text:
Yobmod (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Journey to the West

 * Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.
 * Top - These novels are widely considered as best five in China. I'll look for some references if I have time. Among the five novels, Dream of the Red Chamber was widely considered as Chinese novel number one (but not unchallengeable), and Romance of Three Kingdoms could be number two in my opinion. Aside of these, I suggest Fengshen Yanyi could be number six. — Yao Ziyuan 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Top - to balance Western centricity. Mandel 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Top - as Mandel and also for their own merit which is considerable. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * High. Notability outside of China (but not necessarily in Western world) has to be asserted. Er rab ee 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when has the West been the sole arbriter of literary significance? Talk about colonial chauvinism! :) These novels are popular in Japan and Korea too, and their critics don't need white eggheads to tell them what is good from bad. Mandel 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Top for the 4 greats at least. One of them is the basis for Monkey!, and they are known in the UK at least. Yobmod (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dream of the Red Chamber

 * Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.
 * Top - These novels are widely considered as best five in China. I'll look for some references if I have time. Among the five novels, Dream of the Red Chamber was widely considered as Chinese novel number one (but not unchallengeable), and Romance of Three Kingdoms could be number two in my opinion. Aside of these, I suggest Fengshen Yanyi could be number six. — Yao Ziyuan 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Top - to balance Western centricity. Mandel 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Top - as Mandel and also for their own merit which is considerable. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * High. Notability outside of China (but not necessarily in Western world) has to be asserted. Er rab ee 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when has the West been the sole arbriter of literary significance? Talk about colonial chauvinism! :) These novels are popular in Japan and Korea too, and their critics don't need white eggheads to tell them what is good from bad. Mandel 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Top for the 4 greats at least. One of them is the basis for Monkey!, and they are known in the UK at least. Yobmod (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jin Ping Mei

 * Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.
 * Top - These novels are widely considered as best five in China. I'll look for some references if I have time. Among the five novels, Dream of the Red Chamber was widely considered as Chinese novel number one (but not unchallengeable), and Romance of Three Kingdoms could be number two in my opinion. Aside of these, I suggest Fengshen Yanyi could be number six. — Yao Ziyuan 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Top - to balance Western centricity. Mandel 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Top - as Mandel and also for their own merit which is considerable. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * High. Notability outside of China (but not necessarily in Western world) has to be asserted. Er rab ee 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when has the West been the sole arbriter of literary significance? Talk about colonial chauvinism! :) These novels are popular in Japan and Korea too, and their critics don't need white eggheads to tell them what is good from bad. Mandel 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * High High for other 2. Yobmod (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fengshen Yanyi

 * Summary status ( 3 for | 1 against) Top class - as at 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I prepare a list of candidates since there were not a single Chinese language novel above. Besides those classics, some people claims China has no really good novels written in 20th century. Personally speaking, I somewhat agree with this view. But if Harry Potter was in the list, I think at least one or two 20th century Chinese languages novels could be good enough too. But it would be difficult to decide which one could be better. Here is a list of top 100 20th century Chinese language novels for references. This list covers both mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas.
 * Top - These novels are widely considered as best five in China. I'll look for some references if I have time. Among the five novels, Dream of the Red Chamber was widely considered as Chinese novel number one (but not unchallengeable), and Romance of Three Kingdoms could be number two in my opinion. Aside of these, I suggest Fengshen Yanyi could be number six. — Yao Ziyuan 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Top - to balance Western centricity. Mandel 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Top - as Mandel and also for their own merit which is considerable. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * High. Notability outside of China (but not necessarily in Western world) has to be asserted. Er rab ee 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when has the West been the sole arbriter of literary significance? Talk about colonial chauvinism! :) These novels are popular in Japan and Korea too, and their critics don't need white eggheads to tell them what is good from bad. Mandel 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * High High for other 2. Yobmod (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Novels previously assigned Top-importance but now reassigned
This list is now so large it is normally "shrunk" - use the "Show" on the right hand side to expand it.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important


text:
User:Nitnorth

Your kindly Uncle Nitnorth. Curmudgeon for hire, purveyor of half-baked but fervently held opinions. Old, fat, and in your face. Runs Nithaus, among other hobbies. Often good for a laugh, if you can stifle the urge to murder the insufferable sonofa—.

title: User:Nitnorth


text:
Guy Mainwaring Morton

Guy Mainwaring Morton (1896–1968) was a barrister and writer who wrote crime novels under his own name and the pen name of Peter Traill.

He married Clare, the daughter of the Hartlepool ship-owner M.H. Horsley, in 1923.

Selected publications

 * Great Dust. Grayson & Grayson, 1932.
 * The 3-7-9 Murder
 * The Red Lady
 * The Ragged Robin Murders
 * The Perrin Murder Case
 * Ashes of Murder
 * Mystery at Hardacres
 * The Forbidden Road
 * The Angel
 * The Scarlet Thumb-Print
 * The Black Robe
 * Under The Cherry Tree
 * Rangy Pete
 * King of the World, or, The Pommeray Case

title: Guy Mainwaring Morton


text:
Talk:Dave Hilton (baseball)

Other stuff
He has a baseball training center, according to a Google search.

"A journeyman American batter named Dave Hilton came to the plate for the Yakult Swallows, stroked the first pitch into left field, and safely reached second base. As he [Haruki Murakami] watched the batter swing at the ball, 'I just felt all of a sudden that I could write.'" -Time Aug. 20, 2007, p. 45, "Haruki Murakami Returns," (pp.45-47), by bRyan Walsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dave Hilton (baseball)


text:
Tappin Gofton

Tappin Gofton is a graphic design agency consisting of Mark Tappin and Simon Gofton, best known for designing album covers.

History
Tappin Gofton was founded by Mark Tappin, who worked at Blue Source, and Simon Gofton of Tom Hingston Studio. They incorporated as Tappin Gofton in 2006.

The duo first became known for their 1960s-style cover for The Chemical Brothers' album Push the Button. Their Baudot code-inspired art for Coldplay's album X&Y, however, was a larger breakthrough for the duo; Design Observer critic Adrian Shaughnessy wrote that it "[established] them as a new force in contemporary music design." The duo would later design covers for several more Coldplay albums, including Viva la Vida or Death and all His Friends, and Mylo Xyloto.

The duo has also designed covers for The Chemical Brothers' album We Are the Night; Air Traffic's debut album Fractured Life; Morning Runner's debut album Wilderness Is Paradise Now; Wild Beasts' album Present Tense; and The Feeling's debut Twelve Stops and Home.

The company was dissolved in 2015.

Album cover designs (1997-present)

 * Coldplay:
 * "'Yellow'" single (2000) (Mark Tappin only)
 * Parachutes (2000) (Mark Tappin only)
 * '"Trouble" single (2000) (Mark Tappin only)
 * "Don't Panic'" single (2001) (Mark Tappin only)
 * '"Trouble - Norwegian Live EP'" (2001) (Mark Tappin only)
 * Live 2003 (2003) (Mark Tappin only)
 * X&Y (2005)
 * "Speed of Sound'" single (2005)
 * "Fix You" single (2005)
 * "Talk" single (2005)
 * "The Hardest Part" single (2006)
 * "What If" single (2006)
 * "White Shadows" single (2007)
 * Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends (2008)
 * Prospekt's March EP (2008)
 * LeftRightLeftRightLeft EP (2009) (maybe)
 * Mylo Xyloto (2011)
 * "Every Teardrop Is a Waterfall" single (2011)
 * "Paradise" single (2011)
 * "Charlie Brown" single (2011)
 * "Princess of China" single (2012)
 * "Hurts Like Heaven" single (2012)
 * "Up in Flames" single (2012)
 * Live 2012 (2012)

title: Tappin Gofton


text:
hic Rhodus, hic salta

Etymology
The phrase arises from the form of Aesop's Fables (Gibbs 209; Perry 33; Chambry 51), as translated from Ancient Greek "Αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ Ῥόδος καὶ πήδημα"  "Here is Rhodes, jump here!". In the fable, a boastful athlete brags that he once achieved a stupendous long jump in competition on the island of Rhodes. A bystander challenges him to dispense with the reports of the witnesses and simply repeat his accomplishment on the spot: "Here is Rhodes, jump here!"

Proverb

 * 1)  Prove what you can do, here and now.
 * 2) * 1820, Hegel, “Philosophy of Right”, Preface, from SW Dyde 1896 translation
 * As a philosophic writing, it must be on its guard against constructing a state as it ought to be. Philosophy cannot teach the state what it should be, but only how it, the ethical universe, is to be known. Idou Podos, idou kai to pidima / Hic Rhodus, hic saltus.
 * 1) * 1852, Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, Chapter 1, from Saul K Padover English translation, published 1937
 * On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
 * 1) * 1967, Guy Debord, “The Society of the Spectacle”, Chapter 4, from Black and Red translation, published 1970
 * The repeated retreat of the mass of the European workers' movement in the face of the Hic Rhodus, hic salta of the 1918-1920 period, a retreat which included the violent destruction of its radical minority, favored the completion of the Bolshevik development and let this false result present itself to the world as the only proletarian solution.
 * 1) * 1992, Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History and the Last Man”, Part IV, Leaping Over Rhodes (quoted as epigram).
 * Hic Rhodus, hic saltus

title: hic Rhodus, hic salta


text:
James Meldrum Knox

Lieutenant-Colonel James Meldrum Knox DSO & bar was a British Army officer of the First World War. He commanded the 1st/7th battalion of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment from 1915 until his death in 1918 on the Italian Front, during the Battle of Asiago (1918).

