text:
Kellen Mond

Kellen Louis Mond (born June 22, 1999) is an American football quarterback who is a free agent. He played college football at Texas A&M, where he was a four-year starter and became one of three SEC quarterbacks to record over 9,000 career passing yards with 1,500 rushing yards. Mond was drafted by the Minnesota Vikings in the third round of the 2021 NFL Draft.

Early life
Mond originally attended Ronald Reagan High School in San Antonio, Texas, before transferring to IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida, prior to his senior year. As a senior, he passed for 1,936 yards and 20 touchdowns and rushed for 775 yards and 18 touchdowns. Mond was rated by the Rivals.com recruiting network as a five-star recruit and was ranked as the number one dual-threat quarterback in his class. He committed to Texas A&M University to play college football under head coach Kevin Sumlin.

College career
Mond entered his freshman year at Texas A&M in 2017 as a backup to Nick Starkel, but took over as the starter after Starkel was injured during the first game of the season against the UCLA Bruins. In his first career start, he completed 12-of-21 passes for 105 yards and a touchdown. Prior to Texas A&M's first game of the NCAA 2018-2019 season, Jimbo Fisher, who was in his first year as Texas A&M's head coach, replacing Kevin Sumlin, announced that Mond would be the starting quarterback for the season opener. Despite an initial feeling that Mond and Nick Starkel would continue to battle for the job after a long competition over the summer, Mond held on to the starting position for the remainder of the season, guiding the Aggies to an 8–4 record and a #19 ranking in the regular season College Football Playoff rankings. The Aggies' season culminated in a historic 74–72 seven-overtime win over Southeastern Conference (SEC) rival LSU. This game set several records, including the most points ever scored in a game in the FBS era, and tied a handful of other games for the longest college football game of all time with seven overtimes.

Entering the 2019 season, expectations were higher for Mond, though his overall performance failed to meet them. While his pass completion rate improved, his total yards and yards-per-attempt slightly decreased. In the 2020 season, however, he was able to improve with career-highs in pass completion percentage (63.5%) and yards-per-attempt (7.6). The Aggies finished the 2020 season 9–1 and ranked fourth in the final AP Poll. Mond performed at the 2021 Senior Bowl and was named its most valuable player.

He finished his career at Texas A&M as one of three SEC quarterbacks, along with Tim Tebow and Dak Prescott, to record over 9,000 career passing yards with 1,500 rushing yards.

Minnesota Vikings
Mond was selected by the Minnesota Vikings in the third round with the 66th overall pick in the 2021 NFL Draft. He signed his four-year rookie contract with Minnesota on June 15, 2021.

Ahead of the Vikings' Week 17 matchup against the Green Bay Packers, Kirk Cousins was ruled out after testing positive for COVID-19. Head coach Mike Zimmer named Mond the backup to Sean Mannion. Mond's debut came in the fourth quarter after Mannion was being evaluated for an injury. He completed two of three passes for five yards in the 37–10 loss.

On August 30, 2022, Mond was waived by the Vikings.

Cleveland Browns
On August 31, 2022, Mond was claimed off waivers by the Cleveland Browns. He was released by the Browns on August 24, 2023. However, following the trade of Joshua Dobbs to the Arizona Cardinals, the Browns reclaimed Mond off waivers the following day. Mond was then released a second time as part of final roster cuts on August 29, and re-signed to the practice squad the next day. He was subsequently released a third time to make room for P. J. Walker on August 30.

Indianapolis Colts
On October 10, 2023, Mond was signed to the Indianapolis Colts practice squad.

New Orleans Saints
On April 12, 2024, Mond signed with the New Orleans Saints. He was waived by the organization on May 8.

title: Kellen Mond


text:
Template:2019–20 Vijay Hazare Trophy Group C

Top two teams advances to the knockout stage and are promoted to the Elite Group A and B.

Bottom ranked team is relegated to the Plate Group for the next season.

source: wikimedia

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


text:
Australian Vocational Education and Training/ICAU3019A Migrating to new technology

From the official document ICAU3019A :
 * "This unit defines the competency required to apply skills and knowledge in using new or upgraded technology."

Basically, that means ... (translate above into plain english)

You can read more about this unit on the National Training Information Systems Official document for ICAU3019A.

This unit is part of the following qualifications:
 * Cert III Applications Qualification in Australia

How this unit will help you
After learning and applying the skills required by this unit you'll be able to demonstrate your skills in:

 * translate the above elements and performance criteria into plain english and summarise here...

Ideas for learning the required skills
...

Ideas for demonstrating this unit
The best way to demonstrate these skills is ...

Grading
If you are demonstrating this unit as part of a formal course, you might find that the unit is graded (meaning you can not only demonstrate your competence, but can also gain a credit or distinction). Your facilitator may already have set criteria that your college uses. If not, here are some ideas for possible credit/distinction activities that you can discuss with your facilitator:


text:
MechWarrior 3050

MechWarrior 3050, also known as BattleTech in its original Sega Genesis release and in Japan as BattleTech 3050 (バトルテック3050), is a 1994 mech-based video game developed by Malibu. The first BattleTech based game to be released for the Sega Genesis, it was later ported to the Super Nintendo by Activision as MechWarrior 3050. The Super Nintendo game was localized and published in Japan by Ask Group.

The story takes place during the events of the Clan Invasion in the 3050 era. Players are assigned the role of a Clan Wolf Mechwarrior, who is sent to eliminate several Inner Sphere assets which threaten to destroy the Clan's dominance on the battlefield, and given Timber Wolf/MadCat mech.

This video game is viewed in an isometric view as opposed to the first person view of the previous game. The game also features a two-player mode where one player controls the bottom half of the mech to navigate it around the map while the second player controls the gun turret.

Gameplay
The game features an isometric perspective and centers around controlling a Mad Cat/Timber Wolf mech to destroy the Inner Sphere bases. Gameplay unfolds across five distinct stages, each featuring a unique environment such as swamps, deserts, or frozen wastelands. All missions are presented to the player in the form of a news feed.

Mission objectives range from destroying enemy radars and factories to conducting rescue operations, all of which involve extensive use of weaponry. The Mad Cat/Timber Wolf mech, with its ability to rotate 360 degrees, is armed with an array of weaponry, including missiles, lasers, mines, and flamethrowers, which the player chooses at the beginning of each mission. Limited ammunition necessitates frequent restocking from crates scattered around the map.

Damage inflicted by enemies increases the Mech's damage and overheating indicators. If these indicators reach critical levels, the player loses a life. Collected coolant fluid can reduce overheating. The game also offers an innovative cooperative mode for two players, with one player controlling the robot's legs and the other managing the torso and weaponry.

Reception
Though the four reviewers of Electronic Gaming Monthly complained that the game's single-player mode is difficult to the point of being inaccessible, all but one of them gave the Genesis version a positive recommendation, citing the diversity of missions, strong challenge, and impressive animations. They were evenly split on the Super NES version, with two of them recommending it based on the diversity of levels, and the other two focusing on the frustratingly difficult single player mode and the confusing controls. They scored it a 6.75 out of 10 average. A critic for Next Generation gave it three out of five stars, assessing that, compared to the Genesis original, it has sharper graphics but clunkier animation and worse control. He praised the game itself for its frantic, challenging onslaught of enemies. GamePro's Scary Larry was uneasy at how the two-player mode demands that the two players be in perfect sync with each other, and said that the failure to do so could lead to bitter arguments. He also criticized the undetailed graphics, choppy animation, and limited sound effects, but recommended the game for its challenging, strategic, and overall fun gameplay.

