text:
Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

The result was: rejected by — Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

 * ... that the creator of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 intended for it to be a statement of "free speech absolutism" to break a "cycle of hate"?

 * ALT1:... that Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 opens with a message of "Je Suis Charlie"?
 * Reviewed: A-Force

Created by The Almightey Drill (talk). Self nominated at 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Note: This article is currently at AfD, here. Harrias talk 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus to keep. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can definitely see this as helping break the cycle of hate. Oil on troubled waters for sure. EEng (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM, make yourself useful and rate the nomination '''tAD''' (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit tells you what is going on here. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What I did on another Wiki has no bearing on a DYK nomination. This hook and article is neutral and factual. It's amazing what lengths people would go to in order to stop something they don't like being on Wikipedia. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not difficult to find at all. You have thrown your own motives into doubt so you will excuse us if we view your contributions with a jaundiced eye. I can never, ever, imagine making that edit. I am surprised, to be honest, that your response was not to say that you made a serious mistake with that edit and you are now editing in a more constructive manner. It's the only response that could possibly earn you the benefit of the doubt now. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg OK, since you insist, let's start with the fact that your fair-use rationales  betray a misunderstanding of the requirement of Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) because the value supplied ("Only to be used in this article") has nothing to do with what NFCC#3 requires. After you fix that I'm sure someone else will come along to do a full review, and when that happens I suggest you remember WP:NOTPLACEFORHUFFYPOSTINGOFSHORTCUTSNOTLIKELYTODISPOSESOMEONETOHELPYOUOUT.  EEng (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Followup: Given the nominator's nasty history as seen in the link Philafrenzy supplies above, I would like to invite other editors to scrutinize the nominated article carefully, to ensure that its appearance on Wikipedia's Main Page "Did You Know" section (if indeed that happens) will serve DYK's purpose of highlighting new content, helping draw new editors in, and other nice things. WP is of course WP:NOTCENSORED, but it's also not WP:THEKNOWINGTOOLOFPROMOTINGNASTINESS. Jus' sayin'. EEng (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Further followup: Turns out the nominator's offensive, primitive, and inflammatory vandalism -- renaming Simple's Muhammed page "Camel raping paedophile cunt" (see link posted above by Philafrenzy) -- was not a one-time thing. Stimulated by his clueless and unapologetic response (also above) I looked again and stumbled onto this followup he made, inserting into that same article an image of a male anus penetrated by a sex toy, with the caption "Picture of Muhammad".

Either of these two edits alone would bring the nominator's judgment into more-than-serious question, but the combination of the two is such that it behooves us to make absolutely certain that this article meets the very highest standards, prior to even considering featuring it on Main Page. Under no circumstances can anything be accepted on the nominator's GF, as we often do here at DYK, given that his prior actions have overdrawn his good-faith account to a negative balance that, frankly, cannot be made good for a very long time, if ever.

I might point out that the nominator, by these edits, managed to simultaneously denigrate three quite disparate groups -- those who hold Muhammed sacred (by associating him with sexual acts the nominator apparently feels are humiliating); those with particular sexual tastes (ditto); and Wikipedia (by using the project as a vehicle for the first two) -- quite an accomplishment, I must say. Tellingly, a glance at the nominator's contributions at Simple suggests a preoccupation with certain sexual practices such as to suggest, in context, that an element of self-hatred may be in play here as well.

Contrary to the nominator's accusation, when I posted my original comment on this nomination ("Yes, I can definitely see this as helping break the cycle of hate. Oil on troubled waters for sure") it was not with a view toward derailing it, but as a lighthearted (if that word may excused) way of alerting my fellow editors to the need for a heightened level of quality control. But the men and women of Charlie Hebdo didn't die so that Wikipedia could feature the kind of dumbfuckery this editor has inflicted on it in the past, and we need to be absolutely certain this isn't a continuation of his sick and destructive little joke.

If the nominator has any sense of decency he'll spare the rest of us that unpleasantness, withdraw the nomination, and slink quietly away. But if not, I invite other editors to opine on how we should approach this matter. (Anyone brave enough to review deserves free QPQ for life.)

EEng (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For the moment the matter of the flawed NFCC rationales (see the above) remains unaddressed, and there's no point bothering with this until that's taken care of. With any luck that will be the passive end of this matter.

Further ALTs:
 * ALT2 ... that Vice News called the developer of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 an "idiot", saying that the game could be "an insanely labour-intensive attempt at being murdered in order to win a Darwin Award"?
 * ALT3 ... that far be it from ALT3 to call the DYK nomination of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 "an insanely labour-intensive attempt at being murdered in order to win a Darwin Award"?