Family background
James Meldrum Knox was born in Nuneaton in 1878, the son of James and Florence Knox. The family were prominent in civil and railway engineering and had become affluent through their majority shareholding in the Haunchwood Brick and Tile Company. James was the first of nine sons who all fought in the First World War. One brother, Cecil, served with the Royal Engineers and was awarded the Victoria Cross while a second, Thomas, gained the Military Cross and bar.

Life
Knox was educated at Bedford Modern School. He worked as an engineer at Bristol Docks and was commissioned in 1899 in the Nuneaton Volunteer Company of the 2nd Volunteer Battalion, the Royal Warwickshire Regiment which in 1908 became the 7th battalion of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment. The territorial battalion formed part of the 143rd brigade part of 48th (South Midland) Division. Knox commanded the battalion from 1915 on the Western Front, notably at the Battle of the Somme and the 3rd Battle of Ypres.

Knox was awarded the DSO on 1 January 1917 and the second award was gazetted after his death; the citation in the Supplement to the London Gazette of 24 September reads; "Major and Bt. Lt.-Col. (A./Lt.-Col.) James Meldrum Knox, D.S.O., R,. War. Regt. For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty in command of his battalion. He kept touch with the situation till ordered by the division to counter-attack when the enemy had broken through. Thanks to his splendid handling of his battalion, this counter-attack was decisive, the enemy were at once held up, and after heavy fighting were driven back with severe losses, several hundred prisoners being captured and the front line restored. He was also mentioned in despatches on five occasions.

Death and memorials
In November 1917, the brigade was transferred to the Italian campaign and saw action at the Montello Front and on the Asiago Plateau. Knox was killed on 23 September 1918. A private in the battalion recorded the news: '23 Sep – Early this morning we received the very bad news that Lieutenant-Colonel Knox, the commanding officer of the battalion had been killed by a shell in his dug-out at headquarters on the San Sisto Road. He had commanded the battalion since 1915 and was a very decent man and respected by everyone. He was not a parade soldier and did not care for drill and show, but was always at hand in the line, knowing no fear but never sending anyone where he wouldn't go himself. He was a capable soldier and had won the D.S.O and bar'.

He is buried at the Granezza British Cemetery near Vicenza, and there is a memorial to him there. He and his brothers who fought in the War are also commemorated by a memorial at Oaston Road Cemetery, Nuneaton. After his death, Knox's parents commissioned his portrait by the Birmingham artist Edward Samuel Harper. The painting hangs in the Nuneaton Museum and Art Gallery.

title: James Meldrum Knox


text:
Archer's Garage

Archer's Garage is an art deco style building on the corner of Sandwith street and Fenian Street in Dublin 2.

Construction
It was originally built in 1946 to the design of Billy Baird of Kaye Parry Ross Hendy architects and was constructed for Richard Archer who was the first agent for Ford motorcars in Ireland. It was the first building in Ireland to be built of reinforced concrete and fitted with fluorescent lighting.

Demolition
Despite being a listed building it was illegally demolished in 1999 over the June bank holiday long weekend by property developer and hotelier Noel O’Callaghan. At the time of demolition it was the only surviving building on the largely derelict corner.

Reconstruction
The demolition was controversial and as a result of legal action Dublin City Council forced the developers to build a facsimile of the building on the original site. Although originally scheduled to begin in September 1999, reconstruction commenced in 2001 but was then halted because of legal disputes concerning the garage and adjoining offices. It finally finished in 2004.

Legal impact
The demolition resulted in the maximum jail time for the demolition of listed buildings being raised from three to five years. The maximum fine of £1 million did not change.

Noel O’Callaghan forestalled prosecution by signing an agreement with Dublin Corporation to reinstate the building.

title: Archer's Garage


text:
XML - Managing Data Exchange/Recursive relationships/Answers

Exercises 2a

 * Create a schema describing one team in a relay race. The information needs to describe the runners in the race as well as from whom the runner received the baton. Create an XML file containing sample data for this schema and populate it with at least four runners. Make sure the XML document is well formed and valid.

Answer: File relayXML.xml

File relayXSD.xsd

File relayXSL.xsl

 * Each state has many life insurance sales people, and each region (North, South, East, West) of the state has one regional head salesperson.  A salesperson can only sell in one region and can only have one head salesperson he/she is working under. Create a schema to describe this relationship. Create an XML document and populate it with data for two states. Make sure the XML document is well formed and valid. Each state should have data for at least two regions, and each region should have at least three salesman, including the region head. Each salesperson should be uniquely identified by a number. Each state shoud be uniquely identified by its two letter abbreviation. Create an XSL stylesheet to display this data, with a separate table for each state. If the salesperson is a regional head, it should say so. Create an entity named doublespace in the stylesheet that is the equivalent to two carriage returns. Use the new entity to create two blank lines between the two tables.

Answer:

File insuranceXML.xml

File insuranceXSD.xsd

File insuranceXSL.xsl

 * A restaurant has many appetizers on its menu. A restaurant may also create a sampler dish which is a conglomeration of smaller portions of select appetizers. Create a schema to describe this relationship. Create an XML document and populate it with enough appetizers to create at least two sampler groups. Make sure the XML document is well formed and valid.

Answer: File appetizerXML.xml

File appetizerXSD.xsd


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/dynamiclinic.com

Links

 * arabic.dynamiclinic.com resolves to <IP_ADDRESS>
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link would be caught by rule \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on the monitor list (Automonitor: reported to en:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (diff - )).
 * Link would be caught by rule \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on the monitor list (Automonitor: reported to ms:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (diff - )).
 * Link is blacklisted by \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist en.wikipedia.org]
 * Link is blacklisted by \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on [//ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist ms.wikipedia.org]
 * Link would be caught by rule \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on the monitor list (Automonitor: reported to ms:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (diff - )).
 * Link is blacklisted by \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist en.wikipedia.org]
 * Link is blacklisted by \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on [//ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist ms.wikipedia.org]

 * dynamiclinic.com resolves to <IP_ADDRESS>
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * COIBot domainredlist search for link dynamiclinic.com gives:
 * dynamiclinic.com (Automonitor: reported to en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (diff))
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link would be caught by rule \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on the monitor list (Automonitor: reported to en:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (diff - )).
 * Link would be caught by rule \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on the monitor list (Automonitor: reported to ms:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (diff - )).
 * Link is blacklisted by \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist en.wikipedia.org]
 * Link is blacklisted by \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on [//ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist ms.wikipedia.org]
 * Link would be caught by rule \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on the monitor list (Automonitor: reported to ms:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (diff - )).
 * Link is blacklisted by \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist en.wikipedia.org]
 * Link is blacklisted by \bdynamiclinic\.com\b on [//ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist ms.wikipedia.org]

 * http resolves to X
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Additions

 * Displayed all 29 additions.


text:
2007 New Zealand Open Grand Prix

The 2007 New Zealand Open Grand Prix (officially known as the KLRC New Zealand Open 2007 for sponsorship reasons) was a badminton tournament which took place in Auckland, New Zealand from 14 to 20 May 2007. It had a total purse of $50,000.

Tournament
The 2007 New Zealand Open Grand Prix was the second tournament of the 2007 BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix and also part of the New Zealand Open championships which has been held since 1990. This tournament was organized by the Badminton New Zealand and sanctioned by the BWF.

Venue
This international tournament was held at Auckland Badminton Hall in Auckland, New Zealand.

Point distribution
Below is the point distribution for each phase of the tournament based on the BWF points system for the BWF Grand Prix event.

Prize money
The total prize money for this tournament was US$50,000. Distribution of prize money was in accordance with BWF regulations.