Victor Lucas of Electric Playground lauded the game, drawing comparisons to the gameplay of Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf. Lucas particularly appreciated a control feature that allowed the player to shoot without changing the course of movement. However, he did note that the game's graphics could have been more refined, specifically regarding enemy detailing. Similarly, drawing a comparison to Jungle Strike from the Strike series, Nikos Constant of VideoGames & Computer Entertainment found BattleTech to be considerably more engaging. In his view, BattleTech is a "great war game", where success hinges on the player's ability to simultaneously utilize strategy, skill, and a bit of luck.

Ken Horowitz from Sega-16 commented on the sense of power that BattleTech offers to the player when controlling a massive combat robot. Horowitz noted that the game more closely resembled a solitary MechAssault entry, characterized by its methodical and thoughtful gameplay pace. In a retrospective review, Jim Evans from the Ultimate Nintendo collection felt that while the game could have seen Desert Strike-style success, its overly complex gameplay, heightened by the appearance of enemy Mechs and time constraints, made the game unnecessarily difficult. Evans posited that with a more balanced difficulty level, the game could have become a "classic".

title: MechWarrior 3050


text:
Talk:Eddie Eagle

Opposition?
It would be nice if someone from the Other Side would say in a bit more detail how Eddie Eagle is objectionable. One might uncharitably suppose that to the gun-grabbers the only appropriate response to firearms is blind panic, which the litany (if it works as advertised) would counteract. —Tamfang 19:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the kids played with the guns because they knew they were toys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs)
 * It's like you said - it's objectionable because of the source, not the message. They feel that if it didn't come out of the Brady Bunch, it must be biased. — RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 13:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * is there even a citation for the criticism. and is there similar programs, ie: one by the Bradly campaign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Eagle in the news
Is it up to Wikipedia editors to decide which criticisms are "legitimate"? Or do we just compile reliable material on notable topics? This issue was reported in multiple sources, so it appears to be significant. If the issue is the wording, I'm sure we can find a different way of summarizing the issue. Felsic2 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Here's the text that was deleted:
 * In April 2016, Samantha Bee on her show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, in a sketch critical of the NRA's political advocacy, attempted to purchase an Eddie Eagle costume from the NRA but was denied, while also successfully purchasing several firearms.
 * That seems like a minimal and accurate summary of the sources which would be hard to improve upon. Here are some more sources which establish its notability: FWIW, here's a link to the original episode: . Since no one has provided "legitimate" reason  for cutting this well-sourced and neutral text, or suggested any changes, I'll go ahead and restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like a minimal and accurate summary of the sources which would be hard to improve upon. Here are some more sources which establish its notability: FWIW, here's a link to the original episode: . Since no one has provided "legitimate" reason  for cutting this well-sourced and neutral text, or suggested any changes, I'll go ahead and restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This was a PR stunt, not a legitimate criticism of the program. If you think the material should remain please raise the issue to get more eyes on it. Springee (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A request for extra eyes was placed on the NRA talk page []. Springee (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article following the latest set of reverts here today. Please discuss and reach a consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 * - what is your basis for calling it a "PR stunt"? Is that your own personal assessment or is that what reliable sources call it? If the latter, then it'd still be a reasonable addition. I suppose some might call the entire Eddie Eagle program a PR stunt for the NRA, and many PR stunts are notable, so that issue alone does not disqualify its inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding yourself. The section discusses criticism of the program.  The material was rightly removed with all the justification needed.  That the NRA wants to protect who gets a trademarked item that could be used disparagingly against them is perfectly reasonable.  I noticed that you included the National Review.  That article makes the point perfectly, this wasn't a criticism of the program but an anti-NRA PR stunt.  This is the sort of thing that you should be able to understand.  It was perfectly reasonable to post this to the NRA site since this is an NRA program.  You are just looking for a sympathetic audience.  Since this is firearms related I will post it to that site.  I'm sorry that common sense hasn't prevailed here.  Incidentally, you seem to be the only editor who supports inclusion.  The 86.whatever IP address was trolling my edits after I stopped it's disruption at the Mini-14 article.  Springee (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I didn't write the original material. added the National Review. Do you consider it to be a reliable source? I'm fine with adding more about their view of the issue. What I disagree with is deleting it entirely, since it has received so much coverage. Whether or not it was an "anti-NRA PR stunt" doesn't really affect the decision to include it. That should be based on whether it was reported in reliable source, and it was so it should be included. As for your description of Full Frontal as a "pop TV show", that seems a bit biased. Pretty much all TV shows are pop TV shows. Felsic2 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only consideration is notability of the criticism itself. While the criticism did get a lot of press coverage at the time, my personal judgement is that as it was a comedy sketch it could warrant a maybe 1 line mention in the criticism section.  My personal inclination is to give weight to academic critiques over and above any sort of television program.  I also tend to have a heterodox philosophy that Wikipedia can and should have temporary additions in articles for people who are searching for something that is trending that can be removed later.  I do not believe that the goal should be a static encyclopedia. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not it was a publicity stunt, an effective criticism or just an example of a liberal being an idiot is irrelevant to whether or not to include it. For example, Mass Effect (video game) contains criticism from conservatives that gives a completely inaccurate description of the game. What matters is the amount of coverage that the criticism has received. In this case, more than enough sources have been shown to prove that the Sam Bee segment has received enough coverage to be included in the article. Now, if a notable gun activist has issued a response to her segment, that might be worth including as well. JDDJS (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The material was in a section called "criticism". If it's going to be "media coverage" then there may be a weight argument but it would have to include follow up explanation/reply material.  For instance, NR mentioned that it was a RP stunt and that it's very reasonable for a private organization to protect trademark materials from groups that are likely to use the items in a negative way.  Regardless, the material as is, it clearly not a legitimate criticism and as editors we can make an editorial judgment to remove it.    Springee (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 * If your concern is that it is in the "criticism" section we can move it out of there. Has there been any other media coverage of the mascot or the program? If so then go ahead and add that too. As for National Review, I don't see where it calls the segment a "PR stunt". It calls it "willful stupidity", which is a very different matter. Felsic2 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