EEng (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Those suggestions fail WP:BLP. DYK nominations should not focus on unduly negative aspects of living people. The faulty image has now been removed, and all we're seeing now is bringing up edits I made on another Wiki when I was messing around with a mate when we were high on nitrous oxide. Where is all this sensitivity coming from all of a sudden? Wikipedia had the Jolly Darkie Target Game as a LEAD DYK in Black History Month, it's not like I'm nominating this for Ramadan! Focus on the article, not the subject. It's new enough, long enough, and balanced. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Words fail. EEng (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You fail '''tAD''' (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You should just be thankful I came up with hook suggestions which had nothing to do with sex. I thought that would be a way to circumnavigate the prudishness on display here. Instead I've ended up with a load of Freudian kink-shaming rather than impartial analysis of whether this article was new enough, long enough and balanced enough. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're acting as if I made that game myself and using DYK for promotional purposes. I didn't create it, and the hook and article are no more promotional than any other on Wikipedia '''tAD''' (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are limits to free speech. You can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and you have a history of doing that. Quite frankly I don't think the time will ever come when your presence here will be free of that taint. Do you frequently edit while intoxicated? If so, how can we trust your editorial judgement? Also, would you necessarily remember every instance of editing while intoxicated? Are you intoxicated now?
 * DYK's purpose is to reward new-content contributors for their efforts toward building the encyclopedia. As mentioned earlier, however, your prior actions created a contributions deficit, toward the paying off of which this article you're created -- even discounting its suspect motives in the context of your prior "work" -- might go 1/100 of 1% of the way. As far as I'm concerned you've got less than zero entitlement to any such reward.
 * To paraphrase, "DYK is not a suicide pact", and I intend to do all I can to make sure other editors see the serious potential for real-world harm here. EEng (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But there is no problem with the article. Do I have any formal notice that I can't take part in DYK because of edits I made for the lulz on another wiki which were reverted instantly? Don't you think the 20,000 visitors to the MSS2015 article would have found something wrong there if there was anything? Can't you look yourself and see if there is anything wrong? This seems to be just digging new rules out of nowhere to prevent something someone might not like from being on Wikipedia. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Real-world harm". Now I've got to seriously ask if you are intoxicated... '''tAD''' (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm stone sober, though you haven't said whether you are.
 * We don't know whether there's a problem with the article, because experience shows your judgment, sobriety, and (yes) motives cannot be trusted, so the highest level of scrutiny must be applied. For example, several of the references aren't in English. Are you fluent in Spanish, German, Dutch, and Indonesian? If not, how do you know what they say?
 * For potential for real-world harm, see Charlie Hebdo shooting and (if you really needed to be told that) WP:CIR. EEng (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're making this up as you go along. I've been here since 2011, made 25k+ edits, been blocked twice, and written 5 Good Articles. I have had no warning of any kind telling me to cease and desist from DYK. Now you're saying Wikipedia could get shot up because of this DYK. Get a fucking reality check. If they do, that's the individual's fault for being mentally unbalanced. This is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And in addition, I did not add all of those foreign sources, other people did. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The nominator is very determined to get this on the front page isn't he? I wonder why? I hope I am not being over-dramatic but I don't think we should underestimate the potential real world implications of this appearing on the front page for 12 hours. Mainstream news sources have not covered this because 1) the creator of the game is clearly an idiot and they probably don't regard it as much of a story, and 2) because they don't want to start a riot or instigate a terrorist attack. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of the DYKs do not appear in mainstream news sources. It's simply babyish that you think this will instigate a terror attack, and that makes Wikipedia take the POV of not reporting facts in order to not upset terrorists. Plus it is supposing that anybody offended by this deliberately offensive game is a terrorist. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * These are good points but it only takes one doesn't it? And unlike you and me the offices of Wikimedia and the people that are employed there are not anonymous. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I missed the bit when an otherwise suitable DYK hook and article is failed because somebody somewhere might take offence to it. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An AfD and Deletion Review found this article notable. Again, we have a case of I don't Like it here '''tAD''' (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I want it on the front page because just like any DYK it is (sighs) new enough, long enough and written in a neutral and verifiable way. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion. We race to Wikipedia headquarters. If you get there first, you can pull the hook. If I get there first, the hook stays. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another suggestion, why don't you put your full name and home address on the talk page claiming responsibility for the article? If not, why not? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I have no obligation or requirement to do so, nor am I the sole contributor to an article which anyone can edit. Anyway, wouldn't they have killed Wikipedia in 2008? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If Wikimedia Commons has a whole category on caricatures of Muhammad, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day why the sudden fear and crybabying right now? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I have never seen such ridiculous partisanship in a DYK nomination review. Either these reviewers are grossly misinformed of what Wikipedia is and is not (mustn't offend those few people who are offended by everything!), or are letting there admiration for Muhammad get in the way of what should be an impartial review. Always changing the tune. First it was the images. Then apparently I'm not permitted to take part in DYK. Then it's suggestions I can't speak all the languages (as if I were the only person writing it). Now we've got to mollycoddle the poor little dears who might let a neutral sentence on a webpage cause them to murder people. An embarrassment, to be honest. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular admiration for Muhammad, and if you think that's behind my (or Philafrenzy's) concern about this then we're back to clue and WP:CIR. On top of all the above, see WP:IRL. Neither I nor Pf is a "reviewer" here -- just pointing out some serious issues. EEng (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Forget these strawman make-'em-up rules, what is wrong with this article and hook? Here comes the DYK checklist
 * 1) New enough
 * 2) Long enough
 * 3) Hook is cited
 * 4) Content is verifiable
 * 5) No abuse of BLP
 * 6) Content is not plagiarised
 * 7) QPQ done
 * 8) Hook is under 200 characters
 * 9) Hook is neutral
 * 10) Hook does not abuse BLP
 * 11) Hook is not about an imminent electoral candidate
 * 12) Hook relates to real world although about fiction
 * 13) No image involved with hook

That's the crux of it '''tAD''' (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before you're not someone whose judgment can be relied on, so we won't we taking your word for it. As one of the sources in the article put it, "if Hebdo had the right to print their controversial cartoons without fear of reprisals, then the right to be a pointlessly provocative asshole should also be upheld" -- maybe some editor who agrees with that will come along and review this nom, so that pointless asshole-ishness can be propagated to Wikipedia's main page, as you so much want.
 * There's a huge difference between this and the "Jolly Darkie Game", which was a commercially offered product that people would apparently spend money for -- that says a lot. The subject of this nomination is an overtly provocative giveaway which, for all we know, everyone on earth has had the good sense to simply leave alone. Everyone but one person, anyway. EEng (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I haven't had any actual warning telling me my judgement can't be relied upon, that's new to me. And again, you are going for the subject rather than the article with what you are saying there. That sure betrays why you're here. I clearly wasn't the only person to notice the game if it has survived two AFDs. All we see here is partisan personal vendettas, cowardice (THEY'RE GONNA KILL US!!!!1!!) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT '''tAD''' (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pointless asshole-ishness" = reporting on an actual notable product in a neutral way. I getcha m8 '''tAD''' (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just review the fucking hook. This isn't a notability test - it passed that TWICE mate '''tAD''' (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating of the game itself = Pointless asshole-ishness.
 * Putting it on WP's main page = Putting pointless asshole-ishness on WP's Main Page.
 * EEng (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again with the strawman. So no DYK can be what Eeng considers to be asshole-ish? That sure ruins the point of a neutral encyclopedia, does it not? Two reviews have found this game notable, leave it to the reader to decide whether it is good or bad. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the subject's notability. I'm questioning whether it serves the purposes of DYK, or WP overall, to feature it on the Main Page. EEng (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me the guidelines on that subject. Go on '''tAD''' (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * "D13: To some extent, DYK approval is a subjective process. No amount of studying rules, almost-rules, and precedents will guarantee approval, nor will violating any rule guarantee disapproval. Just because an unfamiliar criterion is not listed does not mean a nomination cannot be disqualified." EEng (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thus we arrive at our conclusion via Argumentum EengDoesn'tLikeItum '''tAD''' (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Noum, but what it does establishum is thatum considerations, other than those on the checklist you posted earlier, may be brought to bear in deciding whether a hook should appear on the Main Page. Let's waitum to hear what other editors thinkum. EEng (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * It's funny how the moral high ground is being taken by someone who has twice as many blocks as me, and all since August 2014! But of course, I'm the rascal. Two blocks, one of which three years ago. That means I can't be trusted or take part in DYK. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The circumstances of my blocks may be seen on my talk page, and I stand by everything I've done except where you see a retraction or apology (which you do indeed see here and there either on my talkpage or in followup edit summaries -- none involve blaming nitrous oxide, BTW). Anyway, this has nothing to do with moral high ground, but common sense. As I've said, let's waitum to hear what other editors thinkum. EEng (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * If y'all can't stop insulting each other, I'll be willing to close this nom as disruptive. My personal position is similar to Eeng's, though as I still value the idea that any article can be a DYK, as an editor I'm holding my peace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ


text:
cítit

Etymology
, from.

Verb

 * 1)  to feel to use the sense of touch
 * 2)  to smell to sense a smell or smells
 * 3)  to feel

source: wikimedia

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

title: cítit


text:
Timor Leste

Etymology
From,. Cognate of 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Usage notes
Indonesian clearly distinguishes the names for (Timor Leste) and, the latter is known as. Unlike English, these terms are not interchangeable in Indonesian.

title: Timor Leste


text:
Carl Murat Cantave

Carl Murat Cantave is a Haitian politician who served as President of the Senate from 2019 to 2020. He is a member of the KID party, and represents the Artibonite department. Cantave was first elected to the Senate in the 2015–16 Haitian parliamentary election, one of three KID candidates to win Senate seats that election, along with Dieupie Cherubin and Onondieu Louis. He was elected President of the Senate on January 17, 2019, when he received 16 votes from the Senate, defeating his opponent Senator Pierre François Sildor, who received 12.

