$V_t = A / \sqrt{d} + B$$, where A and B are empirical constants that depend on the explosive.

title: Jane Dewey


text:
Talk:Ami Onuki

Factually inaccurate statements or vandalism?
The medical bits are obvoisly dubious, and the divorce bit is a bit shady as well.I know these statements don't exist in the ja: article...Ranma9617 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I reverted the article. Those edits are clearly vandalism. --Snkcube 06:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think we may be dealing with a potential sock puppet. I just tagged a another piece of dubious medical info, though the anon that allegedly inserted it had a different IP addy this time...Ranma9617 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Her blood type REALLY is A+ even check the Asia no Junshin video, when Ami is introduced it says her blood type is A+ Video

User: Zeldamaster3 10:50, 29 May 2006

Like the tag says, we need sources in this article. --DarkAdonis255 13:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well,not only has the "sources needed" tag been largely ignored, but some of the info may borderline with possible dubious accuracy. Thus I retagged this article as needing factual verification. Then again, even it may not be adequate... Ranma9617 08:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I added some sources to the stuff that really needed it and I just removed that trivia section. Yumi's entry had hers removed as well (not by me), as per the WP:TRIVIA style article, so now they're both consistent.  There was a bunch of unverifiable and probably wrong stuff in the trivia section here anyway, and it seems like that section was just a magnet for abuse - every time it got cleaned up, new crap would creep in. It's harder to introduce false information if you need to actually write a paragraph around it.  Badasscat 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ami and Janice
Does Ms. Kawaye sound similar to Ms. Onuki?--<IP_ADDRESS> 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it; the voice Ms. Kawaye gives the animated Ami sounds nothing like the real one. --DarkAdonis255 14:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

cool
Where did you get "the cool part of Puffy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ami Onuki


text:
Talk:Amazon HQ2

List of bids

 * Quartz article with a long list of regions and cities

 Sounder Bruce  23:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Submitted and announced
Why is there a submitted and announced section? I will delete the announced section. If anyone disagrees please revert. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several cities who announced their intention to bid, but did not submit by the deadline. The section needs to be cleaned up, but not deleted wholesale. ''' Sounder [[User talk:SounderBruce|Bruce ]]''' 04:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Is having an intention to submit a proposal but not following through notable? Seems like it just adds clutter to the article. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also most of the cities are just duplicates from the submitted list. If no one wants to improve the list or debate why it should remain, I think we should remove it. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Moving sources from the Announced section to the Bid entries is not appropriate. Neither is trying to go around the BRD process and revert without further discussion.  Sounder Bruce  03:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then contribute to the discussion and article instead of staying quiet and just annoyingly reverting progress of the article. Also, please read WP:OWNERSHIP. It would be beneficial to you. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleting content and mis-using references is not progress.  Sounder Bruce  00:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "content" is repeated in the section above and therefor utterly useless. The moving references to a more appropriate section is not "mis-using" them. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot use references announcing a bid being considered and use them to verify that a bid has been submitted. They are two different, distinct events that require different references.  Sounder Bruce  01:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all references are announcing a bid. They speak of the actual bid. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep list of bidders?
While there needs to be a mention that 238 cities that made a bid, should most of these cities be listed on this page? It seems like cruft to include all of those cities in a long list.

The 20 finalists need to remain since that it is notable to be on the shortlist. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, seems like unnecessary listcruft to me. There's no long standing interest in the 238 places that bid for it, in 5 years people will care about where the HQ is, not who tried to bid for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Looking at the list of criteria for listcruft, I don't see how keeping the list of cities meets any of them. It's a finite list, verifiable using reliable surces, requires no active maintenance, and is clearly relevant to the topic. I'm not sure why we're trying to guess at what people might find interesting in five years. By way of comparison: if you go on election-related pages like Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2011, you'll see all the candidates. (Holding off restoring the content pending resolution of this discussion). Tom pw (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Before I deleted it, there were perhaps 150 cities listed. I think all 238 bidders should be listed or list non of them (with the existing references for a reader to find the entire list elsewhere). --Frmorrison (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll work to get the full list together. The section below is from the edit history. I'll add things hear until its complete (or nearly complete). Tom pw (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Useful list: Tom pw  (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Submitted
, 238 proposals had been submitted and received by Amazon, representing cities and regions from 54 states, provinces, districts, and territories. The only U.S. states that did not have a locality that submitted a formal proposal were Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. The Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan also declined to bid, along with the Yukon Territory.