Seeds

 * 1) 🏴 Andrew Smith (quarter-finals)
 * 2) Lee Tsuen Seng (semi-finals)
 * 3) Sairul Amar Ayob (third round)
 * 4) Roslin Hashim (quarter-finals)
 * 5) 🇭🇰 Chan Yan Kit (quarter-finals)
 * 6) 🇳🇿 John Moody (second round)
 * 7) 🇭🇰 Ng Wei (third round)
 * 8) Yeoh Kay Bin (semi-finals)

Seeds

 * 1) 🇫🇷 Pi Hongyan (semi-finals)
 * 2) 🇭🇰 Yip Pui Yin (semi-finals)
 * 3) 🇦🇺 Huang Chia-chi (withdrew)
 * 4) 🇯🇵 Chie Umezu (final)
 * 5) 🏴 Tracey Hallam (quarter-finals)
 * 6) 🇳🇿 Rachel Hindley (third round)
 * 7) Sutheaswari Mudukasan (second round)
 * 8) 🇯🇵 Kanako Yonekura (second round)

Seeds

 * 1) 🇭🇰 Albertus Susanto Njoto / Yohan Hadikusumo Wiratama (final)
 * 2) 🇦🇺 Aji Basuki Sindoro / Ashley Brehaut (second round)
 * 3) 🇫🇷 Svetoslav Stoyanov / Mihail Popov (second round)
 * 4) 🇦🇺 Glenn Warfe / Ross Smith (second round)

Seeds

 * 1) Lim Pek Siah / Joanne Quay (second round)
 * 2) 🇫🇷 Élodie Eymard / Weny Rahmawati (quarter-finals)
 * 3) Vanessa Neo / Shinta Mulia Sari (second round)
 * 4) 🏴 Suzanne Rayappan / Jenny Wallwork (withdrew)

Seeds

 * 1) 🇳🇿 Daniel Shirley / Joanne Quay (second round)
 * 2) 🇫🇷 Svetoslav Stoyanov / Élodie Eymard (semi-finals)
 * 3) 🇦🇺 Ross Smith / Tania Luiz (second round)
 * 4) 🇦🇺 Glenn Warfe / Susan Dobson (quarter-finals)
 * 5) 🇭🇰 Tanama Putra Alroy / Chau Hoi Wah (semi-finals)
 * 6)  Devin Lahardi Fitriawan / Lita Nurlita (champions)
 * 7) Anggun Nugroho / Nitya Krishinda Maheswari (final)
 * 8) 🇦🇺 Benjamin Walklate / Erin Carroll (quarter-finals)

title: 2007 New Zealand Open Grand Prix


text:
Template talk:Christian denominations

On Adding Oneness Pentecostalism
Hello! Well some of you might have noticed that I added the Oneness Pentecostal movement into the template. I know that under the Pentecostal page this may be somewhat informed of but I do not believe it is fair. The Pentecostal page is more directed to inform of Trinitarian Pentecostalism (which is fine and all) but it does not cover Oneness Pentecostalism to the same level. These two movements are very different if you have read and taken notice both of doctrine and practices. Furthermore Oneness Pentecostalism is not just one denomination there are various denominations who adhere to this theology and are part of it, and that have millions of adherents all throughout the world. I know some of you may not wish to label us 'Orthodox' or even 'Christian' but we do rely on the Bible, solely, for our doctrines. I'll be happy to respond and give reasons, and I'm open to dialogue, but do take in notice that there are movements in the Template that are much smaller than us and much more 'contreversial' LOL.

Cheers!

Restorationism, Nontrinitarism, Protestantism
(1) Restorationism is a movement that arose in the early 1800s, called by some a protest against Protestantism, but it never left Protestantism—only sought to take it further and gave rise to particular groups – and none of these groups are in the Restorationism Section.

(2) What was in that section was groups that rejected the Nicene and other Ecumenical creeds. If they have a section to there own they should be not label by a movement to which they were not those primary referenced by such a name. They just adopted it much tter.

(3) No matter what you call them — they do arise from Western Christianity and should be there or as I have done under Protestantism

(4) A whole lot of Protestant groups have been added so I am creating Protestant Christianity --Carlaude (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Protestants and other Western Christians
Who is one and who decides? Most Anglicans do not see themselves as protesants but rather as a Via Media between Roman Catholicism and Protestants. The term protestant is offensive to many Anglo Catholic Anglicans. As for the origin and classification of the Baptists, you are going to end up in a huge mess if you try to force that label on them. I have seen it happen here at WP before. These are just two examples. Why is the current header unacceptable to you? -- SECisek (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with SECisek's concerns here. Tb (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 * No one likes being "other."
 * The tag "Protestants and other Western Christians" is too long.
 * I have never met a baptist who objected to being call Protestants and I have attended baptist church for 16 years.
 * I know some of (the more centralized) Anglicans object, but even the Anglicans church admits on its US web site that:
 * Other Christians consider them Protestants.
 * Even the Anglican church is "ambivalent" on being called Protestant.
 * Please leave as protestant or propose a compromise. --Carlaude (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go read Baptist. You will find that there are many vocal Baptists here at Wikipedia who do not "know" that they are protestant and cannot be made to believe that they are. -- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I am aware of the idea of Baptist perpetuity-- and someone must think it is notable-- I have just never meet anyone to express that opinion to me. Not everything that is in Wikipedia is really notable.--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I have heard certainly heard it expressed. Tb (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Western Christianity link needs to be there to compliment the Eastern Christianity link above it. You cited your personal knowledge of Baptists. As for being "Other", I'll cite a personal example. Whenever I am faced with a form that asks if I am Roman Catholic or Protestant, I check other everytime. As an Anglican I am neither of those things and my Church is seldom listed inspite of the fact there are over 73 million of us.

As for a compromise, this IS the compromise that has been fleshed out in battle after battle here at wikipedia:
 * Eastern Christian (Church of the East, Oriental, and Eastern Orthodox)
 * Roman Catholic (Latin & Eastern)
 * Protestant
 * Anglican
 * Anabaptist
 * Restorationist-- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This is too long for the purpose. The template until about a week ago only had half this many.
 * By the way scholars do not even categorize Baptists as among the Anabaptist groups, so it seems you are going from one label for them to worse label.
 * I have not seen this system exact system anywhere so it seems problematic to characterize it as "fleshed out in battle after battle"--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See Image:ChristianityBranches.svg. The fight that went in to the design of that image was fierce and left no one satisfied. That said, let us not reopen the battle. This is not a paper encyclopedia and the claim that the title is "too long" doesn't cut it here. What is the objection to the compromises that exist? -- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree that Image:ChristianityBranches.svg is poorly done. Let's not follow it. The point is it is a navigational box, not an article. It is to be short even if this is not a paper encyclopedia. --Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm an Anglican, and I'm not a Protestant. I do think that there should be some label which fits me.  I'm ok with "Other Western Christians" but not with just "Protestant".  Tb (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This just begs the question. What makes you "not a Protestant"? Note: "Protestantism encompasses the forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with the doctrines of the Reformation."--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not a Protestant because I disagree with most of the doctrines which characterize the Protestant reformation. What seems to be a problem here is that you are assuming that you can re-order other people's self-understanding to comport with your expectations, thus running roughshod over both Baptists and Anglicans who, for nearly opposite reasons, object to the label "Protestant" to describe their own beliefs and practices. The world is a complex place, religious categorization and labelling particularly, and Wikipedia has often managed to find stable compromises which you seem to want to disturb here out of a desire simply to make things match your preconceptions better.  Indeed, the link from the website of TEC which you already posted, if you would have read it carefully, would express exactly the point: many Anglicans do not wish to be labelled Protestant, and it's really not up to you to tell them you understand their religion better than they do. Tb (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, go and remove the section Baptist from the Baptist article with the edit summary "Not a notable opinion"...count to ten and get ready to duck. I completely agree that they are protestants, but I have stopped trying to convince anyone here that they are. They can say they are muslims and - if they can find a real citation to back the claim - there isn't much we can do about it other than try to allow for it in the most reasonable way possible. What was pointed out by Tb is correct. It is not our place to tell them they are protestants any more than it is your place to ask me how, as an Anglican, I am not one.

I agree that the full system in the graphic above is too large for the template, hence Eastern, Roman, and Western. I would be fine with putting the Restorationists in with other Western which you seem to have been fine with, judging from the discussions above. The compromise WAS fleshed out in "battle after battle" and some of it is here and some more is here, but it can be painful reading. The second link shows some of the fight that went into this very template, as well. You still have not made a good case against the template as is. -- SECisek (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise
A: How about:
 * Eastern Christian
 * Western Liturgical
 * Nonliturgical--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