After ex-Haitian rebel leader Guy Philippe was arrested on drug-trafficking charges and deported to the United States, Cantave led the push for a resolution "energetically condemning" the action, saying the Senate was "humiliated" by it. Cantave was President of the Senate when Prime Minister Jean-Henry Céant was ousted, and was involved with talks with President Jovenel Moïse about the choice of a new prime minister in 2019. During contentious efforts to install Jean-Michel Lapin as Prime Minister, opposing senators accused Cantave of siding with the county's executive office in violation of the Constitution of Haiti; Senator Nènel Cassy said Cantave "has refused to listen to the voice of reason".

Following Lapin's resignation, Cantave opposed Moïse's preferred candidate his replacement as Prime Minister, and instead Cantave and Lower Chamber President Gary Bodeau put Fritz-William Michel forward as a compromise. Confirmation proceedings for Michel in 2019 were contentious, with politicians engaging in physical fights in the national assembly, and Cantave provided instructions to police that only senators would be allowed into the Senate precinct for the proceedings. Cantave himself was forced to retreat to his car as protesters threw rocks at him outside of Parliament, and his foundation offices in Gonaïves were attacked and destroyed during protests.

Prior to his election to the Senate, Cantave worked as Minister of Health in Artibonite. During his time in that position, Cantave worked to secure financial assistance from nongovernmental organizations to renovate La Providence Hospital in Gonaïves after it was severely damaged by Hurricane Jeanne in September 2004.

In 2017 Cantave introduced a measure banning same-sex marriages in Haiti. Offenders could face up to three years in prison. The measure would also make “public demonstration of support” for homosexuality illegal. The bill was approved by the Haitian Senate.

In September 2019 Cantave was involved in a scandal concerning bribery accusations. Senator Sorel Jacinthe publicly accused Cantave of offering him and four other senators money to vote in favor of President Jovenel Moïse's new prime minister Fritz William Michel. Cantave denied the accusations.

title: Carl Murat Cantave


text:
Save the Day

Save the Day may refer to:

 * Save the Day, a video game developed by Scottish company Denki
 * "Save the Day" (Mariah Carey song), featuring Lauryn Hill (2020)
 * "Save the Day" (The Living End song) (1998)
 * "Save the Day", a song by Selena Gomez from Stars Dance (2013)
 * "Save the Day", a song by Ski Mask the Slump God and Jacquees featuring Coi Leray and LouGotCash from Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
 * Saves the Day, a New Jersey rock band

title: Save the Day


text:
User:Cat-five

Useful pages

 * Special:OldReviewedPages | Special:AdvancedReviewLog | Special:ValidationStatistics - pages with various Reviewing pending changes pages
 * Template messages - listing of useable templates
 * Crystal_Clear - a page listing all the icons in the Crystal Clear Icon set (which I use for most of my internal templates)

 * X! Tools - a suite of tools including an edit counter, a page created counter, and
 * Dab solver - a great tool for helping to eliminate unnecessary links to disambiguations
 * User Analysis Tool an edit counter/analyzer]

Licensing
See:User:Cat-five/licensing __NOINDEX__

title: User:Cat-five


text:
Cookbook:Tahini Goddess Dressing

This tahini goddess dressing is similar to several commercial brands. It is excellent on salad and rice or as a marinade.

Ingredients

 * 1⅓ cup canola oil
 * ⅔ cup water
 * 6 tbsp tahini
 * 6 tbsp cider vinegar
 * 4 tbsp lemon juice
 * 5 tbsp soy sauce
 * 6 cloves garlic
 * ⅛ tsp xanthan gum

 * 2 tbsp sesame seeds, toasted
 * 2 tbsp parsley
 * 2 tbsp chives

Procedure

 * 1) In a blender, combine the oil, water, tahini, vinegar, lemon juice, soy sauce, garlic, and xanthan gum. Blend on high for about 2 minutes. You will see a change in the texture of the mixture as the xanthan gum starts to work, producing a very smooth, creamy appearance.
 * 2) Add the sesame seeds, parsley, and chives. Blend on low, just until mixed.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Xanthan gum is available in many grocery stores in the baking or grain sections.
 * Be careful with the xanthan gum; too much and the mixture will turn into a rubbery glob, too little and the oil and water will separate.
 * If brand substitutions are made, the recipe may need adjustment.
 * This dressing has a very strong flavors that need to be balanced. When in balance, the flavor really explodes.

title: Cookbook:Tahini Goddess Dressing


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Walker

The result was   keep. Consensus leans towards keep on this nomination. Nakon 03:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC) The results was No consensus. Nakon 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Lo Walker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only claim to fame is being mayor of a 60k population town; doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment Ohnoitsjamie sought to kill five Bossier City mayor articles in a period of seven minutes on Feb. 10. He moved against Lo Walker at the time .51; against Jake W. Cameron at .47, at Marvin Anding at .49, at Hoffman fuller at .46, and Burgess McCranie at .44. I suppose this means 12:51 a.m. for Mr. Walker but am not sure, maybe 12:51 p.m. How could he read and analyze five revised articles in seven minutes? Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) He also moved against George Nattin at .52.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN Deunanknute (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment approximately an hour after the nominations for deletion by ohnoitsjamie, User:Deunanknute posted the line: delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Several of those "delete" statements for all six Bossier City mayors being challenged were made in the same minute of time. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * weak delete has more news coverage than most local mayors, but most of it is routine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete per nom. Nothing that sets this small-town mayor above the crowd. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep The notability rules say nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. There are ten articles on Bossier City mayors, all but two recently submitted.

Bangor, Maine, a city about half the size of Bossier City, has eight mayors on Wikipedia and twelve city council members. Many times city council members are excluded from Wikipedia unless they have held other offices. There are no articles on Bossier City Council members.

Here is a listing of certain cities, followed by population, and number of mayoral Wikipedia articles:
 * Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
 * Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
 * Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
 * Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
 * New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
 * Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
 * Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
 * Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
 * Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
 * Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
 * Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
 * Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
 * East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
 * Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13
 * Wilmington, Delaware, 70,000, 10
 * Santa Fe, New Mexico, 70,000, 10
 * Ashland, Kentucky, 22,000, 27
 * Melbourne, Florida, 76,000, 33
 * Fairbanks, Alaska, 32,000, 7
 * Missoula, Montana, 66,000, 16
 * Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 59,000, 41

So Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000 10 is consistent with the above listing.