*Keep the text, but place the text in a media section. My opinion: Per Users Felsic2 and JDDJS the text has multiple reliable multiple sources, and per WP:NPOV is to be included in this article. Per User Springee I do not consider the text a criticism of the Eddie Eagle program, but describes a media event or a type of investigative reporting. I did not find any statements in the sources stating the actions are a PR stunt.CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Per feedback here I've updated the section heading and rephrased the sentence. Springee (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Due to the return of the UK based IP vandal I'm requesting the page be semi-protected. Springee (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:NOTVANDAL right now before I give both you and the IP a block for edit warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Sam Bee segment should be reworded. First of all, she did not directly compare buying the costume and guns. Second of all, the fact that it's trademark doesn't need to be in the sentence. Finally, after mentioning the segment, another sentence should be written that acknowledges that some praised the segment, but then a brief summary of the National Review's response to her segment, so that it is unbiased. JDDJS (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Felsic2 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion is that we could move the "critical" material to a section titled "Effectiveness". Since the material is already pro and con POVs about its effectiveness, that seems like a better heading. It might also reduce the impression that there's undue weight on critical material. Felsic2 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the Effectiveness idea, good call. Springee (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To all that support inclusion, what do you feel her segment actually added to the reader's understanding of the Eddie Eagle program? I see this as a core problem here.  Was her segment actually about the kids education program or its effectiveness?  It is only important to the topic of the EE program to the extent that the NRA is clearly interested in protecting their trademarked costume.  Remember we are dealing with a weight issue, mention of the costume, even though it's a critical element of the story doesn't mean the story has sufficient weight for inclusion here.  There are several recent topic examples were an event got coverage in the press but it wasn't considered of sufficient weight for inclusion in a particular topic.  Does anyone see this as anything but a political statement against the NRA, not a stand on the EE program itself?  If the commentary is about the NRA vs the EE program then we don't have clear weight for inclusion in this article.  I would support inclusion in the comedian or show article.  It also could fit into the NRA article if a proper subsection exists.  Finally, currently it appears to me we have consensus for just a one sentence mention. Given a single sentence I think it's only proper to include mention of the trademark since that is what the NRA is protecting. Springee (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I think the text belongs in the article as stated in the article, which is a media investigation comparison. The scope of the article is more than the EE program, the scope also includes uses and comparisons. Because the EE costume is used in the comparison, the text belongs in this article, the text in addition, could also be placed or noted/linked in the NRA article. fyi, I think the current text is missing the results of the comparison. CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 * It wasn't an investigation, it was a comedy show and sketch. Why do you think the article scope is about more than the EE program?  I agree that scope would include effectiveness and impact but it's a stretch to say it would include NRA trademark protection.  I can see this sort of thing being on the NRA page (given it was meant to highlight what can be seen as hypocritical policy) but what about on the show's page or the comedian's page?  The show was on for only one season so it seems this is actually better placed there.  Also, that would be a better place to include both the positive and negative replies.  Again, I ask, how does the NRA's wish to protect their trademark and a comedy show's wish to juxtapose the trademark protection with the NRA's position on gun purchase restrictions fit into the context of the NRA's children's safety program?  Springee (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I think it is a satire investigation/event. An article's scope, and every article's scope includes uses, events, investigations, comparisons, history, aftermath, popular culture, causes and effects et al. I think a brief text note can be in the NRA article too, and in the show's article. I did not find any objection to protecting a trademark. CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree that it's satire but investigation is a big stretch. An article's scope isn't everything under the sun that can be associated with a subject.  We saw that with the RfC related to criminal use of vehicles RfC [].  That RfC made it very clear that coverage about subject A which used B doesn't ensure weight in subject B.  To see if this is really about the EE program all we have to do is look at the articles that cover it.  VOX and RS (RS was more of a blurb than a real article) mention that the NRA was protective of people getting the consume and the episode compared that with the laws around getting guns in some states.  OK.  First, how is that about the EE program vs about the NRA's control of it's trademarked items.  Note that the National Review specifically mentions trademark.  The NRA, in responding to the satire also notes trademark protection [].  Second, again how that satire inform the reader about the EE program?  It informs the reader about the NRA's wish to protect their trademarks.  If the text in the article said that "The NRA restricts the use of the EE character and costumes..." and then presented the SB satire as evidence then I can see it.  We shouldn't confuse satire targeting the policies of the NRA with satire targeting the EE program.  If this satire has sufficient weight for mention then the NRA page (or a page about the NRA's policies) would be the correct place to mention it.  Perhaps an "also see" at the end of this article.  Springee (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Hello Springee, we have different opinions. I think the satire on NRA policies using the EE program belongs in both articles, see also cross references are valid also. If you wish, you can create an RFC. I do not have an interest editing this article, only commenting on the talk page. I responded because I read your request to see this talk page n the firearms page.  CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't think this is important enough to create a RfC. I would hope that we can come up with a more balanced entry (never mind the edit warring IP).  In to the arguments that the SB stuff isn't about the EE program we also have the issue that currently the article makes no mention of why the NRA wanted to protect the trade mark.  What would you think of starting the SB part off by noting that the NRA is protective of the trademark (ie about the EE program) then followed with the SB material as evidence that the NRA was protective and SB used that to highlight a difference?  Given that this is an NRA program do you feel it's at least correct to include the NRA's response to SB's attempt to get the costume? Springee (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd delete "sketch", as that may denigrate it. To accommodate Springee, we could add "trademark". But otherwise I think the text written by Krapenhoeffer was adequate. I don't see any benefit from quoting the National Review article in the footnote. It's a strident opinion piece and is readily available. We should delete it. If there's a good reason for keeping it then we should find a similar but opposing quote to balance it. While a sentence is OK, this has received more coverage than other aspects of the program. NPOV says to cover things in proportion to their coverage, so it could be longer if more sides of the issue need to be included. Felsic2 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've given it a second crack. This time I left Krapenhoeffer's sentence almost untouched.  I removed the date of the show simply because that was obvious from the links and unneeded to tell the story.  I added a lead in sentence that explained that the NRA has strict usage guidelines for the mascot (including supporting statements from the NRA).  This ties the SB material to this article vs general NRA policy.  I added a reduced quote to the NR footnote that just explains that their is a difference between private property rights and gun access laws.  I'm in favor of keeping "sketch" because it's a comedy show, not an investigative show but I'm open to other terms. Springee (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Per discussion above, I split out "effectiveness" and "media coverage" as separate topics. I moved the NRA reaction to the end, changed "sketch" to the more neutral "segment", and removed the unneccesary quote from National Review. I also added a link to "trademark" in case readers want to learn more about those. Felsic2 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's an improvement vs the previous text but we are probably close enough to not bother with more structural changes. Since the NRA sentence is now used as a supporting sentence vs subject sentence of the paragraph I expanded it to make it clear the NRA sees this as private property rights vs 2nd A protection.  I also restored the footnote that was deleted.  Springee (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 * If we're going to add a long response from the NRA and an even longer quote from the conservative National Review piece then we should add more about Bee's commentary on the Eddie Eagle program and mascot, per WP:DUE. Felsic2 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The response from the NRA, ie the target of the SB segment, is reasonable to include. The sentence was shorter when it was used as the subject of the paragraph.  If you choose to make the SB segment the subject then why object to including the NRA's response to the segment?  The footnote is included because it provides insight rather than just support that SB did the comparison.  The Vox and RS sources basically say "SB did this, watch the video".  If you think one of the other sources should have a footnote then perhaps you can add it.  Previously you had objected to what you saw as inflammatory language in the footnote and that has been removed.  Springee (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so then it appears we agree that this matter deserves more than a single sentence. If we're going to devote space to the NRA's rebuttal then we ought to actually explain fully Bee's point about the mascot costume. As listed above, there are many more sources to choose from. I still don't see any need for adding a quote from an opinion piece that's easily available, but we can balance it with a quote from the opposite POV. I went ahead and added a sentence with more details about the application process for the costume versus versus buying a gun. Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that one sentence is too many given that this is at best a tertiary connection to the subject of the article. Two sentences is more than enough.  Your additional content is borderline COATRACK and UNDUE.  Additionally it didn't add any information.  The first sentence already says she bought guns and her opinion is just that.  Note that the NR footnote doesn't contain inflammatory opinions, it states the facts.  As a compromise I've expanded the NYDN footnote with much of the factual information.  To keep the number of citations down to 3 I've removed the Vox reference since it says about the same things as the NYDN.  Springee (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The process of obtaining an Eddie Eagle suit seems directly related to the article, not tertiary. I'd appreciate it if you'd restore the material. My preference would be to remove all quotes from citations. Basic information should be in the article, not the footnotes. Felsic2 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2, I appreciate that you are asking and discussing. I do not agree that the NRA's protection (and obviously warranted caution) regarding the use of their trademarks is of significant weight to this program. More germane to the topic would be what the program teaches, how they teach it, what the successes and failures have been. The SB material is at best a side show since it was not done to protest the youth education program but the NRA's stance regarding public policies. Footnotes are a reasonable place to put the extra information. Please note that the material in both of the footnotes is factual, not opinions or hyperbole. I think we have been bouncing back and forth in this disagreement but I also think we are both getting closer to a mutually satisfactory version of the text. Perhaps adding a bit more to the first sentence, something like (needs some attentional work):
 * ''Samantha Bee on her show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, in a segment critical of the NRA's political advocacy, contrasted an unsuccessful attempt to acquire an Eddie Eagle costume, noting an 18 page application and 20 day review period, while legally purchasing several firearms without a background check.