B: How about all major groups under the same collapsible field.--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This is worse than all! Where will you put the Presbyterians and the Lutherans?  Just as you cannot call all Anglicans Protestant, so you have to deal with the reality that some Presbyterians are liturgical (or call themselves that) and some Lutherans, even more surprising perhaps, reject the term "liturgical."  I can't figure out what you object to with the page exactly as it is now.  It's a footer template, so size is really not a concern. I'm not all that sure I understand why we need such a footer in the first place, but I don't object to it.  Certainly however, the rule here as always should apply: it is no excuse for incorrect information in wikipedia that it's too much trouble or space to have the correct information.
 * However, I would most prefer the layout in List of Christian denominations, which is the most substantial attempt to address this problem, and which has a rough consensus now (finally!) for its shape. But I'm ok with this template exactly as it is now.  Tb (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree with Tb above. -- SECisek (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this template
It seems that the primary point of this template is to be embedded in Template:Christianity which is itself likely to get phased out soon, to be replace with the portal link at the top of pages, and Template:Christianityfooter at the bottom of pages. The current strategy for this template, to use collapsible tables and embed within Template:Christianity is unlikely to ever produce attractive results. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Maybe you can't figure out what you object to with the page exactly as it is now because the page is not a footer. Why did you even edit it if you did not read the output message?
 * We would not want to phase out this template which is better than any footer or portal link could be. Certainly this is not the time to kill the whole template. What in the world is attractive about it other than the tag "Protestants and other Western Christians"?
 * So why ignore "B: All major groups under the same collapsible field"?--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible tables just insert this white space, and mess up the clean lines already present in Template:Christianity. It seems to me that there are several appropriate strategies. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? How? Do you looked at Template:Christian denominations within Template:Christianity? Do all navigational boxes do this on your browser or just this one? --Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Delete this Template:Christianity and Template:Christian denominations finally, and put the portal and footer on all the articles currently using Template:Christianity, or
 * Fix Template:Christianity to have an attractive way of dealing with denominations, or
 * Not put links to denominations at all in Template:Christianity. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * So are you saying any of these will work for you? What would be "an attractive way of dealing with denominations" --Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The first of this is (IMO) a good idea, but it's a long-term project, and the same questions will come up in Template:Christianityfooter anyhow. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Now if these are in a footer then you will have lots of white space.--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The second does have some possibilities. I understand the interest in using collapsible tables here, but I think the result is currently quite ugly. If someone expert in wikipedia typesetting made something pretty, it would be a different story. That leaves the third. There is already a link to Christian denomination in Template:Christianity. Why exactly is that not sufficient? Tb (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Because denominations are a major topic that people want to navigate to! Why exactly is "B: All major groups under the same collapsible field" not not sufficient?--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that the template IS in fact being phased out in favor of the footer. See here. This process began last fall and continues. Will it be phased out completely? Maybe not, but we have been reducing the number of articles for months due to the redundant nature of the box since the creation of the tidy, neat footer. -- SECisek (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostalism...again...
Hello!

I was the first user to ever add OP as Apostolic in an earlier version of this template. Then when the template was changed the OP was taken off from the template without any reason given. I have again inserted Apostolic into this template, but other users have been quick to revert my changes by labeling my changes as "not conforming to NPOV" and to promoting my church or "preaching". I do not understand these accusations as all OP's mostly refer to themselves as Apostolic...OP is a more technical name if you will and most often is the POV inspired way of Trinitarians to label Apostolics. Furthermore OP really does belong under Western Christianity since we are an offshoot of Pentecostalism. We did not just come out of the blue or under a rock, we are the product of a faction in the early Pentecostal movement, it's only fair. Our doctrine shares many similarities to Western Christianity and it's development is much more linked to W. Christianity (Sola Scriptura, Arminianism, Pre-Tribulation Rapture, etc.) As such I move that the changes be reverted back to the original way I had it. Before I put OP under W. Christianity, and it was never removed, why remove it now? ApostolicMOP (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, all the groups listed in the template use the names that they denominate themselves with. We denominate primarily with "Apostolic". You go to countries like Mexico, and they'll look at you weird if you call Apostolics there "OP's", I don't even know what OP translates into Spanish...they will automatically recognize the label "Apostolic" though. ApostolicMOP (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the issue is that this is a template, which needs to be clear right away. "Apostolic", without any further qualifications, is confusing, especially to most readers. Moreover, moving just this one unitarian group makes no sense; the consensus has been to list unitarians separately, and if you want to change that consensus, it needs to be explained in terms of clarity over all.  This template is really just a very compressed version of List of Christian denominations. Tb (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As one friend of mine told me...Oneness Pentecostalism sounds like some weird Eastern mystic religion. Methodism, Lutheranism, and all the other Christian groups could also be confusing...that's why you click on the link to find out what all the fuss is about. Furthermore we are not Unitarians...Unitarians say that Jesus is not God, OP's believe that Jesus is God. Here's the problem with us being classified as Nontrinitarians:

1. LDS - Believes Jesus became a God 2. JW's - Believe that Jesus wasn't God 3. Unitarians - Same as above 4. Christadelphians - Same as above

OP's believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are God just like all Christians, they just reject that these are three distinct persons. Some of the early OP pioneers even described God's "threeness" "trinity" "triunity". <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * 1. of, JW's believe Jesus is a God-- not that Jesus wasn't God
 * 2. All these groups are all very different in theology. Puting them together (or leaving out some un-notible ones) are the only good options.
 * 3. Oneness Pentecostals are Nontrinitarians -- and they will tell you so.
 * 4. If your view is that they are "not that different" then they do not need a separate listing at all-- they can be found by following the Pentecostalism link.--Carlaude (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The Oneness folks are non-trinitarian; that's not in dispute, and that's why this is the label used in the template. Tb (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Old Catholic not part of Independent Catholic
Quote: "Independent Catholic Churches are Christian denominations ... but are not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Old Catholic Churches under the Archbishop of Utrecht or the Anglican Communion." --Carlaude (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anglicanism
Once again--sorry--I object to the inclusion of "Anglican" under "Protestant". The Eastern/Western division made good sense to me, but if that's replaced with a Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox distinction, then we should follow the usage of List of Christian denominations which has achieved broad consensus. Tb (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I don't object to listing "Anglican" under both here (though I would object over on List of Christian denominations because it would lead to chaos there). But I didn't want to make such a controversial change. Tb (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I think listing it one place or the other here is best.--Carlaude (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * And I object to Anglicanism being included under Catholicism because, the Anglo-Catholic movement notwithstanding, it is not a Catholic church and has (in contrast to the Old Catholic Church) never been one. And yes, the Anglican Church placed itself within the large field of Protestantism. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * And I object to Anglicanism NOT being included under Catholicism because it has always identified itself as Catholic and Reformed. ROMAN Catholics may not agree, but putting Anglicanism solely under Protestantism is POV.  Bill Ward (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Protestant Denominations
Please note that "Calvinism" is not referred to as a denomination anywhere as a denomination, or even a family of denominations. In fact, it encompasses some aspect or sub-group of nearly all of the other denominations under Protestantism. However, both "Reformed churches" and "Presbyterianism" are major denominations, and should be listed in this template. Ἀλήθεια 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Since the more general and better topic, Calvinism, is a top-importance article, but the others aren't we can look at renaming this section something that does include whatever you would call Calvinism-- like Template:Christian denominational families, Template:Christian movements, etc. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, let's please remove the term "denomination" with all due haste. Also, why piped?  If the top-importance article is "Calvinism" and not "Reformed", then it's senseless to have "Reformed" in the template.  "Evangelicalism" falls into a similar category as not primarily a denomination.

 * I have moved the two non-denominations to a more appropriate place in the main template. Now I can go back and suggest that all the top-level protestant denominations be recognized as such. Ἀλήθεια 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Since you don't have any WP:CON yet on your many ideas there you can't add them yet.
 * Since you don't seem to have a preference with the idea we adree to I have changed the section to "Movements" and reverted your disruptive edits, again. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles
As listed on the main template talk page 4 months ago-- to add a new Christianity article to this template-- it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 Dec 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles).User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Just as others don't own the John Calvin article, you don't own this template. It is assinine to have Calvinism but not Arminianism.  Same goes for the list you pointed me to here: WikiProject_Christianity/Core_topics_work_group/Topic_list.  Add Arminianism to that list too.  TuckerResearch (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to fix the "Protestant" section of this template box
Here is the main problem with the Template:Christian denominations. This is listed under "Protestant": "Lutheran · Calvinist · Anabaptist · Baptist · Methodist · Adventist · Evangelical · Holiness ·  Pentecostal." The problem here is that Calvinism isn't a denomination (nor is Evangelical, for that matter). Calvinism is a theological system, not a denomination. You go to "Lutheran church" or "Baptist church," nobody goes to "Calvinist church." I may go to a Baptist church that is Calvinistic in theology (say, for instance, Reformed Baptists, just as a may go to a Baptist church that is Arminian in theology (say, for instance, Free Will Baptists). I suppose the best way to dispense with this is get rid of Calvinism (and Arminianism and Evangelical for that matter) from this list and replace it with Presbyterian and Reformed churches.  These are denominations.  Calvinism is not.  If you insist on keeping "Calvinism" as a denomination, I can only say that it's soteriological counter, "Arminianism" must be retained as well.

This, I think is the best solution, to fix the Protestant section of Template:Christian denominations:

 * 1) Remove Calvinist, Arminian, and Evangelical
 * 2) Add Presbyterian and Reformed churches to get the main denominations that are Calvinistic (excepting Calvinistic Baptists, who are included under the rubric "Baptist")

Lastly, just because Presbyterian (or Arminianism, or anything else) might not be on some list of supposedly important articles, and Calvinism is, doesn't mean that we should continue listing Calvinism (or Arminianism, for that matter) as a denomination, when it most certainly is not a denomination. This is merely perpetrates a falsehood to call a theological/soteriological system a denomination.