All these Bossier City mayors should be considered notable. There is considerable sourcing on Mr. Walker. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX.
 * Comment. Have you actually examined the "sources"? The only one that even edges into the same county as notability is from a local newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those towns, you'll see that most of them went on to do more notable things (i.e., become a governor or member of congress). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'." This referenced article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence does say more than that. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment- is Bossier City, Louisiana regionally prominent? And again, how is this person notable? Deunanknute (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Note In Hoboken, New Jersey, smaller than Bossier City, seventeen of 22 mayors with Wikipedia articles served in no higher office; a few had been on the city council before becoming mayors. Five others also held other offices, mostly in the state legislature. There is nothing in the Wikipedia rules about mayors and population of their cities. Mr. Walker is well-known regionally and should qualify as the first Republican mayor of Bossier City if other grounds are insufficient.Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Further comment. Four of the five mayors with Wikipedia articles of Scranton, Pennsylvania, about 10,000 larger than Bossier City, served in no higher position than mayor. A sixth, Terence V. Powderly was also a figure in organized labor. All the Scranton and Bossier City mayors should be declared notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment These articles were probably all nominated at the same time for the same reason I've been commenting at the same time; for a group of very similar articles, it's sometimes easier to research them together. Also, please only add comments to the end of a discussion. Deunanknute (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Bossier City is not regionally important enough of populous enough to justify this article. Other stuff exists is not a workable argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bossier City is either the second or third fast-growing city in the state has been for some time. The population is believed to be past 65,000. You should not demean the city because of its size. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to the city There is never a need to delete mayor articles when they can be redirected to the city article and a list made there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Elected mayor of a city of 60,000 people should be sufficient for a WP:Politician pass as an important local figure. Here's my personal benchmark: 50,000+ for mayor, 100,000+ for city councillor. Carrite (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. With all respect to the good faith of every participant here, I sense a tendency to equate "city of regional importance" with "city I've heard of". From the standpoint of Wikipedians based in East and West Coast urban centers, or outside the USA, Louisiana occupies little mind space, and "Bossier City" is a ridiculous-sounding name. To those unfamiliar with the region, it doesn't evoke a city larger than (say) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (which it is).  We should pay attention to the population numbers and avoid jumping to an impressionistic conclusion. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Small-town mayors are generally not notable. I see a "region" as being an area several states in size, Shreveport would be a city of "regional prominence", Bossier City is not. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a useful rebuttal. Geogene (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The Wikipedia rules do not mention "small-town mayors" or population of cities. Bossier City is some 65,000 as is the ninth largest in the state. Such mayors come under "local politicians" with adequate media coverage. Mr. Walker hence qualifies. He could also qualify as the first ever Republican mayor of the city.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true, I was referring to common AfD outcomes, not the policy. The policy says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. (WP:GNG) We can disagree on the definition of significant there, but I don't consider that the same as saying, in effect, "If I can find some sources, then this person is notable." As for being notable for being the first Republican mayor there, wouldn't that argument imply that the first Republican (Democrat/Libertarian/Green/etc) elected mayor in any city of any size would be automatically notable for party affiliation alone? Geogene (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. First Republican in South, first black, first woman mayor quality on that basis alone. The sources are independent of the subject.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so the above remark doesn't cause confusion, Lo Walker is neither black nor a woman. But being elected as a Republican in the South is the same kind of thing? Geogene (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By 2005, being elected as a Republican in the South was hardly surprising. You almost wonder, what took them so long? --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Notice Some seven new paragraphs have been added to the article. Mr. Walker is the first Republican mayor of Bossier City. At one time this was an unusual development.Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete He is NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, since he was not mayor of a city of regional prominence; Bossier City isn't even the parish seat. And population numbers are irrelevant; despite assertions that 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever population makes a mayor automatically notable, no such number has ever achieved consensus. It doesn't matter if some other mayors of some other cities have articles; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I am saying "weak delete" because there is one media story significantly about him - a human interest story about him (at age 81) dating a 79-year-old former sweetheart. Otherwise coverage is routine and local. The fact that he is the first Republican mayor of his particular town is not noteworthy; this is an international encyclopedia after all, not a chronicle of every political development in every small-to-medium-sized town in every country in the world.. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would also be OK with Richard Arthur Norton's suggestion (above) of a redirect to the city article (which surprisingly does not have a list of its former mayors, but it could). --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. (1) I've read a great many Wikipedia articles on specific cities, and very, very few of them feature a complete list of past mayors.  (2) It seems a bit disingenuous to complain that Bossier City isn't the parish seat, when it has the same name as the parish and contains the majority of the parish's population.  (3) Cities are typically ranked and classified based on population; I know there's no precise threshold, but the more people a city has, the more important it is.  If someone were to discuss the relative importance of say Phoenix and Tucson, the first thing mentioned would be their populations. Kestenbaum (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think population numbers count, but there are other factors that can be used to define "prominence". Cultural importance, broadly defined, is one. If hardly anyone outside of an area has heard about a particular city, that says something meaningful about that city's prominence that population comparisons don't capture. Geogene (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just added Washington Times source on Mr. Walker. There is a template of Bossier City mayors at the bottom of the Bossier City article. The article is too long to redirect to the Bossier City page itself.Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Also added Biz Magazine. Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC) and The Forum Newsweekly.Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


text:
Cookbook:Oven

| Appliances

An oven is a closed compartment for baking and broiling. Usually a cooktop is attached to the top.

Gas
Some ovens are heated by burning gas. Water is a byproduct of the burning of gas, and this creates a humid environment inside the oven. While this reduces the need to cover foods to prevent drying, it also prevents drying when drying is desired. Gas ovens generally provide poor support for broiling. Gas fuel is cheaper than electricity in some areas, and gas ovens often come with the generally desirable gas cooktops.

title: Cookbook:Oven


text:
Malignant (disambiguation)

Malignant refers to malignancy, the tendency of a medical condition to become progressively worse.

Malignant may also refer to:

 * Malignant (2013 film), an American horror film directed by Brian Avenet-Bradley
 * Malignant (2021 film), an American horror film directed by James Wan
 * "Malignant" (Law & Order: Criminal Intent), an episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent
 * Malignant: How Cancer Becomes Us, a 2013 book by S. Lochlann Jain

title: Malignant (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Drew Tyler Bell

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Drew Tyler Bell. 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/20141208223051/http://www.iemmys.tv/news_item.aspx?id=43 to http://www.iemmys.tv/news_item.aspx?id=43

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Drew Tyler Bell


text:
Talk:Carmen Labaki

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Carmen Labaki. 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/20160303232817/http://www.centre-catholique.com/newsdetails.asp?newid=10514 to http://www.centre-catholique.com/newsdetails.asp?newid=10514

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Carmen Labaki


text:
Message in a Box: The Complete Recordings

Message in a Box: The Complete Recordings is a four-CD box set by the Police, containing all five of their studio albums in chronological order, as well as non-album singles, non-album B-sides, and tracks from various compilation albums and the Brimstone & Treacle soundtrack (1982). The box set also comes with a 68-page booklet.