 * Anchorage, Alaska
 * Albany-Rensselaer, New York
 * Atlanta, Georgia (regional bid)
 * Atlantic City, New Jersey
 * Austin, Texas
 * Bakersfield, California
 * Baltimore, Maryland (Port Covington)
 * Baltimore, Maryland (Old Goucher / Midtown)
 * Bensalem, Pennsylvania
 * Birmingham, Alabama
 * Boise, Idaho
 * Boston, Massachusetts
 * Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut (joint bid)
 * Bristol Township, Pennsylvania
 * Brunswick, Maine
 * Buffalo–Rochester, New York (joint bid)
 * Calgary, Alberta
 * Camden, New Jersey
 * Charlotte, North Carolina
 * Chicago, Illinois
 * Chula Vista, California
 * Cincinnati, Ohio (joint regional bid)
 * Cleveland, Ohio
 * College Park, Maryland/University of Maryland (joint bid)
 * Columbus, Ohio
 * Cornwall, Ontario
 * Dallas–Fort Worth, Texas (joint regional bid)
 * Danbury, Connecticut
 * Delaware County, Pennsylvania
 * Denver, Colorado
 * Detroit, Michigan (joint international bid with Windsor, Ontario)
 * Edmonton, Alberta
 * El Paso, Texas (regional bid)
 * Enfield, Connecticut
 * Fall River, Massachusetts
 * Foxborough, Massachusetts
 * Fresno, California
 * Gary, Indiana
 * Grand Rapids, Michigan
 * Greenville, South Carolina
 * Halifax, Nova Scotia
 * Hamilton, Ontario
 * Hartford and Stamford, Connecticut (joint bid)
 * Hickory, North Carolina
 * Houston, Texas
 * Huntington Beach, California (joint bid with Long Beach)
 * Indianapolis, Indiana (regional bid)
 * Irvine, California
 * Jacksonville, Florida
 * Jersey City, New Jersey (Kearny Point complex)
 * Kansas City, Missouri
 * Kearny, New Jersey
 * Knoxville, Tennessee
 * Langford, British Columbia
 * Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania (regional bid)
 * Leominster, Massachusetts
 * Long Beach, California (joint bid with Huntington Beach)
 * Los Angeles, California
 * Louisville, Kentucky (regional bid)
 * Lowell, Massachusetts
 * Lynn, Massachusetts
 * Marlborough, Massachusetts
 * Memphis, Tennessee
 * Merrimack Valley, Massachusetts
 * Miami, Florida (regional bid)
 * Milwaukee, Wisconsin
 * Missouri (state bid)
 * Montreal, Quebec
 * Nashville, Tennessee
 * Newark, New Jersey
 * New Bedford, Massachusetts
 * New Brunswick, New Jersey
 * New Hampshire (state bid)
 * New York City, New York
 * Northern Virginia (joint bid between Fairfax and Loudoun counties)
 * Omaha, Nebraska
 * Ottawa, Ontario (regional bid)
 * Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Pomona, California (joint bid)
 * Portland, Oregon (regional bid)
 * Queretaro, Queretaro
 * Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina (joint regional bid)
 * Rhode Island
 * Richmond, Virginia
 * Rockdale, Texas
 * Sacramento, California
 * Salt Lake City, Utah
 * San Diego, California
 * San Francisco Bay Area, California (joint bid)
 * San Jose, California
 * Santa Ana, California
 * Santa Teresa, New Mexico and San Jerónimo, Chihuahua (joint international bid)
 * Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (joint international bid)
 * Scarborough, Maine
 * Scottsboro, Alabama
 * Seattle, Washington suburbs (King and Snohomish counties)
 * Somerville, Massachusetts
 * Springfield, Massachusetts
 * St. Louis, Missouri
 * Stamford, Connecticut
 * Stonecrest, Georgia (will create a new town named Amazon, Georgia if selected)
 * Syracuse (central Mohawk area), New York
 * Tacoma, Washington
 * Tampa Bay, Florida (joint bid with Saint Petersburg)
 * Taunton, Massachusetts
 * Toledo, Ohio (joint bid with Maumee, Ohio)
 * Toronto, Ontario (regional bid)
 * Trenton, New Jersey
 * Tulalip Indian Reservation, Washington
 * Tucson, Arizona
 * Oklahoma City/Tulsa, Oklahoma
 * Vancouver, British Columbia (regional bid)
 * Washington, D.C.
 * Winnipeg, Manitoba
 * Weymouth, Massachusetts
 * Worcester, Massachusetts