Good idea? (This is also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list.) TuckerResearch (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 * First, your change would need to happen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list, and not allow disscussed here.
 * Second, the article links are not labled or called "denominations " but "movements" at Template:Christianity-- the only place it is used.-- but if you want to rename the hidden name of this template to Template:Christian movements, that is fine with me. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 08:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a template that clearly is used for navigation between major denominational families has been arbitrarily limited to only those topics deemed of "highest" importance. This is an artificial dependency. The template should include all the major denominational families, which are pretty clearly laid out in multiple other articles. In addition, since they are major denominational families, even though they may not be as important as some other top-level Christianity articles, they should be promoted to whatever level they need to be to put them in the proper category for inclusion. Ἀλήθεια 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please avoid maintaining parallel discussions in different locations. Thanks. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint
Latter-day Saints are a people, not an organization. The correct short for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at WP is LDS Church, per wp:NCLDS & wp:MOSLDS. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 * That is nice and all but the link is purposely not to the article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 * It is to the article about the whole Latter Day Saint movement.
 * That is also why the pipe says "Latter Day" and not "Latter-day". şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Latter Day Saints are also groups of people, not a denomination or a group of denominations (i.e. a movement). Removing the unnecessary piping and exposing the whole Latter Day Saint movement text would fix this. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point.
 * You seem to be claiming that the "Latter Day Saint movement" is not a "movement". şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 17:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Latter Day Saints are people; the Latter Day Saint movement is a group of denominations (i.e. a movement). The link on the template should be unpiped to just say Latter Day Saint movement not Latter Day Saint . -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On the new template since April 2020: Extent, sortering
I gather your recent edits comprised two main actions: 1) deleting Protestantism as denominationaly family (c.f. Category:Christian denominational families), and 2) including significantly more denominations. What is your reason for #1? About #2, I did quite some efforts to go through List of Christian denominations by number of members to include the major ones. Is it really motivated to include as much denominations as you did? Doesn't it risk making the template too large? Would some entries in your level of detail may be more suited in forked templates on actual denominational families? PPEMES (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1- All I did was remove the marker for Protestantism since it wastes so much space and because navboxes are primarily to aide navigation and not ridgely teach categories. Please note that even more space is wasted as more Protestant groups are added. I considered color coding all the showing all the Protestant boxes the same, but did not find out how.
 * 2- Since you added even very small groups in the non-Protestant categories, and you were apt to want to keep them all, I thought the most neutral system would be to add any Protestant groups of moderate size. I have tried to only add groups that have 50,000 adherents or more, but some times the numbers are unclear.
 * For various reasons, the list of Christian denominations by number of members does not evenly list all the Protestant denominational of any type. It lists some denominations (unevenly) and mostly lists Protestant denominational families using various types of data sources.
 * If you think the cut-off should be at a different number of adherents, and want to help making the template consistent with that, we can certainly consider it. tahc chat 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please let me object. You instead replaced Protestantism with the gigantic column saying "Major branches (By country)", information which could instead be appropriately confined to the "above" variable. It hardly hurts providing a little basic taxonomy in the denominational family of Protestantism. PPEMES (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with . This should be reverted back toward its previous design. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The gigantic column saying "Major branches (By country)" was already there.
 * If add back the box for Protestantism, it will make the whole template ever taller. tahc chat 17:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems after all like Protestantism should be reintroduced as a major branch (irrespective of how deep a possible subbranch tree of that major branch grouping). PPEMES (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Protestant groups typically have less in common with each other than the non-Protestant groups have with each other. Just because there is a word for "Protestantism" (but no word for not Protestant groups) does not mean it will make Wikipedia any better to waste such space on such a label. tahc chat 13:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * List of Christian denominations, Protestantism as well as Category:Protestantism exist for a reason. Until you convince us that these contents should be unpacked, emptied and deleted from Wikipedia, I'm not sure what to make of your comment that Protestantism should not be indicated in the template. PPEMES (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Christian denominations


text:
slick back

Verb

 * 1) To make hair flat by putting oil, water, etc. on it.
 * His hair was slicked back with gel.

title: slick back


text:
Prauserella salsuginis

Prauserella salsuginis is a bacterium from the genus Prauserella which has been isolated from the Aiding Lake in Xinjiang, China.

title: Prauserella salsuginis


text:
Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 3

This is an archive, please do not edit this page, instead comment on Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia

Flag ranks?
As well, is it sufficient to say Flag ranks and insignia and not Flag Officer ranks (which appear in The Star Trek Encyclopedia) ... in the article? My Webster's dictionary indicates flag rank, or flag officer (with general officer), for use with positions of captain and above, and using FO alone seems out of whack. And how about diffs/categorising between commissioned and not officers (with ensign being the lowest of the former)? Thoughts? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 04:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article
With regards to the discussion above about the TOC and how long the article is, an RFC is a good idea. I also deny the claim of article ownership as the changes the user was making seemed to go against previous dicussions and concensus which were brought up during the FAC nomination. In any event, to solve the problem, the article may need to be split into:

Or something along those lines. Thats a huge edit and I will not attempt it until getting some feedback. -Husnock 15:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Starfleet ranks and insignia
 * Starfleet flag ranks and insignia (really necessary?)
 * Hmmm; this was an initial suggestion to segregate the ranks logically. Given the recent splits, this may now be unnecessary.  However, an article so entitled may still prove useful as an overview for flag ranks ... particularly if compared to contemporary ranks.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fleet Admiral (Star Trek)
 * Admiral (Star Trek)
 * Vice Admiral (Star Trek)
 * Rear Admiral (Star Trek)
 * Commodore (Star Trek)
 * Starfleet officer ranks and insignia (really necessary?)
 * Hmmm; as above, this was an initial suggestion to segregate the ranks logically. Given the recent splits, this may now be unnecessary.  However, an article so entitled may still prove useful as an overview for regular officer ranks ... particularly if compared to contemporary ranks.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Captain (Star Trek)
 * Commander (Star Trek)
 * Lieutenant Commander (Star Trek)
 * Lieutenant (Star Trek)
 * Lieutenant Junior Grade (Star Trek)
 * Ensign (Star Trek)
 * Warrant Officer (Star Trek)
 * Cadet (Star Trek)
 * Starfleet enlisted ranks and insignia
 * Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia
 * Starfleet ranks and insignia (other) (really necesarry?)
 * Starfleet provisional ranks and insignia (This need to be merged with other officer ranks and then perhaps deleted? Really rpovisional ranks are no diferent than actual ranks aside from being ptovisional.)

 * This is something I was also thinking of for inclusion in a potential RfC (though I've changed two of the proposed articles above for consistency); the article is clearly too long and unwieldy.  I also reject your claim that these proposals are against consensus, since one doesn't currently exist regarding the current proposals (the FAC nomination failed more than three months ago): you and I having a discussion and agreeing or disagreeing isn't at all a consensus, and the claim that your solitary reversions are made based on consensus (and in possible contravention of cited Wp guidelines otherwise) is inappropriate and may smack of ownership.  Wp is dynamic, after all.  I will post an RfC based on these discussions and we should be guided by that.  Thanks for your consideration.  E Pluribus Anthony 16:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes and no, we need to have a list of ranks as a seperate entity and description pages for each rank. Article is colosal at the moment. We need a list of ranks wih no to limited description of the actual ranks which can happen in a seperate page. Something like Captain (Star Trek).-- Cool CatTalk 12:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Interesting: I think the five splits/subarticles proposed above would be a starting point – with a main article retaining top-level notions/content in a concise format (with brief descriptions and charts) – but also support your proposal, CC. I've amended the above listing to embrace the ranks that should be rendered as headings for a table of contents and/or split into subarticles.  I guess we would have to ensure (easy enough) that we don't split the article to death and must determine if any, some, none, or all of these are worthwhile.  I'm all for whittling down this article that, while great, is too long and unwieldy.  E Pluribus Anthony 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No objections since december means I get to put up an airshow! Well all proposed subpages above now exists. Ill be working on the to make them more article like (as none have an introduction atm) -- Cool CatTalk 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! Apropos, the proposed RfC is rather moot now.  To that end, I'll work on some appropriate introductions for each of the articles.  Thanks again!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bulk of the work complete

 * OK I am mostly done, article on this page is redone and it should no longer be referances as an "article". It is now a list and can be a featured list.
 * I need help move referances. They are all in this article but they should go to their proper article. It is a rather tedious work and Ill throw it at one of you guys.
 * One problem though.... what should I do with the rank insignia that appears here?
 * -- Cool CatTalk 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that all articles need to be tagged with a category perhaps. And also a navigation template. Ideas? -- Cool CatTalk 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Feature Films insignia
Is it OK to tilt these images 90 degrees? They really mess up the table in my view. -- Cool CatTalk 23:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Errors
http://www.st-spike.org/pages/uniforms/errors/errors.htm

Found this at random while looking for provisional ranks (better images if they exist), what do you think?