Anyway, we have a vote above for no more than one sentence. Let's keep it to two sentences. Footnotes can help in that regard. Springee (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Springee, I think your proposed sentence above is good, and the NRA response already added, meet WP:NPOV.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Overall that's fine. Two small changes:
 * Samantha Bee on her show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, in a segment accusing the NRA of hypocrisy, contrasted an unsuccessful attempt to acquire an Eddie Eagle costume, noting an 18 page application and 20 day review period, while quickly purchasing several firearms without a background check.
 * I don't think the sources say Bee criticized the NRA for politial advocacy. However even the NRA-ILA piece says she accused them of hypocrisy: Comedian and television host Samantha Bee supposedly did an “epic takedown” of the NRA’s “hypocrisy”...  Also, the issue with contrasting the purchase of the suit with the purchase of a gun isn't that one was legal and the other illegal - it's that one was quick and easy while the other was complicated and unsuccessful. Felsic2 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are very close. I agree with the hypocrisy part but I don't think 'quickly' ads anything and is a subjective term.  I'll change the first part of the sentence as you suggested.  Springee (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only outstanding issue seems to be the use of quotes in the citations. I'll add in the consensus version while we work to resolve that matter. Felsic2 (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll say again that the quotes repeat what is alrady in the text, that the sources are easily available, that they give additional weight to certain points of view, that the article would not be helped by making the citations longer, and that there's no need for them. If there is important material in them it should be in the text instead. FWIW, I don't see significant support for limiting this material to on or two sentences - let's give it its due weight. Felsic2 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a one line sentence noting that the Brady Center and VPC are both critical of the program. I'm actually not sure this information should be included per UNDUE but inclusion may satisfy both sides of the discussion. Springee (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you quote the part of "UNDUE" that you're referencing?
 * Do you have a response about the quotes? Felsic2 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is this part of Project Medicine?
Why is this article part of project medicine? It seems a stretch for inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed reverts
I don't see a good explanation for this major revert: I checked some of the sources and the text seems like a fair summary. I'm going to restore the text pending some agreement on any problems with it and what needs to be fixed. Felsic2 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First, we have had a number of issues with IP editors on this page so we should be suspicious of yet another IP editor who shows up just after the block is lifted and proceeds to make a large number of edits. Second, the material is a clear POV push.  The editor didn't add new material rather they expanded material taken from existing sources to the point of being a serious WEIGH concern.  I guess we could say that the material from two anti-gun activist organizations is "new" but is it credible?  Including extensive quotes from anti-gun organizations again becomes a POV push/WEIGHT issue.  If the IP editor feels the material should be there after two editors removed it then the IP editor can make a case for it on the talk page just as you, I and others have done.  Springee (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Please do not restore material that has been removed by two other editors without discussion. Sorry, I saw that you restored the material at the same time I posted above.  Regardless, you should have waited given two editors had removed the material. Springee (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IP editors have equal rights here. We include informaion from pro-gun organizations, but sources don't need to be neutral. What specifc issues do you have? You deleted everything he did, so it doesn't look like you were being discriminate. The other editor,, seems to have mistaken the edit for vandalism, for some reason. If they don't contribute here we can disregard their edit.  Felsic2 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IP editors do have equal rights but that also means they need to make a case for their work like you and I often do. The POV push should be clear.  Greatly expanding quotes from sources that are critical of the program violates equal weight.  We have academic sources that say the program isn't effective because it relies on a teaching style that isn't effective with the target age group.  That is a legitimate criticism.  That isn't where the IP editor put his efforts.  Look at the 20/20 material.  ABC has run basically the same new story twice.  Since they said the same thing each time why at 150% more text to say the same thing a second time?  It gets worse when one realizes the 2014 20/20 episode was basically already covered later (Eckard's research).  It would be better to just mention that Hardy's work on the subject was covered by 20/20 in 2014.  The "reception" section is very WP:POVPUSH.  Opinion quotes from anti-gun groups like VPC and the Brady Campaign are highly suspect in this article.  Let's at least stick with true academic publications rather than anti-gun groups.  Finally, this was really sloppy work.  For example, Hardy's work and its 2014 20/20 connection is mentioned twice.  If it's academic work then it would be best to put it with the other academic studies and include a note that Hardy's study was repeated for cameras by 20/20 with a link.  Perhaps you can propose how this material could be integrated.  Sloppy work like the IP editor's is often easier to save by removing and starting over.  I'll give it a shot and you can tell me if you are open to the edits.  Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you may be mistaken. NPOV says nothing about "equal weight". Instead, the section on weight says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So we need to look at the reliable sources, judge the prominence, and then summarize them. Can you please offer alternative summaries of the sources? Felsic2 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * BTW, I checked "WP:POVPUSH, Here's what it says:
 * POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them.
 * Are you saying that ABC reports on a minor or fringe idea? Based on the number of sources which make siumilar points, it does not seem to be a fringe point of view that's too minor to give due weight to. Felsic2 (talk)