Washington Post is reporting that they know the location choice and when it will be announced
Do you see how unethical this is? This is why I’m so adamant about not using Washington Post as a source for Amazon articles. Bezos owns the Washington Post so is it a coincidence that they get this “Breaking News” scoop about it?
 * There is a distinction between newspaper ownership, editorial biases, and the newsroom reporting, something that a reputable newspaper like the Post would respect. The Post's editor himself says that Bezos does not interfere with newsroom reporting, so any accusation of a conflict of interest is itself violating this site's WP:NPOV policy.  Sounder Bruce  23:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m aware Bezos says he doesn’t involve himself with the editorial decisions, but there are manh angles of this that must be taken into consideration. As many reports there are about this Amazon HQ2 process, every single outlet mentions that the DC metropolitan area has an “advantage” because Bezos owns WaPo and DC’s largest residence. (Even if people do use the WaPo source they’re still using an article that relies on speculation, not confirmation.) Amazon as a business sends complimentary daily emails advertising WaPo’s most read articles, exclusively; they don’t do that for any other paper. It’s not like they’re sleeping in separate rooms per se. Anyhow, what a coincidence it is that so-called “people close to the process” would give WaPo the first scoop. Of course in the article no one with all this so-called inside information wanted to comment on record so what’s the point. The outspoken Amazon economic director called these leakers out on the nda and tweeted that WaPo’s speculations are ridiculous. Who knows what’s actually in it because it’s an nda, but if they are in fact violating it then yes it is very biased behavior. If other editors want to come to the talk page I’m sure we can all discuss this thoroughly.Trillfendi (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cite your regulations and copy them here, don't willy nilly wave the the "neutral point of view" title of the Wikipedia policy without explaining specifically which part.

Your statement that to be skeptical of washington post stories is not neutral is fundamentally ridiculous. Basic media literacy requires skepticism. There is no where on this site where an assumed trust of sources is so absolute. Least of all something as silly as "the editor says his boss doesn't interfere so that proves it". Really embarrassing comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A6A0:7D2:3D14:BCC1:73C1:8E25 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Impending rumors should not be reported for an encyclopedic article in any case until more definitive evidence is available. I believe there is a Wikipedia policy on that somewhere but I don't know it so I can't cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A6A0:7D2:3D14:BCC1:73C1:8E25 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * talk, Speculation and unverified rumors will be reverted at all times, IP user. You simply reiterated what I already said. Marty Baron already addressed critical reporting of Amazon and how Bezos feels about it. But now we have actual Amazon executives calling out their irresponsible reporting on the matter and we’re supposed to cite that article without checks and balances from other sources? Comical.Trillfendi (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Why was the first choice New York, and the second Washington,D.C. Both of those places are steeped in political and economic power, national and international; not the best choices for a company that benefits from fast internet service and product delivery. Maybe they aren't that interested in their current customers; maybe they are interested in negotiating more global?

Amazon Japan customer service team
Amazon Japan customer service concern and complain <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Amazon HQ2