Chakotay
It states in the article that Commander Chakotay was in fact a provisional Lieutenant Commander. The problem is that I never heard him titled as anything other than a full commander, and in the title sequence, it states that Robert Beltran played Commander Chakotay. Christophe T. Stevenson
 * On his collar he wears a LCDR pin. It is also standard practice in most navies (on which Starfleet is based) to address Lieutenant Commanders simply as Commander (to shorten). -Husnock 16:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Navy people are generaly too lazy to give the full adress. You got to see the Italian army titles they take a hole line. -- Cool CatTalk 12:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Added subheadings
Hello. I have been bold and added subheadings for the officer ranks. I see on this talk page reference to a FAC discussion. I don't know what a FAC discussion is (and there is no link provided), but it is clear that the headings are necessary. I completely agree with User:E Pluribus Anthony's comments from earlier. Lbbzman 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

colours of shirts?
I'm curious about the colours of shirts in mid-TNG era. Would a typical Chief of Security and Chief Tactical Officer wear wine or mustard? Was there a reason why Worf and Geordi changed colours? etc.--Sonjaaa 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What makes them "petty"?
The use of the various "petty officer" terms has always struck me as being silly. Basically, the teleplay and screenplay writers only want to use two words in dialog: "crewman" and "chief", so why not create a system where everyone can be called either a crewman or chief:

Master Base Chief Base Chief Master Ship Chief Ship Chief Master Deck Chief Deck Chief Master Crew Chief Crew Chief Crewman 1st class Crewman 2nd class Crewman 3rd class

<IP_ADDRESS> 05:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * That's really not relevant here. Creating new ranks from scratch is certainly not what this article, or wikipedia is for.  The term "Petty officer" is rarely used in everyday conversation in the modern navy, instead their rating is used.  The term "Chief Petty Officer" is also quite canonically used in Star Trek (in dialogue to describe Miles O'Brien).  They are called "petty officers" because they can issue orders, but lack a commission or the status of a commissioned officer, hence they are "petty" in comparison.  The term noncommissioned officer is a more generic military term for the same position.  --Wingsandsword 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured lists
As one of the major contributors of the featured list: List of Oh My Goddess episodes. I'd like to suggest this article can aslo qualify in my view. Please see that page to have an idea on characteristics of a featured page also see Featured lists for criteria.

However this should only be attempted after several layers of cleanups in the aftermath of breakdowns. -- Cool CatTalk 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe the page is ready for a featured run. Aside from minor fixes (I dont see any) that should be pointed out during the FLC process. -- Cool CatTalk 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Images in need of updating
Alert to all users who have written on this article. The rank insignia images need to be updated as to thier source or they may be attacked as possibly unfree images. I, for one, think such nominations are bad faith since most insignia pictures are so widely distributed (some over 40 years old) that they are Public Domain. And copyrighting a pip or a stripe or a circle is ridiculous, in my opinion. See for what I am referring to. -Husnock 21:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I have been through the archives of this page, and cannot seem to locate the extensive discussuion about copyright to which you refer. Could you please tell me in which archive it is, and under which subheading it can be found. The JPS 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The featured article sub-page, on the top of this page, will take you into the area where these discussions took place. There is an archive page within that page where images were further discussed.  The entire point here is that stripes, pips, and circles drawn within a box cannot be said to be copyrighted by Paramount.  The motion picture pins are a bit harder to define since they were created by Paramount Pictures but are geometric shapes which can easily be created on any graphics program in today's age.  If these were actual photos ripped off another website, then I'd be all for questioning the images.  But they are simple graphics pictures and should not, in my view, be targeted as unfree images. -Husnock 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. It's very possible, then, that the images are OK. This must be confrmed at PUI, though, before the tag is removed. The JPS 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image tag for ranks proposed
I played around with this and think this would be a good tag to start using for Star Trek ranks. My knowledge of how to propose it is limited though. Opinions? -Husnock 22:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This image, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship
 * Hmm... I'll play with the wording a bit. -- Cool CatTalk 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! I believe most of the rank images cannot be copyrighted in the fist place. (copyrighting The motion pictures insignia is not something that can be done for example). I bet 100$ on the fly some one drew yellow circiles before Paramount Pictures -- Cool CatTalk 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Images gotten from other sites (such as I did recently) will require permission. I believe since thy allowed us to use images on wikipedia they wouldn't mind. Although I do not want to bother them too much. -- Cool CatTalk 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, except we need to modify the actual template. It can be found at: Template:PD-StarTrekRank -Husnock 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done? -- Cool CatTalk 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is in good shape. I need to find out the procedure to get it posted as an actual image tag.  I left notes on the main image tag page. -Husnock 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag images with PD-StarTrekRank? -- Cool CatTalk 06:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Husnock, thank you for going to Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags. This is an appropriate place to discuss your tag. You will get objective advice from people with expertise in this area. The JPS 08:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Cookbook talk:Rhubarb Cake

This is my mother's recipe from a family cookbook. -liblamb

 * I like it. In about a minuite, it'll be the featured recipe. Gentgeen 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Rhubarb Cake


text:
Talk:Donald A. Thomas

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald A. Thomas. 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/20100524145637/http://www.usasciencefestival.org/2010festival/niftyfifty to http://www.usasciencefestival.org/2010festival/niftyfifty

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donald A. Thomas


text:
User:Bonhamme/sandbox

 * important to note that archaeological ethics are not the same around the world and what is considered ethical behavior can vary from culture to culture

History of Ethics in Archaeology
The earliest archaeologists were typically amateurs who would excavate a site with the sole purpose of collecting as many objects as they could for display in museums. Curiosity about past humans and the potential for finding lucrative and fascinating objects justified what many professional archaeologists today would consider to be unethical archaeological behavior. A shift toward scientific knowledge prompted many early archaeologists to begin documenting their finds. In 1906, the Antiquities Act created as the first act in America to help regulate archaeological discovery. This act allowed for federal protection of sites from looting but failed to protect native peoples from having their land and ancestral objects seized. The Society for American Archaeology was developed in 1934. This organization helped to bring regulation into the field of archaeology and provided consistent training for professional archaeologists. A series of laws passed in the 1960s and 1970s created the field of Cultural Resource Management which protects archaeological sites from encroaching development. Debates about the rights of native peoples to their ancestral belongings occurred throughout the 1980s culminating in the passing of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The rise of ethics in archaeology was spurred by a shift in archaeological theory towards post-processualism which focuses on critical evaluation of methods and the implications of archaeology on politics.

Ethics in Commercial Archaeology
The bulk of modern archaeological work is done under the auspices of development by cultural resource management archaeologists in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Guidance for compliance with Section 106 is provided by The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Impacts of Nondisclosure Agreements
Much of this work is subject to non-disclosure agreements with private entities. A primary ethical criticism levied against commercial archaeological practices is the prevalence of non-disclosure agreements associated with development projects involving a cultural resource management component. Critics claim that NDA’s are a barrier to public access to the archaeological record and create an unethical working condition for archaeologists to practice and that archaeology applied to the industry of development is itself a threat to the archaeological record. This practice prohibits information gathered from the archaeological record during such projects from being disseminated to the public or academic institutions for further study and peer review. Scarre writes that “collecting items that are surplus to requirements…is academically pointless and morally irresponsible" and it has been interpreted that data collected as a result of cultural resource management fieldwork unavailable to the public through NDA access restrictions creates such a surplus and therefore is ethically problematic.

Private Property and Development
The issue of ownership is paramount in the ethical discussion regarding commercial archaeology. In most circumstances, with the exception of human remains and artifacts associated with burials, ownership artifacts and other material recovered from archaeological investigations performed within the scope of development projects falls to the owner of the property on which the excavation is performed. Many archaeologists consider this to be ethically problematic and a significant barrier to public access.

Colonization & Conflict
The World Archaeological Congress has determined that “It is unethical for Professional Archaeologists and academic institutions to conduct professional archaeological work and excavations in occupied areas possessed by force”. This resolution has been interpreted to include not only regions where there is active military conflict but regions who have been in conflict in the past and are currently under colonial rule, for example, North and South America.

Globally
The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is a global organization that holds a congress every four years to discuss recent publications and research as well as to update archaeological practice guidelines and policies. The WAC publishes a code of ethics for their archaeologists to follow. Some of the accords which have been adopted by the WAC code of ethics include the Dead Sea Accord, the Vermillion Accord on Human Remains, and The Tamaki Makau-rau Accord on the Display of Human Remains and Sacred Objects. The WAC has also published a separate code of ethics for the protection of The Amazon Forest Peoples.

The Register of Professional Archaeologists is a multinational organization that provides accreditation for archaeologists and adjacent professionals. They provide a network which serves to connect archaeologists to each other and to industries which rely upon their expertise.

The Indigenous Archaeology Collective (IAC)

Society of Black Archaeologists (SBA)
 * non western legislation

Europe
The European Association of Archaeologists (EAA), like the Society for American Archaeology in the United States, is an organization which regulates the ethical practice of archaeology across Europe. The EAA requires its members to follow a published code of ethics. The code of ethics requires archaeologists t o inform the public of their work, preserve archaeological sites, and evaluate the social and ecological impacts of their work before beginning. This code further provides an ethical framework for conducting contractual archaeology, fieldwork training, and journal publications.