 * You need to review POVPUSH. It doesn't say the idea must be fringe. This is an NRA sponsored program.  An unknown editor is trying to add extensive quotes that are critical of the NRA and one of it's program to the article.  That looks like POV pushing.  Remember that as part of the original addition the editor added quite a bit of clearly anti-NRA opinion material, not just the 20/20 redo of a 2002 research publication.  When we give more article space to the opinions of an anti-gun advocacy group than we do to describing the actual program we have a weight issue.  Anyway, I've cleaned up the addition of the Hardy study and noted that 20/20 recreated the study as part of a feature. Springee (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I quoted POVPUSH - it says "undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas". Can you quote what part you're talking about? Are you going to post your text without getting consensus? Felsic2 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't be able to engage here for a couple of days. Please post your explanations of your material and a summary of the other sources as well. And tell us why you deleted Jason Priestly too. Felsic2 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the heads up. POVPUSH is not limited to fringe material, "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article".  It is most commonly a concern with fringe points of view but not limited to such.  Giving two unashamedly anti-gun organizations more text space than we give to the program itself is certainly UNDUE.  Given the strong political POV of those sources and their general opposition to the NRA we also have a POVPUSH problem.  Perhaps a one line stating that the two groups are critical of the program with links to the sources would be sufficient.    Springee (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the presentation is especially aggressive. Your own draft has included most of the material you previously reverted out entirely. Edit warring isn't a good way to improve articles. In any case, if there's a problem with an editor then that discussion belongs on another page. Let's keep this page devoted to discussing content.
 * The question isn't whether a source is pro-gun or anti-gun. It's whether they are reliable. If we prohibited sources with strong opinions the entire gun topic would be far smaller.
 * Saying someone criticizes something without describing the criticism seems like an enmpty exercise. Can you please add a summary of their main points?
 * Again, why did you delete Jason Priestly? Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor (the UK based one) is clearly trolling. A large number of edits with "rrv" as the edit summary (are you saying my original edits were vandalism? The IP is) without engaging in discussion means we have a problematic editor. As for Jason, I'm rather indifferent on that content and don't object to adding it. I disagree that we don't have a weight issue. Remember, the entire description of the program is shorter than some of the negative material in question. You are correct that my draft added material that I don't agree with. As we did with the SB section I'm hoping this will work as a compromise that we can all be happy with. It does mater if a source is heavily anti-gun when we are dealing with the presentation of an opinion. I think you will find many who don't consider Brady or VPC to be reliable sources of gun information in cases such as this. Furthermore, the quoted material wasn't factual but was pure opinion based. Extensive coverage of an anti-gun organization's opinion, more extensive that even the coverage of the program itself, is certainly a WEIGHT issue and POV pushing. I kept links to the material in the text but cut the text itself down to improve the balance of the article. Finally, POVPUSH doesn't only apply to fringe theories. Again, look at the quote you provided. It says it's particularly common in the case of fringe theories but that doesn't limit it to cases of fringe theories.
 * Actual opinions should either be attributed or omitted. But factual material from reliable but biased sources is allowed. Let's leave talk about POV pushers and who reverted more out of this discussion - that's about individual editors and belongs elsewhere. As for weight, I refer you again to WP:WEIGHT, which is the only authority on the matter. You still haven't said why you've repeatedly deleted the reference to Jason Priestly or called the addtion "vandalism". Please be more careful in your editing in the future. Felsic2 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, how much text space is given to a particular opinion is a weight issue. It is inappropriate to give extensive coverage, including long in text quotes to negative opinion articles out of proportion to the total length of the article. That was the issue we were having. I think much of what you've added is a big improve to the article. I'm generally like your efforts to and balance by including more positive material as well as general detail and when I get a chance I would like to help out with some additional material. As for Jason, I already answered. It was removed it as part of a larger removal when our UK IP dumped text with no regard for how it integrated with the article nor concern about redundant text. I don't think it adds but I'm not against keeping it. I've thanked you for several of your edits because I think they were good additions. Its my hope that you are talking those as genuine appreciation. Springee (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While I disagreed with your earlier edits here, I think you have done a good job with many of your edits today. Would you look at adding information from this research paper, [] and this government report [].  One other note, you put a CN tag next to the part where it was said the program materials are available for download.  Well, this is a primary source but here is the link to the material, [].  Anyway, I know we haven't seen eye to eye on this issue but your edits today have really been very positive!  Springee (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, there are major deletions without discussion. Please explain why you deleted sourced material from reliable sources. And please limit your comments to your own editing. Felsic2 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What major deletions? No sources were removed. The three long quotes were consolidated into a position statement. The long quotes don't add content or understanding but they do present a WEIGHT issue.  The NYT short opinion editorial (no evidence it was a "significant noteworthy viewpoint") stated the same thing as the previous "Advocates of safe storage laws..." so I moved the reference there. Springee (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I again consolidated some of the edits that "yet another" IP made. In truth I suspect we are dealing with two recent IP editors. The UK based one and the other, likely a sock of a current banned editor. It seems unlikely that a random, novice editor would make such clean edits and edit comments. Regardless, the additions in question had WEIGHT issues. I've condensed the material but left the references to the actual source material. I didn't keep the references to sources that were about 20/20 vs the NRA program. Springee (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Once again, major edits/reverts without discussion. I don't see where any IP editor has been determined to be a sockpuppet, so let's leave that part out of the equation. As for the latest edits, I'm going to restore them. The sources appear reliable and the material seems relevant. Overall, the edits appear to improve the article. Felsic2 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Felsic2, the recent IP sock edits were reverted for several reasons. First, per WP:DENY we shouldn’t allow edits made by banned or sock editors to remain.  Second, the quality of the edits are of a low standard.  Third, the IP editor has restored material removed by other editors.  That means we need to get into the discuss part of the BRD cycle.  The IP editor has been invited to join the discussion but has refused.  Regardless of WP:DENY, let’s review the edits so we can see why this material shouldn’t stand.
 * We are dealing with a sock of a currently banned editor from the Chicago area. If nothing else doesn't it seem odd to you that we have a series of IP edits initially from Chicago but now from all over the world (the world of Amazon servers) that clearly know about things like edit summaries and citation formats yet refuse to enter into talk page discussions about their edits?  If the IP editor isn't a sock then the IP editor can join the talk page discussions and justify their edits but in terms of weight and the way they have elected to add the material.  There is no reason for you to speak for the editor.  They clearly are experienced.
 * The material added to “training program” is mindless and seems to be nothing more than an excuse to stuff a reference into the into. Really, all the references stating what is available should be to the NRA-EE website directly or perhaps to a neutral source rather than a source that is then going to be critical of the subject.  The sock editor in question commonly used this tactic on other articles to include disparaging references for innocuous facts.   Do you really feel it adds to the article to say “order forms are available”?
 * The middle section contains long quotes from articles that state conclusions similar to others. They should be grouped and simple summaries put in the article.  Extended quotes (and we have already seen similar out of this IP editor) are often a way to add weight to one aspect of an article vs another.  Of any of the material that was added this is the closest to a reasonable addition in terms of sources but not in terms of editorial style.
 * The final section is material that we have already discussed. On Dec 8th we discussed the VPC opinion material and it is included as a reference.  The long list of “as mentioned here” content again creates a weight issues.  It doesn’t add to the understanding of the subject.  If we are going to increase the length of prose we should at least do it with good content, not with claims that local papers or the NRA hostile NYT’s editorial section mentioned a VPC “study”.  Again, given that the IP editor is treading on previous discussions said IP editor should be on the talk page justifying his edits.
 * You're misquoting WP:DENY. The IP's edits aren't vandalism. I don't see any official determination about him evading a ban, just your assertion.
 * As for the edits, your simply making sweeping deletions without any effort to summarize these reliable sources.
 * I'm not going to waste my time since it seems you're only interested in pursuing conflicts instead of improving articles. Felsic2 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of thoughts:
 * DENY's optional advice; you can take it or leave it. OTOH, doing what's best for the article, even if that means leaving in content that you disagree with or that might have been written by someone you don't believe ought to be editing, isn't optional.  It's a core policy requirement.
 * WP:DUE weight isn't merely a matter of whether the "pro" or "anti" side gets more space. If a reasonable description of the content takes one paragraph, but a reasonable description of the "anti" view takes two paragraphs, then we actually need more space for the "anti" view.  That is particularly common when you're writing about a relatively simple project (e.g., "let's build a stadium here for a professional sports team") that are opposed for multiple reasons (e.g., "not in my backyard", "that's an environmentally sensitive location", "the contractor's a crook", "the taxpayer will lose money", "the design is ugly", "we're subsidizing the wealthy team owner at the expense of local citizens", "that plan costs too much", "my small business will have to be re-located", "that sport is dangerous", and more).
 * A more useful metric for DUE weight is to look at how much space is used in WP:Independent sources. If the best sources (all of them added together) give 50% space to describing the program, 25% to describing support for it, and 25% to describing opposition to it, then we should try to follow that (approximately).  But if they're mostly talking about criticism (which seems to be the case here), then we should spend more space on the opposition than on the program, too.
 * Given the realities of cognitive development, etc., the criticism about the program not working is probably all too accurate. There's a reason that things like "look both ways before crossing the street" are never taught just once, in a single, short session:  a single lesson does not change young children's behavior.
 * I suspect that, if someone researched this in detail, we would learn that we should be giving more space to the criticism that this program is insufficient on its own: if you truly want to reduce child deaths from firearms, then you want the fewest number of guns, the most secure storage systems to always be used, the best possible supervision of children, and for children to leave guns alone, in the now-unlikely (because of the other policies in place) event that an unsupervised child actually encounters an unsecured gun.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not many secondary sources on this topic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eddie Eagle


text:
Éogan of Ardstraw

Saint Éogan (pronounced "Owen") was the founder of the monastery of Ardstraw.

Name
The name Éogan is an early Irish male name, derived from the Primitive Irish *Iwagenas, and equates to the Welsh Owain and the Latin Eugene. In more modern forms of Irish it is written as Eóghan or Eoghan (/'oːəun/).

Life
Éogan was born in Leinster. According to his Vita, Eoghan was born the son of Cainneach and Muindeacha. His mother is said to have been of the Mugdorna of south-east Ulster. These people seem to have had some contact with the Laighin (who gave their name to Leinster), to whom his father Cainneach belonged. Since this is the area where Christianity first reached Ireland it may well be that Eoghan's father's family had been Christian for some time. As a boy, he studied at Clones, and it was from there that he was carried off to Britain by pirates, and subsequently, he was taken captive to Brittany, together with Cairbre of Coleraine and St. Tighernach, who is best known as the founder of the abbey of Clones, County Monaghan. On obtaining his freedom, he went to study at St. Ninian's Candida Casa. Others said to have studied with Ninian include Finnian of Moville. He may also have spent some time in Brittany (Armorica). Returning to Ireland, he made a foundation at Kilnamanagh, in the Wicklow hills.