Contents
The box set states that it 'contains every single song the Police ever released' but it excludes ten officially released tracks from before its release in 1993:
 * "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da" (Spanish Version) (4:00) and "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da" (Japanese Version) (4:00) were released in the US in 1981 as a double A-side 7", with Sting singing the song in both Spanish and Japanese (AM-25000).
 * "Truth Hits Everybody" (Remix) (3:30) appeared as the A-side of the bonus single, which was included in the UK 7" limited edition double pack of "Every Breath You Take" (AM 117/AM*01).
 * "Every Breath You Take" (Backing Track) (4:05) and "Roxanne" (Backing Track) (3:11) were released in Japan in 1983 as a double A-side 7" (AMP-782).
 * "Wrapped Around Your Finger" (Live Version) (5:22) from Atlanta in 1983 was included on the US 12" Promo of "Wrapped Around Your Finger" (SP-17264).
 * "Don't Stand So Close to Me '86" (4:47) appeared as the A-side of the UK 7" of "Don't Stand So Close to Me '86" (AMY 354) and then released on the album Every Breath You Take: The Singles was not included on the UK version of the box set.
 * "Don't Stand So Close To Me" (Live) (3:40) from Atlanta in 1983, appeared as the B-side of the UK 7" of "Don't Stand So Close to Me '86" (AMY 354).
 * "Don't Stand So Close To Me '86" (Dance Mix) (6:32) appeared on the A-side of the UK 12" of "Don't Stand So Close To Me '86" (AMY 354) was not included on the US version of the box set. There is no edition of the box set that includes both the standard version and the Dance Mix of "Don't Stand So Close To Me '86".
 * "Can't Stand Losing You" (Live) (5:30) from the Paris Theatre, London in 1979, appeared on the 1988 Strange Fruit Compilation UK CD 21Years of Alternative Radio1 (SFRCD 200).
 * "Shambelle" (AMS 8164) misses the beginning high hat introduction played by Stewart Copeland making the song incomplete. The full version (5:10) was later released on the Every Move You Make: The Studio Recordings box set released in 2018.

Reception
Allmusic gave resounding approval to the set, going so far as to claim that all 78 songs are "timeless classics," making it the ideal purchase for the casual listener. They also praised the booklet included, especially the Police biography, and asserted that the digital remastering is so superior to the sound quality of the original releases that they would recommend the purchase even to those who already have all the recordings on the box set.

Personnel

 * The Police

 * Stewart Copeland – drums, percussion, keyboards, backing vocals, guitar on "Fall Out", "Nothing Achieving", "It's Alright for You" and "A Sermon", lead vocal on "On Any Other Day", spoken word on "Does Everyone Stare"
 * Sting – bass guitar, keyboards, saxophone, oboe, lead and backing vocals, harmonica on "So Lonely", drum machine on "Synchronicity I"
 * Andy Summers – guitar, keyboards, bass guitar on "Behind My Camel", backing vocals, piano on "Does Everyone Stare" and "Be My Girl – Sally", spoken word on "Friends", "Dead End Job" and "Be My Girl – Sally", lead vocals on "Mother" and "Someone to Talk To"

 * Additional

 * Henry Padovani – guitar on "Fall Out" and "Nothing Achieving"
 * John Sinclair – piano on "Hole in My Life" and "Masoko Tanga"
 * Jean Russell – piano on "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic"
 * Olaf Kübler – saxophone on "Low Life"
 * Suzanna Hamilton – screaming on "A Kind of Loving"

Production
 * Dave Collins – Mastering


text:
Patricio Saavedra

Patricio Saavedra (born 11 January 1947) is a Chilean hurdler. He competed in the men's 110 metres hurdles at the 1968 Summer Olympics.

title: Patricio Saavedra


text:
celeries

Usage notes
The plural is normally only used in referring to different kinds of celery; several pieces of the same kind would be referred to as "celery", used as a mass noun.

title: celeries


text:
User:Nkundra91/sandbox

This is a personal Sandbox Page on Wikipedia, solely for Mr Nikhil Kundra. Nikhil Kundra is a citizen of India who was born and brought up in National Capital Territory, Delhi.

Nikhil Kundra is a dynamic personality with great experience in the field of Digital Marketing. He completed his schooling from Prabhu Dayal Public School, Shalimar Bagh from Science Stream in CBSE Board.

Nikhil Kundra, completed his degree from University of Delhi in Bachelors degree in Science (B.Sc) with Chemistry Hons course. After completing his graduation degree, he prepared for UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) and also qualified CDS (Combined Defence Services Exam) exam for serving Indian Army. Eventually he couldn't proceed with the training and had to step down.

Determined with the zeal to be productive in life, he started his career as a content writer wherein he wrote, edited content for websites that still rank good on Google index.

He got proficient with Google Analytics and Google Webmaster Tools and became a leading SEO Expert, guiding different brands to reach PR 1 on Google Search Engine.

With an experience of 8 years in Internet Marketing, he worked different Social Media Platforms on Facebook Ads, Google Ads, WhatsApp Marketing, Technical SEO and Marketing Automation. His area of interest still lies in Search Engine Optimization, where he utilizes his skills to improve website rankings and saves organisations from investing much on Google Search Ads.

In the course of his journey, he started a Facebook Page with the name Dank Humor where he still shares memes and humor content. The page has got 30,000 plus subscribers. Dank Humor has also got its presence on Instagram.

Excellent with Automation and Marketing workflow designing, Mr Kundra designed and developed Marketing Automation for PRATHAM Test Prep with a leading marketing automation company Leadsquared.

He is a travel enthusiast and likes to remain solo traveller. He has visited many prominent destinations in India and Abroad including foreign destinations like Nepal, Dubai, France, Czech Republic, Italy. On asking about his next trip, he says "I wish to conquer the highest peak of the world, Mount Everest". "Would also love to explore the serenity and beauty of African Nations including, Kenya, Zambia, Tanzania, Madgascar amongst other.

He is quite on Quora, where he answers to every single query related to Nature, Google SEO, Brand Building, Delhi, India, Career Counselling, Europe, Sarcasm and other topics of his interest.

He recently launched a backlinking eMagazine website named, Oh Puhleeez. Oh Puhleeez, the blogging website has got various categories for Blog Submissions that have back linking feature to shift traffic from one website to another. Guest users can also publish their articles to promote their brand, self or websites.

title: User:Nkundra91/sandbox


text:
Luanne Van Werven

Luanne Miller Van Werven (born 1957) is an American politician from Washington. Van Werven is a former Republican member of Washington House of Representatives for District 42. Van Werven served from January 12, 2015 to January 11, 2021. She was elected vice chair of the Washington State Republican Party in January 2013 and served as interim chair from July to August later that year, when she lost the position to Susan Hutchison. She previously served as chair of the Party in Whatcom County.

In the 2017–2018 Legislative Year, Van Werven sponsored HB 1775, which would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks of gestation. This act would be known and cited as the "Washington pain capable unborn child protection act". The bill was never voted on.

title: Luanne Van Werven


text:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-21 Opie and Anthony

Mediation Case: 2006-03-21 Opie and Anthony
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Tufflaw 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Opie and Anthony

 * Who's involved?
 * Primarily User:Tufflaw and User:Attention whore, with many first-time anonymous editors getting involved as well

 * What's going on?
 * The article is about a radio talk show on satellite radio. The dispute is whether information should be included in the article that one of the DJs (Anthony) is currently (allegedly) dating a woman who previously appeared on the show and engaged in oral sex with a former intern of the show.  While there is audio available of this encounter, there is no citable evidence that Anthony is currently dating this woman.  It should also be noted that essentially an "invitation to vandalize" this page was posted at.