While the EAA regulates ethical archaeological practices across Europe, the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarcheology further provides an ethical guideline for British archaeologists who are conducting research with human remains.

Australia
The Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) is an organization which regulates and promotes archaeology across Australia. The AAA has a published code of ethics which it's members must follow. The AAA code of ethics highlights issues such as gaining informed consent, rights of indigenous people, and conservation of heritage sites. The AAA code of ethics also states that any member who fails to adhere to the code is subject to disciplinary action.

Canada
The Canadian Archaeological Association (CAA) exists to promote archaeological knowledge, promote general interest in archaeology, and to act as a liaison between Canadian Aboriginals and archaeologists studying their ancestors. The CAA assures ethical archaeological practices among their members by offering a principles of ethics guideline. These principles of ethics focuses on assuring access to knowledge, conserving archaeological sites whenever possible, and promoting ethical relationships between Aboriginals and archaeologists.

America
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is an organization which is dedicated the the ethical practice of archaeology and the preservation of archaeological materials in America. The SAA's committee on archaeological ethics continually updates the living document titled Principles of Archaeological Ethics, which was first created in 1966. The SAA registers professional archaeologists who must agree to uphold the code of conduct while conducting research.

The United States government continually passes legislation to protect archaeological materials and uphold ethical archaeological research. The Antiquities Act of 1906 established punishment for archaeological looting, ensured the governments' responsibility to preserve archaeological sites, and created guidelines for conducting archaeological research. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 further confirmed that the preservation of archaeological sites is of national concern. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provided federal protection of archaeological sites and established the need for environmental review, ensuring that development does not destroy archaeological material. The Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 states that archaeological materials must be preserved once they are discovered. The Native American Graves Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) constitutes that museums receiving government funding must attempt to return archaeological materials to Native Americans if the natives claim the material. NAGPRA also states that native organizations must be consulted when Native American materials are found or are expected to be found.

Preservation/conversation
In the United States, several acts have been passed to help preserve archaeological sites. Some of these acts include the National Historic Preservation act of 1966, which allows for archaeological sites and materials of historical significance to be placed under federal protection, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, which places all archaeological sites under federal protection, not just sites of historical significance.

Cultural resource management is a branch of archaeology which attempts to protect archaeological sites from development and construction damage.

Nationalism/imperialism

 * Accusations of
 * Responses to
 * "Some such resistance has focused on claims that the harms associated with ethnographic research are nothing like of the same order as those associated with clinical research in medicine"
 * Responses to accusations
 * Responses to legislation by archaeological community

Antiquities Trade
In the United States, the Antiquities Act protects archaeological material from looting. The act establishes punishments for archaeological looting on federal land, allows the US president to declare archaeological sites as national monuments, establishes the government's duty to preserve archaeological sites and make them available for the public, and requires that archaeologists conducting research must meet the guidelines set by the Secretary of the Interior.

Ethics in Ethnoarchaeology
Ethnoarchaeology, which is the study of living people for archaeological purposes, is sometimes used in conjunction with traditional archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology presents a unique case, because it deals with the study of people, which is heavily regulated. Any research dealing with humans must be submitted to an ethics committee for approval under The Nuremburg Code (1947) and the Declaration of Helsinki (1964). Researchers must also obtain informed consent from their research subjects.

Archaeologists conducting ethnoarchaeology or other types of research involving humans must adhere to a certain code in order to conduct legal and ethical research, however, this code is the same that is followed by medical research. There is no specific code for archaeological research involving humans. This has been problematic and some archaeologists resist following a medical ethics code by claiming that medical research and ethnographic research are too different to follow the same code.
 * “ growing realization that anthropology's own history has been value-driven (by colonialism, by the obligations of ‘representation’ and so on)”

Add to external links

 * Society for American Archaeology
 * British Sociological Association
 * Social Anthropology of the UK and the Commonwealth
 * The Economic and Social Research Council

title: User:Bonhamme/sandbox


text:
Church of Scientology

There are Wikipedia articles on Scientology and Church of Scientology

The Church of Scientology, or CoS, is a scientology church founded by the American science fiction writter, L Ron Hubbard. The scripture for scientologists are the writtings of L Ron Hubbard. The first scientology book written by L Ron Hubbard was Dianetics. Hubbard wrote other scientology books also. He wrote around 25 million words.

The other branch of Scientology is Free Zone Scientology.

This page is a learning resource for the Wikiversity Center for the Study of Scientology.

Basic Beliefs of Scientologists

 * Scientology is the study of the truth, and learning how to handle the spirit in relationship to itself and other.
 * Man consists of body, mind, and thetan. The thetan is the equivalent to the soul in other religions.
 * Everything is trying to survive
 * Do not take any drugs
 * That affinity, reality and communication assist in our relations with others
 * The higher up on the tone scale the more free you are
 * Auditing helps people examine specific areas of their existence so they can rid themselves of unwanted spiritual conditions. This in turn helps them reach higher levels of being

Aims of Scientology
L Ron Hubbard wrote about the aims of scientology saying:
 * "A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology."
 * Critics of the group disagree with this. Many say that the groups aim is to make money. They say that the Church does not care about others. It only cares about itself.

Dianetics
The book Dianetics was the first self help book ever to be written. It was written by L Ron Hubbard in the year 1950. Some key concepts in the book are:
 * There is a part of the mind that stores all your traumatic memories which contain some measure of unconsciousness. This part causes you to do illogical/contra-survival things, get ill, and causes everything else that is contra-survival.
 * Traumatic memories are called engrams.
 * The other part of your mind takes in all the good memories. When this part of the mind is controlling you do prosurvival things.
 * Auditing is meant to help you to get rid of all your engrams and reach a state called "clear".

Auditing
The central practice of Scientology is "auditing" (from the Latin word audire, "to listen"), which is a one-on-one communication with a trained Scientology counselor or "auditor". The auditor follows an exact procedure toward rehabilitating the human spirit. Most auditing uses an E-meter, a device that measures very small changes in electrical resistance through the human body when a person is holding onto tin cans and a small current is passed through them.

The auditing process is intended to help the practitioner (referred to as a preclear or PC) to unburden himself or herself of specific traumatic incidents, prior ethical transgressions and bad decisions, which are said to collectively restrict the preclear from achieving his or her goals and lead to the development of a "reactive mind". In one form of auditing the auditor asks the preclear to respond to a list of questions which are designed for specific purposes and given to the preclear in a strictly regulated way. Auditing requires that the preclear be a willing and interested participant who understands the questions, and the process goes more smoothly when he or she understands what is going on, in fact rule #19 of the Auditors' Code forbids an auditor to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command. Per Church policy, auditors are trained not to "evaluate for" their preclears; i.e., they are forbidden from suggesting, interpreting, degrading or invalidating the preclear's answers. The E-meter is used to help locate an area of concern.

Scientologists have claimed benefits from auditing including improved IQ, improved ability to communicate, enhanced memory, alleviated dyslexia and attention deficit problems, and improved relaxation.

During the auditing process, the auditor may collect personal information from the person being audited in a manner similar to a psychotherapy session or confessional. The Auditors' Code states that an auditor promises never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain. The Church maintains that its auditing records are kept confidential, although at least one organizational directive (GO 121669) specifically authorized the use of these auditing records for purposes of "internal security". Auditing records are referred to within Scientology as "PC (preclear) folders" and are said to be stored securely when not being added to during auditing sessions.

ARC triangle
Another basic tenet of Scientology is the three related (and intrinsically spiritual) components that make up successful "livingness": affinity (emotional responses), reality (an agreement on what is real) and communication (the exchange of ideas). Hubbard called this the "ARC Triangle". Scientologists utilize A.R.C. as a central organizing principle in their own lives, primarily based upon the belief that improving one aspect of the triangle increases the level of the other two.

Tone scale
The tone scale is a characterization of human mood and behavior by various positions on a scale. The scale ranges from -40 ("Total Failure") to +40 ("Serenity of Being"). Positions on the tone scale are usually designated by an emotion, but Hubbard also described many other things that can be indicated by the tone scale levels, such as aspects of a human's health, mating behavior, survival potential, or ability to deal with truth. The tone scale is frequently used by Scientologists to evaluate humans. According to Scientology, the lower the individual is on the tone scale, the more complex and convoluted one's problems tend to be, and the more care and judgment should be exercised regarding communication and interaction with that individual.