After presiding over the Abbey of Kilnamanagh (County Wicklow) for fifteen years, he settled in the valley of Mourne (County Tyrone), his mother's country, about the year 576. It is reasonable to assume that Eoghan came north not just as a missionary to pagans, but also ‘as a pilgrim for the sake of Christ’ in exile. It was not necessary to go abroad to do this. Due to the division of Ireland into a grid of independent states or túatha, exile meant leaving one’s own and taking one’s chances in another túath. Without personal resources, one had no honour or personal standing outside one’s own túath. He was followed by many disciples including his kinsman, St. Kevin of Glendalough, who completed his studies under this saint. So great was the fame of the sanctity and learning of St. Eoghan, at Mourne, that he was consecrated first Bishop of Ardstraw about the year 581.

His Vita contains a number of miracle stories. While going through the forest Craoibheach (modern-day Cruagh, a townland near Wicklow) he sang fifty psalms and when his attendant answered "Amen" at the end of the Lord's Prayer the trees all around also answered "Amen". It also mentions his close relations with Tighernach of Clones and Cairbre of Coleraine, which might indicate an alliance of monasteries threatened by the dominance of Armagh.

It is difficult to give his chronology with any degree of exactness, but the Irish annalists give the date of his death as 23 August 618.

Veneration
St. Eoghan is the patron saint of the Diocese of Derry and of its Cathedral. His feast is celebrated on 23 August.

title: Éogan of Ardstraw


text:
Cookbook:Dredging

Dredging - Coat with dry ingredients. An example of this is flour on chicken. Dipping the ingredient in milk before dredging is a good way to improve the way the dry coating(s) stick to the ingredient being dredged.

title: Cookbook:Dredging


text:
Self Paced Reading Labs/Biology/sharks

Instructions: Read the summary of the article Shark. Then take the quiz below. Evaluate your performance as explained below and proceed to your next selected lesson as per the ...link to index or lists of lists with coding information here.

/quiz

If you missed more than two answers consider selecting a lower level reading lab next time.

If you missed only one consider selecting a same level lab for additional practice.

If you missed none consider whether you wish to practice more at this level or start a more demanding level.

title: Self Paced Reading Labs/Biology/sharks


text:
Overseas Thai

Overseas Thai people (คนไทยพลัดถิ่น, คนไทยในต่างแดน) number approximately 1.1 million persons worldwide. They can be roughly divided into two groups:

A "non-resident Thai" is a citizen of Thailand who holds a Thai passport and has temporarily emigrated to another country for employment, residence, education or any other purpose. The Bank of Thailand estimates that,, 1,120,837 Thais worked overseas.

 * Israel:, a total of 24,746 Thais, mostly agricultural workers, temporarily resided in Israel. They reportedly earn a minimum of about 47,000 baht a month.

 * Republic of Korea:, there were reportedly 192,163 Thais living in South Korea. The Korean Justice Ministry estimates that the number of illegal Thai residents soared from 68,449 in 2017 to 122,192 as of August 2018.

A "person of Thai origin" is a person of Thai origin or ancestry who was or whose ancestors were born in Thailand or other countries under Thai ancestry and holds non-Thai citizenship. A person of Thai origin might have been a citizen of Thailand and subsequently taken the citizenship of another country.

Overseas Thai communities

 * Thai Americans
 * Thai Australians
 * Thai Canadians
 * Thais in India
 * Thais in Japan
 * Malaysian Siamese
 * Thai New Zealanders
 * Thais in Hong Kong
 * Thais in Singapore
 * Thais in the United Kingdom
 * Koh Kong people
 * Tanintharyi Thai
 * Yodaya people

title: Overseas Thai


text:
Talk:Diego Mesaglio

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diego Mesaglio. 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/20050914201215/http://www.serials.ru/persons/en/Diego_Mesaglio.html to http://www.serials.ru/persons/en/Diego_Mesaglio.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diego Mesaglio


text:
Cookbook:Cuisine of Bulgaria

| European cuisines

Bulgarian food could easily be called one of the wonders of this world. Its unique character has developed through the ages out of wealth of local culinary traditions, intertwined with foreign influence in a way which is possible only in Bulgaria, a culture rich in history and traditions. The result, the unique Bulgarian cuisine, offers an incomparable taste with unique characteristics, originality and exceptional variety.

The variety in Bulgarian cuisine is based on the long history of the country, as well as on the long-lasting migrations of the tribes that founded Bulgaria more than 1300 years ago. The close contact with Turkey and Greece have helped us form a very attractive, and to some extent exotic, national cuisine, including some dishes which cannot be called national but which are typical of Bulgaria only. That's one of the things Bulgarians miss most when they are abroad and one of the things that make them come back.

Indeed, who would not like the abundance of fresh vegetables and fruits, juicy meat, grilled or served with piquant sauces, mouth-watering vegetarian dishes, simmered slowly on low heat, the banitsa (cheese pie) which simply melts in your mouth, and famous Bulgarian yogurt?

If you go to the country, good food will be just a part of what you'll be impressed by. Because, above all, Bulgaria is a state of traditions. And whatever you eat, you'll be told that it is a part of a particular custom, i.e. if the meal is on the menu, it's just because it is on the custom.

Many of the Bulgarian products and dishes are known in various other parts of the world. But it's a pity that very few foreigners know how to cook original Bulgarian meals. Gourmets have long since esteemed the merits of Bulgarian cuisine with the verdict that it is tasty, spicy and varied, appealing to one and all.

So, what's actually the secret? Above all, the concurrent cooking of products at a low temperature. Make sure that the food simmers—boil, roast or stew gently. That is the only way to retain the nutritive qualities, achieving superb favour at the same time. The same effect is reached with the variety of products which agree well with the seasoning.

If you are invited to someone's home or choose a good traditional restaurant you'll be able to sample what's best about Bulgarian cuisine; plenty of fresh vegetables, eaten raw, roasted or stewed with meat in terracotta pots. Lots of garlic, onions, oil and spices. Influences of its neighbours, Turkey and Greece are also present in dishes such as "Sarmi" (vine or cabbage leaves stuffed with minced meat with rice and spices), "moussaka" and "baklava".

Bulgarians like their salads: A salad and Rakiya (Bulgarian spirit manufactured through distillation of fermented grapes, plums or other fruits; its alcoholic content is 36-55%) are the usual start to the meal. Be warned, this stage of the meal can be a very drawn-out process lasting up to an hour.

Bulgarian Recipes
A wealth of Bulgarian recipes (in English) could be found on Find Bulgarian Food website. Here are some of the more popular Bulgarian meals, salads and desserts, well worth a try:
 * "Shopska Salata"- chopped tomatoes, cucumbers, onions and peppers sprinkled with 'sirene' (Bulgarian white cheese);
 * "Snezhanka"- thick creamy yogurt with chopped cucumber or gherkins, walnuts and garlic;
 * "Kyopulo"- hors d'oeuvre/salad of mashed baked eggplant, peppers, loads of garlic, parsley, vinegar and sunflower oil.

Soups are also a very important element in the Bulgarian menu;
 * "Bob Chorba"- traditional bean soup with plenty of herbs;
 * "Zelenchukova Supa"- Vegetable soup
 * "Gabi supa"- tasty mushroom soup
 * "Shkembe Chorba"- tripe soup with garlic, vinegar and bell pepper, quite tasty if you can bring yourself to try it;
 * "Tarator"- cold yoghurt and cucumber soup.
 * "Supa Topcheta"-Bulgarian meatball soup

Bulgarians like meat - mainly pork (svinsko), veal (teleshko) and chicken (pile)- grilled, fried or as a stew:
 * "Shashlik"-Small pieces of meat on a skewer, with peppers, onions and baby mushrooms
 * "Gyuvetch"- hotch-potch) - a dish of vegetables and meat baked in an earthenware pot;
 * "Kyufteta"- spicy meat balls/ hamburgers;
 * "Kebapcheta"- spicy mince meat, sausage shaped, grilled.