 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Pursuant to WP:LIVING and WP:VERIFY, I believe that this information should not be included in the article. The article was protected two weeks ago following a revert war, and currently contains the disputed information.  Significant discussion was held at the article's talk page to no avail.  I posted an RFC with no response.

 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * I have no problem being open about this, any contact can come at my talk page or on the article's talk page, where I will be linking to this page.

 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

 * Yes

Mediator response

 * 1) Could you (both, individually) please tell me:
 * 2) * in an encyclical context, why is/is not the sex life of the subject relevant?
 * 3) * in an encyclical context, why it is important to mention who Anthony is dating?
 * 4) Is either assertion citable? I'm not asking for "proof", I'm asking for a citation. (Rolling Stone Magazine or whatever)
 * -- Fullstop 15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
The disputed content can be found at this diff Tufflaw 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Discussion

 * 1) I don't believe the sex life of the subject is relevant or important in terms of this article.  It has nothing to do with the show itself, nor does it bear any importance to a encyclopedic record of the show or of Anthony himself.  If Anthony made it an issue with respect to the show, I would agree that would certainly make it relevant, but he hasn't and therefore I submit it isn't.
 * 2) To my knowledge, neither of these assertions are citable.
 * -- Tufflaw 17:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

here is the audio

 * Since User:Attention whore et al. are not willing to participate in mediation, I'm closing the case with the following comment(s):
 * Wikipedia is not a fan-site (see also: WP:NOT)
 * It is Wikipedia policy that articles only include verifyable information.
 * Edits which could be considered defamatory or libellous ought to be reported, with details of the article and error, to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the info team].
 * In view of the potential for damage to Wikipedia's integrity, I suggest that - should such edits continue - you make a request for page semi-protection.
 * -- Fullstop 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


text:
Summer of Love

Proper noun

 * 1) The summer of 1967, noted for its love-ins and the flourishing of the hippie movement.

Derived terms

 * Second Summer of Love

title: Summer of Love


text:
préciser

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to specify
 * 2)  to clarify
 * 3)  to point out
 * 4)  to take shape, become clear
 * 1)  to point out
 * 2)  to take shape, become clear
 * 1)  to take shape, become clear

title: préciser


text:
1956 Iowa State Cyclones football team

The 1956 Iowa State Cyclones football team represented Iowa State College of Agricultural and Mechanic Arts (later renamed Iowa State University) in the Big Seven Conference during the 1956 college football season. In their third and final year under head coach Vince DiFrancesca, the Cyclones compiled a 2–8 record (0–6 against conference opponents), finished in last place in the conference, and were outscored by their opponents by a combined total of 260 to 92. They played their home games at Clyde Williams Field in Ames, Iowa.

The team's regular starting lineup on offense consisted of left end Brian Dennis, left tackle Oliver Sparks, left guard Ron Bredeson, center Frank Powell, right guard Ralph Losee, right tackle Andris Poncius, right end Gale Gibson, quarterback Charles Martin, left halfback Jack Hansen, right halfback Bob Harden, and fullback Marv Walter. Chuck Muelhaupt and Oliver Sparks were the team captains.

The team's statistical leaders included Bob Harden with 244 rushing yards and 24 points (four touchdowns), Phil Hill with 205 passing yards, and John Scheldrup with 140 receiving yards. No Iowa State players were selected as first-team all-conference players.

title: 1956 Iowa State Cyclones football team


text:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333/Archive

09 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

 * (removed SqueakBox as master)