Past lives
In Dianetics, Hubbard proposed that the cause of "aberrations" in a human mind was an accumulation of pain and unconscious memories of traumatic incidents, some of which predated the life of the human. He extended this view further in Scientology, declaring that thetans have existed for tens of trillions of years (several orders of magnitude greater than what mainstream science generally estimates the age of the universe to be). During that time, Hubbard explains, they have been exposed to a vast number of traumatic incidents, and have made a great many decisions that influence their present state. According to an early lecture of Hubbard's, it is, as a practical matter, both impossible and undesirable to recall each and every such event from such vast stretches of time. As a result, Hubbard's three decade development of Scientology focused on streamlining the process to address only key factors. Hubbard stated that Scientology materials as described in books, tapes, and research notes include a record of everything that was found in the course of his research. Not all things found are stated to have been experienced by all animals on Earth.

According to Hubbard, some of the past traumas may have been deliberately inflicted in the form of "implants" used by extraterrestrial dictatorships such as Helatrobus to brainwash and control humans. Scientology doctrine includes a wide variety of beliefs in complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described by Hubbard as "space opera". There is a huge Church of Spiritual Technology symbol carved into the ground at Scientology's Trementina Base that is visible from passing aircraft or from satellite photography. Washington Post reporter Richard Leiby wrote, "Former Scientologists familiar with Hubbard’s teachings on reincarnation say the symbol marks a 'return point' so loyal staff members know where they can find the founder’s works when they travel here in the future from other places in the universe."

Helpful Links
Official
 * Official Website

Neutral

 * Wikipedia Article

Critical

 * Operation Clambake
 * Xenu TV

title: Church of Scientology


text:
User:Nanobot567

Nanobot567 is a person who is interested in a million different things, such as music production, coding, and videogames.

https://github.com/nanobot567 - My GitHub

title: User:Nanobot567


text:
Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Sections

FOR NEWCOMERS - HOW DO WE DISCUSS HERE - PLEASE READ

Please review the arguments on the related pages (maybe quickly) to see if any questions you have, answered before. For the efficiency of the discussion, we modify the project as outlines below: If your suggestions get approval from the editors then it can be updated accordingly.
 * copy the part from the proposal onto the discussion page or subpages: Sections or Arguments
 * express your ideas why you think it is not appropriate
 * give your suggestion to fix the problem, propose your version

There are two subpages: Arguments and Sections. On the Sections page, we discuss the sections starting from the beginning. Please do not start a new section discussion if the current one did not get a consensus. If you want to start an argument discussion, please do so on the Arguments page. An approval poll can only be opened based on a consensus after completion of the policy.

Introduction
''Wikipedia editorial standards and ethics (Wikiethics) include principles of ethics and of good practice to address the specific challenges faced by Wikipedians. Wikipedia has some editorial standards that reflects the common heritage of human literacy. This proposal aims to outline these standards and create a policy that summarizes them. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently, their place in the whole picture and their relations to the Wiki ethics and standards are also important issues to be addressed. ''

Let us start with the introduction. Do you think if the introduction is good enough? Do you have any suggestion? Resid Gulerdem 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Editorial guidelines
''The following sections provide important guidelines for editing an article. It is also helpful on how to have a productive editorial discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when disputes arise.''

Article-based classifications
''In some cases it seems to be hard to define some particular terms like 'offensive', 'censorship', 'pornography', etc. That is why article-based classifications is the most appropriate way in doing so. Generalizations do not help as it is almost impossible to agree on the definitions of particular terms based on cultures, religions, and such. The terms used in this policy such as 'minority', 'acceptability', etc. are also article-based classifications based on the judgement of the contributing editors in that particular article. By 'majority' more than %50 of the editors is meant and the term 'consensus' refer to %75 or more of the editors voted.''

Let us discuss about this section. Any suggestions to improve this part? Resid Gulerdem 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It semms to be that there is no objection to the previous parts. I would like to open the following parts for discussion. Resid Gulerdem 00:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Collective consciousness
''Collective consciousness can be expressed as a common sense and common understanding of the contributing editors which does not strictly exclude ideas from minorities in a particular discussion. With Wiki policies in mind, consensus among the contributing editors should determine what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in a particular discussion.''

The culture of compromise
''Empathy for 'the other' in a particular discussion is a valuable practice for editors. It is together with sincerity the most powerful tool leads to a compromise.''

Conflict resolution
''It is generally possible to resolve a conflict by taking all possible options available into the consideration. 'Unacceptable' descriptions or expressions should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. As an example to solve a dispute; if a picture is causing concerns in an article, having a civil discussion about other options or using what more editors consider to be a more encyclopedic picture may lead to a compromise. Choosing visual or verbal description based on the judgement of the contributing editors might also be helpful.''

Discussion
''Discussion pages are the place to improve the articles. They are generally be used for for informal talks. Nevertheless, the language used in the discussion pages are important. Apparently, rudeness, slang words, sarcasm do not help for an improvement of the article in question. For efficiency of the discussions on an article one might chose to copy the part from the article onto the discussion page, express his/her ideas why s/he thinks the part is not appropriate and give his/her suggestion to fix the problem. This could help to get more input from the other editors and consequently may lead to a better article.''

Anonymity
''Being responsible is a natural result of the principles given in this policy. Anonymity does not exempt any editor from these responsibilities.''

It seems to be there is no objections to the sections above. We can start to Editorial Standards. Recently there was some concerns about four sections. We can start discussing those. If we can get agreement that is fine. Otherwise we may have straw polls for each section to seek the community approval. Resid Gulerdem 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Offense
''Insulting or offensive expressions should generally be avoided in Wiki. It is not in our interest to offend Wikipedians or people who are using Wiki as a source of information. It is generally possible to find a different way of the same description which might be found less offensive or not offensive at all, while expressing the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. In doing so, keeping the informative materials stated objectively in the article is also necessary. No offense policy restricts deliberate attacks to any religious values or people, cultures, life styles, etc. It is always good to be considerate for the concerns raised by the 'minorities' of particular discussions or articles.''

Pornography
''Pornography which can be described as visual or verbal descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause sexual excitement should generally be avoided in Wiki articles. The determination of a material being 'unacceptable' or 'pornographic' should be done by the contributing editors in a particular article.''

Violence
''Editors should be sensitive in portraying violence in the articles. Violence can be defined as an act of aggression or rough unwarranted force intended to cause physical or emotional harm on another being. Editors should also be sensitive about the rights of victims who are subject to violence and also the possibility, if any, that these portrayals may incite someone to harm others.''

Racism
''Racism can be defined as the theory or idea that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and certain traits of personality, intellect, or culture and, combined with it, the notion that some races are inherently superior to others. In the Wikipedia articles, the expressions that portray the prejudice, discrimination or intolerance of people of some races are not acceptable. The descriptions that are intended to be divisive over nationality, race, colour or creed should be avoided. The expressions that glorify or incite someone to ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife, and violence cannot be considered as encyclopedic.''

title: Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Sections


text:
Umberto Pusterla

Umberto Pusterla (born 21 October 1967) is a former Italian male long-distance runner who competed at 11 editions of the IAAF World Cross Country Championships (from 1986 to 2005).

Biography
He won two medals at the European Cross Country Championships with the national team, and won four national championships at senior level.

title: Umberto Pusterla


text:
2019 Dublin Senior Hurling Championship

The 2019 Dublin Senior Hurling Championship was the 132nd staging of the Dublin Senior Hurling Championship since its establishment by the Dublin County Board in 1887. The championship began in April 2019.

Ballyboden St. Enda's were the defending champions, defeating Kilmacud Crokes in the 2018 final.

title: 2019 Dublin Senior Hurling Championship


text:
Max Mikorey

Max Mikorey (15 September 1850 – 1 December 1907) was a German operatic tenor.

Life
Born in Weihmichl, Kingdom of Bavaria, Mikorey was the son of an economist. After he returned home from the Franco-Prussian War, he took singing lessons with Heinrich Vogl for a short time and then devoted himself to the stage career. He began at the Stadttheater in Zurich, then came to the Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz in Munich, and in 1878 to the Hoftheater of the same city. In the beginning, he was used in unimportant tasks and immediately ventured into the field of the Heldentenor as Raoul. In 1882 he also got a small role in the Bayreuth premiere cast of Parsifal as a squire. Mikorey was awarded the title of Kammersänger for his outstanding services. Some of his most recognized achievements are Arnold, Lyonel, Stradella, Erik, Hüon, Walther von Stolzing, Tannhäuser, Don José, Manrico etc. In 1888 he sang Arindal in the posthumous premiere of Wagner's early work Die Feen.

Mikorey died in 1907 in Dessau at the age of 57.

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

title: Max Mikorey


text:
Talk:Sandeep Kumar (politician)

Sandeep kumar uses tax money for wife pregnancy and wanted US citizen child
http://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/Sex-Minister-Sandeep-Kumar-did-not-disclose-wifes-pregnancy-details/2016/09/04/article3610971.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Degrees
Ok, it is no secret that India has a massive problem with fake degrees. That doesn't mean we should assume that someone is lying when they say they have a degree. I am particularly bemused by this edit, the edit summary for which seems to contradict what was done.

If we have a reliable source that shows CCS denying awarding the LLB (or some other institution denying award of one) then that's ok. Otherwise, I do not see the problem. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sandeep Kumar (politician)