Very popular is also Gyuveche, a catch-all dish, you can make with just about anything you have in the fridge. It gets its name from the small individual ceramic dishes in which it's traditionally cooked and served.

Vegetarians may find the choice on the menu a bit limiting which is a shame as there are plenty of delicious vegetarian dishes. Usually you can find the following but if all else fails try a selection of starters or a combination salad (a plate of various salads): "Kashkaval (or sirene) pane"- fried/breaded yellow (or white) cheese;
 * "Chushki byurek"- roasted fried peppers stuffed with egg and cheese;
 * "Sirene po Shopski"- white cheese, egg, tomatoes and peppers baked in a pot;
 * "Banitsa"- baked thin sheets of pastry with a filling of white cheese and eggs or vegetables

Bulgarian Wine
The fame of Bulgarian high-quality wine speaks for itself. The Bulgarian white and red wines such as Gumza, Dimiat, Pamid, Muscat, Misket, Mavrud and Melnik are well known to connoisseurs. Traditionally, Bulgaria boasts five wine-growing regions, specialized in the production of typical wines. In general, South Bulgaria is known for its red wines, North Bulgaria for white wine. The Black Sea area, too, is an important viticultural region, Bourgas, Pomorie and Varna being its three main centers. The smallest viticultural region in Bulgaria - the area around Melnik famous for its full-bodied red wine - is known for its specific microclimate. Bulgaria is also the only country to celebrate Wine-growers' Day. February, 3rd (new style Feb 14th) is the day which we call Trifon Zarezan (St.Trifon's Day). It dates back to the ancient Thracians. Winegrowers celebrate with wine-trimming ceremonies on this day. So this is a celebration dedicated to a drink, which is not celebrated anywhere else in the world. It is also essential that one knows that Bulgarian wine has very long traditions and is famous for its quality. The identity of St. Trifon's Day proves the importance of this day for the Bulgarians.

To learn more about Bulgarian folklore, see the Bulgarian Folklore Calendar.

Related Links
Find Bulgarian Food - Online guide to Bulgarian food, recipes, restaurants and stores.

המטבח הבולגרי

title: Cookbook:Cuisine of Bulgaria


text:
Talk:336

According to a stale from the Tang Dynasty, the Mogao Caves was created from the year 366. The year 336 is often named in the net, but it is probably a result of tip error and the following copying. Thus I removed this item.--Philopp 19:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:336


text:
Joaquim Forn

Joaquim Forn i Chiariello (born 1 April 1964) is a Spanish politician and lawyer from Catalonia. A former deputy mayor of the city of Barcelona in north-eastern Spain, Forn served as Minister of the Interior from July 2017 to October 2017 when he was removed from office following the Catalan declaration of independence.

Born in 1964 in Barcelona, Forn graduated from the University of Barcelona before joining the legal profession. A supporter of Catalan independence, Forn joined the nationalist Democratic Convergence of Catalonia (CDC) whilst a student. He was elected to the Municipality Council of Barcelona in 1999 and in 2011 he became the city's first deputy mayor, serving until 2015. He was appointed Minister of the Interior for Catalonia in July 2017.

On 1 October 2017, an independence referendum was held in Catalonia despite the Constitutional Court ruling that it breached the Spanish constitution. 92% supported independence though turnout was only 43% due to a boycott by unionists. The Catalan Parliament declared independence on 27 October 2017 which resulted in the Spanish government imposing direct rule on Catalonia, dismissing the Catalan government, including Forn. The Catalan Parliament was dissolved and fresh elections imposed by central government. On 30 October 2017 charges of rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds were brought against Forn and other members of the Catalan government. Forn and Puigdemont, along with others, fled to Belgium, but on 31 October 2017 Forn returned to Spain. On 2 November 2017 Forn and seven other Catalan ministers were remanded in custody by the Audiencia Nacional. Six of the ministers were released on bail on 4 December 2017 but Forn and Vice President Oriol Junqueras were kept in custody. At the regional elections held on 21 December 2017 Forn was elected to Parliament and Catalan secessionists retained a slim majority in the Catalan Parliament. Forn resigned from Parliament in January 2018 but remains in prison. During December 2018 he did a hunger strike. On 1 February 2019 he was transferred to a prison in Madrid, waiting for the trial that started on 12 February.

In the 2019 Barcelona City Council election, he was head of the Together for Catalonia candidacy to Mayor of Barcelona. He was not able to participate in the electoral campaign while in prison. The Supreme Court allowed him to collect the councilor's credentials on 14 June and took office on 15 June.

He was pardoned and released, along with the other 8 jailed Catalonia independence leaders, in June 2021.

Early life and family
Forn was born on 1 April 1964 in Barcelona, capital of Catalonia in north eastern Spain. He is the son of a Catalan and an Ecuadorian. After being home schooled, he joined the Lycée Français de Barcelone aged 13, avoiding the Spanish francoist education.

After school Forn joined the University of Barcelona, graduating with a Bachelor of Laws degree. Whilst a student he joined the Democratic Convergence of Catalonia (CDC), a conservative Catalan nationalist political party, now known as the Catalan European Democratic Party (PDeCAT), and helped re-establish the National Student Federation of Catalonia (Federació Nacional d'Estudiants de Catalunya, FNEC), a Catalan nationalist student organisation, serving as its president from 1986 to 1988.

Career
After university Forn started working in a law firm. In 1989 he joined the Acció Olímpica (Olympic Action) group that organised the Freedom for Catalonia campaign during the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona.

Forn contested the 1999 local elections as a Convergence and Union (CiU) electoral alliance candidate in Barcelona and was elected. In May 2000 he was beaten and his arm broken by the National Police Corps (Policía Nacional) as he took part in a demonstration against a Spanish Army parade on Montjuïc, in the Sants district of Barcelona, celebrating Armed Forces Day (Día de las Fuerzas Armadas). He was re-elected at the 2003 and 2007 local elections. He was CiU group spokesman on the city council from 2007 to 2011. At the 2011 local elections, in which Forn we re-elected, the CiU ended the Socialists's 32-year rule in Barcelona and Forn became first deputy mayor. He was spokesman of the city government, president of Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona, vice-president of the Autoritat del Transport Metropolità's board of directors, and an advisor and member of the Àrea Metropolitana de Barcelona's board of governors.

Forn was re-elected at the 2015 local elections but the CiU lost control of Barcelona to Barcelona en Comú. He was appointed Minister of the Interior for Catalonia in July 2017. During his office, the 17 August 2017 terrorist attacks occurred.

Catalonia independence crisis
In June 2017 President of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont announced that a referendum on Catalan independence would be held on 1 October 2017. The Catalan Parliament passed legislation on 6 September 2017 authorising the referendum which would be binding and based on a simple majority without a minimum threshold. The following day Constitutional Court of Spain suspended the legislation, blocking the referendum. The Spanish government put into effect Operation Anubis in order to disrupt the organisation of the referendum and arrested Catalan government officials. Despite this the referendum went ahead though it was boycotted by unionists and turnout was only 43%. 92% of those who voted supported independence. Around 900 people were injured as the Spanish police used violence to try to prevent voting in the referendum.

On 27 October 2017 the Catalan Parliament declared independence in a vote boycotted by opposition MPs. Almost immediately the Senate of Spain invoked article 155 of the constitution, dismissing Puigdemont and the Catalan government and imposing direct rule on Catalonia. The following day Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy dissolved the Catalan Parliament and called for fresh regional elections on 21 December 2017. On 30 October 2017 Spanish Attorney General José Manuel Maza laid charges of rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds at the Audiencia Nacional against Puigdemont, Forn and other members of the Catalan government. The charges carry maximum sentences of 30, 15 and 6 years in prison respectively.