 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Wikistalk shows an interesting crossover of articles, not only a high concentration of pedophilia/age of consent related articles but more diverse articles such as 13 (number), Sigmund Freud and Great Famine (Ireland) which are all red flags given the prior high concentration of common articles. RJR3333 was created and used during SqueakBox's indef block, it raises the question as to whether SqueakBox should have been unblocked in the first place. Simiarly the ongoing ANI thread at ANI (in particular the ANI sub-section shows ongoing problems in the same areas as SqueakBox has previously been involved in conflict, and RJR3333 may well have been facing entirely different sanctions if the connection was known. 2 lines of K  303  08:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
 * Like I stated at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: No, SqueakBox was a good editor. One who, if talking about the same SqueakBox, was wrongly reported as being pro-pedophilia by Fox News (although that Fox News report was late about the pedophilia problem anyway, seeing as it was taken care of a couple of years before 2010 and hasn't been rampant since that time). See here. In fact, I just got through talking with him this past week (Wednesday) about his departure. But RJR3333 is indeed a sockpuppet. His original account is User:FDR. In addition to comparing these diffs, and FDR's sudden reappearance in light of RJR3333's recent editing troubles, compare the bulk of their contributions and you'll see what I mean. I interacted with FDR last year as well. See here. And I feel stupid for not having seen his tampering with RJR3333's user page for what it was. But FDR was so unbelievably destructive that it didn't occur to me that he could be the relatively "new" and well-meaning editor RJR3333. And FDR's edits definitely show what I mean about RJR3333's belief that the age of consent should be 18 across the board and that a person should be 18 (and not 16) to be diagnosed with pedophilia -- beliefs he claims not to have under his RJR3333 account, although I have seen both accounts display such beliefs. Flyer22 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt FDR is a sock based on his July edits alone, but a further Wikistalk report raises more questions about whether SqueakBox and FDR/RJR3333 are related. 2 lines of K  303  08:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as stated at the noticeboard, I worked with SqueakBox for years on pedophilia and child sexual abuse articles...and I therefore know the personalities of these two editors. They are very different, especially seeing that SqueakBox, unlike RJR3333, understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to appropriately edit Wikipedia. SqueakBox and RJR3333's editing and personalities are not similar. And there will be no match in that regard. There will be when comparing FDR and RJR3333. Flyer22 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "SqueakBox . . . understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to appropriately edit Wikipedia"? Really? Based on a previous interaction between FDR and SqueakBox I've got a bit of doubt they are in fact the same editor now (since I doubt SqueakBox has the sophistication to set something like that up a long time in advance), but might be an idea to clear up any doubt though. 2 lines of K  303  08:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, even with his extensive blocklog, SqueakBox understands Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Anyone who has read the noticeboard case against RJR3333 should be able to see that RJR3333 has WP:COMPETENCE issues. A lot of good Wikipedia editors have been excessively blocked. That doesn't mean that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. RJR3333 truly does not. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note the very different wikichecker results: http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=SqueakBox&l=350 and http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=RJR3333&l=all . RJR and SB have very different times they tend to edit. I haven't looked at editing style, but this is a very strong indication this is not the same person. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that FDR and me are the same person. However, when I changed the age of consent in North America article from 16 to 18, that was a joke/vandalism. I stand by saying that Flyer22's claim that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 18 is false, because that's the opposite of my opinion. That is not an indication of my position. Sometimes when I was in a silly mood I vandalized wikipedia, but that's not a reflection of my political views.  --RJR3333 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, Malke2010 and off2riorob/youreallycan both argued that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being younger than this age, and my edits to the Roman Polanski article, for example, would tend to suggest that bias, if anything. --RJR3333 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And no, I'm not Squeakbox, and I'll stop using FDR and all my other wikipedia accounts and only edit from this one from now on. And I'll stop making jokes like the one changing age of majority in the USA from 16 to 18 and the one about Sigmund Frued being the Democrats candidate instead of Kerry. --RJR3333 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the post I was referring that argues against Flyer22's accusation that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 16, 17, or 18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_npov. I reworded the statement that Polanski sexually abused the under 16 girl to having sexual contact with her, to make it more npov. I also reworded the pedophilia article's common definition of pedophilia as sexual abuse of any minor to sexual contact with any minor to make it more npov. So Flyer22's accusation of bias against me is false. And this fact is relevant because one of the reasons she proposed the topic ban for me was this non-existent bias. --RJR3333 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No matter what you state, FDR displayed the type of bias you claim that you don't have. And I've seen your RJR3333 account display the same bias. But this discussion is not about that anyway. Not to mention, your bias was the least of reasons I was considering proposing a topic ban on you. And now I have nothing more to state to you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I should be blocked because I agree to stop using sockpuppets. And I have many well sourced improvements to wikipedia's articles and I can show evidence that many of contributions have been good. Also I can demonstrate that the majority of Flyer22's accusations against me, with the exception of sockpuppetry, are false, and I can demonstrate that Flyer22 has been biased against me from the very beginning. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that after I told the user that I thought his agreement to stop socking now was disingenuous because he only admitted to it after he was caught (and was about to be CU'd), now he's just admitted to two more in this diff: User:LordKitchener16 and User:KingLeopold'sGhost. If we don't find a connection to Squeakbox, the clerk may want to move this report to a new page with RJR (or whoever is chronologically first) as a different sockmaster. And indef the socks, and strongly consider indeffing the main account. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on the below confirmation of a sock of SqueakBox's, we should keep in mind WP:Clean start. SqueakBox left his former account, there wasn't a block that forced him to leave it, and, if we state that the other editor is him, he is not editing in the same contentious areas that he was before. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that RJR3333 said that User:Revenues-expense=netincome was another sock of his. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * primarily to check for sleepers since he has already admitted socking. I've reviewed this editors contribs in a fair amount of detail at his previous request on my talk page, which was not in dispute so I don't consider myself involved, just informed. Looking at the number of intersects  makes the case for abuse quite clear.  I will be happy to entertain any arguments why all socks and master shouldn't be indef blocked, but I would recommend making the arguments very quickly. -  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©  21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For starters, it appears that and his small army of socks is ❌ to SqueakBox. That said, the following are ✅ socks of :
 * As such, I have blocked all three. I will leave the decision to block the master up to another administrator. That said, I would support blocking. Additionally, while running checks I did come across a possible SqueakBox sock, that of . While they are technically ✅, I want to stress that a thorough review of their contributions should be made before they are blocked (if blocked at all). Tiptoety  talk 17:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SympatheticIsolation is not a SqueakBox sock as their is no coinciding of edits, ie SqueakBox stopped and SympatheticIsolation started, end of story. Why? Because of pro pedophiles trolling around Fox News. None of these other accounts mentioned have any connection to SqueakBox. I havent edited peophile articles in yrs. Why should I be blocked for stopping editing as SqueakBox given the Fox News trolling, I have a right to not be trolled by these people for doing hard workl on wikipedia. See Clean start. This whole page strikes me as likely to be trolling by the same people who trolled SqueakBox via Fox News. It was my intention to request SqueakBox's edits be tranferred into my name. So let me make it clear that this is SympatheticIsolation's last edit, when i edit again I will one inform one admin of my new name, and eventually try to get my edits integrated. Truly disgusted. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As such, I have blocked all three. I will leave the decision to block the master up to another administrator. That said, I would support blocking. Additionally, while running checks I did come across a possible SqueakBox sock, that of . While they are technically ✅, I want to stress that a thorough review of their contributions should be made before they are blocked (if blocked at all). Tiptoety  talk 17:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SympatheticIsolation is not a SqueakBox sock as their is no coinciding of edits, ie SqueakBox stopped and SympatheticIsolation started, end of story. Why? Because of pro pedophiles trolling around Fox News. None of these other accounts mentioned have any connection to SqueakBox. I havent edited peophile articles in yrs. Why should I be blocked for stopping editing as SqueakBox given the Fox News trolling, I have a right to not be trolled by these people for doing hard workl on wikipedia. See Clean start. This whole page strikes me as likely to be trolling by the same people who trolled SqueakBox via Fox News. It was my intention to request SqueakBox's edits be tranferred into my name. So let me make it clear that this is SympatheticIsolation's last edit, when i edit again I will one inform one admin of my new name, and eventually try to get my edits integrated. Truly disgusted. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SympatheticIsolation is not a SqueakBox sock as their is no coinciding of edits, ie SqueakBox stopped and SympatheticIsolation started, end of story. Why? Because of pro pedophiles trolling around Fox News. None of these other accounts mentioned have any connection to SqueakBox. I havent edited peophile articles in yrs. Why should I be blocked for stopping editing as SqueakBox given the Fox News trolling, I have a right to not be trolled by these people for doing hard workl on wikipedia. See Clean start. This whole page strikes me as likely to be trolling by the same people who trolled SqueakBox via Fox News. It was my intention to request SqueakBox's edits be tranferred into my name. So let me make it clear that this is SympatheticIsolation's last edit, when i edit again I will one inform one admin of my new name, and eventually try to get my edits integrated. Truly disgusted. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * At this point, Squeakbox is no longer a concern for the purpose of this SPI. I'm currently debating what to do with the master at this moment. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©  00:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have indef blocked the master, RJR here. There is enough evidence here to show he has used multiple accounts abusively, even as far as admitting it was for the purpose of "joke vandalism" and other improper uses.  He did not admit the socks until the 11th hour, when he already knew he would be discovered.  There is also a general sense of cluelessness that leads me to believe that this user would continue to use multiple accounts in an abusive manner as they don't seem to have any sense of genuine remorse for their actions, but only regret they were caught.  I have tried to find any excuse, any reason to not block them for an indefinite period of time and I was not able to.  The net contributions are far outweighed by the abuse here.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©  00:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

15 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User showed up on an article RJR3333 was working on shortly after RJR3333 was blocked, and did a series of minor edits on another article to get the account autoconfirmed. The user also has an odd familiarity with formatting and knowledge of accounts previously in conflict with RJR3333 — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 23:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Here the editor seems to accept the accusation that he is a a sockpuppet of USER:RJR3333. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here threatening continuing sockpuppetry. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All registered accounts are ✅, and Nastassja Kinski has been full-protected for 3 days. --MuZemike 03:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I am currently keeping the Roman Polanski article at semi-protection, but I am considering full-protection of that, as well. --MuZemike 04:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

18 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Flyer22 has notified me to the existence of this other possible account on my talk page but is not sure how to start up an SPI case. This account became active shortly after the previously discovered socks were blocked. It seems he has a dynamic IP that will have to be range blocked. — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

I thank Ryulong for taking the initiative and starting another case against this user. It's not that I didn't know how to start a case, but I was conflicted about going about it and unsure about the range-blocking aspect. See this explanation on Ryulong's talk page for why I'm not interested in reporting this user all the time.

As I stated to Ryulong, this user has demonstrated that he will not stop sockpuppeting. Even though he also says, in that link, that he will accept the WP:OFFER, it would appear that it is too late for that. Unless the offer was to take effect at the start of August, the condition was that he not sockpuppet from the time the offer was made. Not only did he not abide by that offer (assuming that it was effective immediately), he (today) continued to sockpuppet just three hours after saying that he guesses he "should just wait six months." And for a user who claims that he'd rather stay away from me, it then makes no sense that he would show up at the Asexuality article. An article I have heavily edited, and I am quite certain that he knows that. Even showing back up at the To Catch a Predator article was obviously a dumb decision. Besides range-blocking, I don't see how this user can be stopped...other than consistently blocking him and full-protecting all the articles he is interested in editing, which wouldn't be fair to others interested in editing those articles. Range-blocking may affect some people interested in editing Wikipedia, but I believe that it will affect significantly less people and that it is obviously more efficient in taking care of this user. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you range block me I'll just use someone else's computer and edit in a different topic area and make sure you haven't edited the articles I do...you won't know who's me and who isn't, since I'm not committing vandalism anymore you would do well to just leave me alone and stop trying to get me banned. --TheWeatherman39 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is blocked, but I guess he's asking us for a rangeblock now. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, per above and since he's popped back up yet again...this time as Lucifergavemeag. And, RJR3333, getting another's computer won't help unless you are in a different location. And even then, you are likely going to be in the same country/city and not very far from your residence, and a close connection will still be determined. There will be that and your behavior. And spare us your claims of having changed. I doubt that you won't ever be committing vandalism here anymore, just as I doubt that you will/can ever stop sockpuppeting. No one is trying to get you banned. You are indefinitely blocked, what some editors already refer to as banned. I made clear above that I am not looking to report you every time I spot you and that I won't be doing that unless your editing is so disruptive that it calls for it. But you are the one choosing to show up and edit in a way that makes it obvious who you are. Even if you weren't so very obvious, I'd still know who you are. I know the way that you edit and I know that you sometimes intentionally seek a confrontation with me, such as increasing the likelihood of that by editing the Asexuality article. If a "new editor" pops up to suddenly comment negatively on my work, for example, I'm going to know that it's you. Not only by that fact, but by the way that you type and edit, such as how you needlessly indent a few spaces away when replying, and how I'm often correcting that or your lack of indenting. You do these things more than any other editor I've come across on Wikipedia. And your logic, the way you carry yourself (for example, needing to ask others if your edits are okay, almost as though you are a child seeking approval or one who fears being reprimanded), is very peculiar and therefore obviously identifiable. You won't fool me, even if you think you have by the fact that I've ignored you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your silly rangeblock is not going to help because I'm in a completely different location from where the original ip you blocked was. And even within my city there is no similarity whatsoever between many of the ip addresses there, I can just visit other people's homes, etc., to take care of it. I have not sought any confrontation with you. I've edited wikipedia about Rhodes's asexuality before, when I was nineteen I think. And I think the first article I edited under an actual account here was the one about the woman who stalked Rhodes and I knew Rhodes was said to be homosexual or asexual. So being interested in adding that to the article had nothing to do with you. Personally I do not think it is possible to be asexual, so a sourced addition of Rhodes to the list is no more absurd than all the other people mentioned. But I really do wish I hadn't done the trolling and vandalism, it was stupid and enabled you to attack me and was very regrettable. --Lucifergavemeag (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See that? I had to fix your indenting again. And, yes, the rangeblock will help. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so worried about it. And I've already explained about how not being in the exact location isn't going to help you much (not unless you are in a different city and/or country), especially considering your WP:DUCK behavior and other behavior I know so well. See how easy it was for me to know that Lucifergavemeag is you, for example? And don't try convincing me that your showing up at the Asexuality article was a coincidence; it wasn't. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The obvious sock has been blocked. Don't engage him. WP:RBI. AniMate 08:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * bordering ✅ that the two users above are related to the archive, plus:

-- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked trio of new socks indef. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©  15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

27 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets

 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This is for documentation only. Please see evidence at Special:PermaLink/644439277. Tiptoety talk 21:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is . The four socks listed above are ✅ as being operated by the same person. The behavioral evidence outlined in the link above suggests that RJR3333 and the four confirmed socks are one and the same and have all been blocked. Tiptoety  talk 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

04 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets

 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Well, the name, for one thing. Consistent with history of vendetta edits against Flyer22. Editor is picking up right where blocked troll Flyer1552 left off. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * User is blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

20 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets

 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

No evidence submitted Bishonen | talk 13:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm listing these socks for completeness, no action is required as they're all already checkusered and tagged. See and. Man, this template is mystifying. I tried to put my comment above, but it wouldn't take. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC).


text:
DYMS-FM

DYMS (105.3 FM), broadcasting as MSFM 105.3, is a radio station owned and operated by PEC Broadcasting Corporation. The station's studio is located along #198-B Mabini Ave., Catbalogan. The station simulcasts a number of programs from Aksyon Radyo.

title: DYMS-FM


text:
1951 Iowa State Cyclones football team

The 1951 Iowa State Cyclones football team represented Iowa State College of Agricultural and Mechanic Arts (later renamed Iowa State University) in the Big Seven Conference during the 1951 college football season. In their fifth year under head coach Abe Stuber, the Cyclones compiled a 4–4–1 record (2–4 against conference opponents), tied for fourth place in the conference, and were outscored by their opponents by a combined total of 216 to 211. The team was ranked at No. 74 in the 1951 Litkenhous Ratings.

The team's regular starting lineup on offense consisted of left end Mal Schmidt, left tackle Jack Lessin, left guard Stan Campbell, center Rollie Arns, right guard Carl Brettschneider, right tackle Bob Mateson, right end Bob Voetberg, quarterback Dick Mann, left halfback Dick Cherpinsky, right halfback Frank Congiardo, and fullback Maury Schnell. Stan Campbell was the team captain.

The team's statistical leaders included Frank Congiardo with 315 rushing yards, Rich Mann with 1,296 passing yards, Mal Schmidt with 547 receiving yards, and Stan Cozzi with 36 points (six touchdowns) each. Three Iowa State players were selected as first-team all-conference players: Stan Campbell, Rich Mann, and Mal Schmidt.

The team played its home games at Clyde Williams Field in Ames, Iowa.

title: 1951 Iowa State Cyclones football team


text:
Talk:Clint Crisher

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clint Crisher. 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/20110621235951/http://www.youthpridedc.org/ to http://youthpridedc.org/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Clint Crisher