Forn, Puigdemont and four other Catalan ministers (Dolors Bassa, Meritxell Borràs, Antoni Comín and Meritxell Serret) arrived in Belgium on 30 October 2017. According to Spanish media the group had driven to Marseille shortly after the charges were laid before the Audiencia Nacional and from there flown to Brussels. Forn and Bassa flew back to Barcelona on 31 October 2017 where they were met at El Prat Airport by a group of Spanish nationalists hurling abuse and taunting the former ministers. The flag waving group shouted "off to prison", "dogs", "traitors" and "where is your republic?" through megaphones and pursued Forn as he left the airport, causing the Mossos d'Esquadra to intervene.

Imprisonment
On 2 November 2017 Audiencia Nacional judge Carmen Lamela remanded in custody Forn and seven other Catalan ministers (Bassa, Borrás, Oriol Junqueras, Carles Mundó, Raül Romeva, Josep Rull and Jordi Turull) as she considered them a flight risk. The jailed ministers were separated and sent to five different prisons: Bassa and Borrás to Alcalá, Junqueras and Forn to Estremera, Mundó to Aranjuez prison, Romeva and Turull to Valdemoro and Rull to Navalcarnero. A ninth minister, Santi Vila, was freed on bail as he had resigned from the government the day before the declaration of independence, but had to spend a night in Estremera prison whilst his lawyers secured his €50,000 bail. According to their lawyer Jaume Alonso-Cuevillas, the ministers were mistreated whilst being transported to prison. They were allegedly handcuffed behind their backs without seat belts in a van going very fast, forced to listen to the Spanish national anthem on a loop and threatened by their guards. Mundo allegedly suffered injuries due to the handcuffs and two ministers were allegedly forced to strip to prevent them carrying anything into prison. Earlier, as the ministers arrived at the Audiencia Nacional, Spanish police officers were shown, in video obtained Reuters and published by the La Vanguardia, making sneering, homophobic comments about the ministers, with one officer saying "Wait till you see what they do to the little teddy bear", referring to Junqueras, "When they get him on all fours, they’ll fix his eye".

On 1 December 2017 the eight jailed ministers and two jailed independence activists - Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sànchez i Picanyol - appeared before Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena to request bail while they await trial. They renounced the declaration of independence, pledged support for the imposition of direct rule and agreed to work within the law. On 4 December 2017 Llarena released, after 32 days in prison, six of the ministers (Bassa, Borrás, Mundó, Romeva, Rull and Turull) on bail of €100,000 but ordered that their passports be confiscated. However, Forn and Junqueras, together with Cuixart and Sànchez, were refused bail. In denying them bail, Llarena claimed that it remained to be seen if their pledge to abide by Spanish law was "truthful and real" and that there was a risk that they would commit the same crimes if released.

Whilst remaining in prison, Forn contested the 2017 regional election as a Together for Catalonia (JuntsxCat) electoral alliance candidate in the Province of Barcelona and was elected to the Parliament of Catalonia. A Christmas crib sent to Forn and Junqueras in prison was returned to its sender Antoni Bargalló smashed and with Viva España scrawled on the box. Cuixart, Forn and Sànchez appeared before Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena on 11 January 2018 to secure release from prison. At the hearing Forn testified that, although he did not renounce Catalan independence, he would only seek to achieve this by reforming the Spanish constitution and if the Catalan government sought to achieve independence unilaterally he would resign from Parliament. On 12 January 2018, at a separate hearing for Junqueras, Llarena opened the way for the three jailed MPs - Forn, Junqueras and Sànchez - to vote by proxy in the Catalan Parliament. When the Catalan Parliament met on 17 January 2018 it allowed the three jailed MPs to vote by proxy, with Turull voting for Forn and Sànchez. Forn resigned from Parliament with effect from 24 January 2018 in order to secure his freedom. Despite this, on 2 February 2018, Llarena refused Forn's application for release on bail, saying that Forn's refusal to give up support for independence meant that there was a risk that he would re-offend. The testimony by Spanish army colonel Diego Pérez de los Cobos, who was in charge of Spanish security forces during the crackdown against the independence referendum, was seen as key to keeping Forn in prison.

On 7 March 2018 the High Commissioner of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reminded Spanish authorities that "pre-trial detention should be considered a measure of last resort" referring to Catalan politicians and activists arrested after the independence referendum.

On 3 December 2018, he went on a hunger strike, ended on 20 December. On 1 February 2019, he was transferred back to a prison in Madrid, expecting trial that started on 12 February. The trial ended and was remitted to decision on 12 June 2019.

On 14 October 2019, he was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison and disqualification for sedition crime. The verdict was delivered by 7 judges at Spain's supreme court, after a 4-month trial that heard from 422 witnesses.

Pardon
He was pardoned and released, along with the other 8 jailed Catalonia independence leaders, in June 2021. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that he pardoned them because it was the best decision for Spain and Catalonia, but did not overturn their bans from holding public office.

Personal life
Forn is married to Laura Masvidal. They have two daughters.

title: Joaquim Forn


text:
Talk:Frankie Owen

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankie Owen. 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/20120615012822/http://www.qldsynchro.org.au/news.html to http://www.qldsynchro.org.au/news.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frankie Owen. 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://archive.is/20121127224812/http://www.qldsynchro.org.au/honour.html to http://www.qldsynchro.org.au/honour.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121230095551/http://www.finance-news.com.au/sports/other-sports/australias-olympic-synchronized-swimming-team.html to http://www.finance-news.com.au/sports/other-sports/australias-olympic-synchronized-swimming-team.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frankie Owen


text:
Tobias Verwey

Tobias Verwey (born 2 November 1981) is a Namibian cricketer. He is a right-handed batsman and a wicket-keeper. He has played first-class cricket with the Namibian cricket team since 2005, having represented the team in 12 Youth One Day Internationals between 2000 and 2002.

He played for Namibia's Under-19 World Cup squads of 2000 and 2002 before stepping up to the first-team squad. He has since played in the respective tours to Namibia of the Pakistani and Bermudan teams.

In December 2006, Verwey scored his first century for the Namibian team, against the United Arab Emirates.

title: Tobias Verwey


text:
jerry

Etymology 1
Probably an abbreviation of.

Noun

 * 1)  A chamber pot.

Synonyms

 * See Thesaurus:chamber pot

Etymology 2
Short for.

Adjective

 * 1)  Jerry-built.

Etymology 3
Alternative forms.

Noun

 * : a German.

Synonyms

 * See German

title: jerry


text:
Calf Island (Massachusetts)

Calf Island, also known as Apthorps Island, is a windswept island situated some 9 mi offshore of downtown Boston in the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. The island has a permanent size of 18 acre, plus an intertidal zone of a further 16 acre, and has a thin layer of soil that supports vegetation including wild cherry, beach plum, grasses, chives, and mock orange. Access is by private boat only.

In the 17th century the island was granted to William Brewster of Plymouth Colony, after whom the adjacent islands of Great Brewster, Little Brewster, Middle Brewster and Outer Brewster are named. Subsequently, it was owned by Charles Apthorp who also owned Long Island and other property in the harbor. Over the years, several huts and houses were built on the island, including a colonial style summer estate built by Benjamin P. Cheney, Jr. and his wife, actress Julia Arthur, in 1902. Today only ruins remain. Illegal boxing matches were staged on the island in the late 19th century.

In the 1920s, the Army planned to install a pair of 16 in guns on Calf Island as part of the Harbor Defenses of Boston, along with 16 in gun batteries on Deer Island (now underneath the Deer Island Waste Water Treatment Plant) and Hog Island (now called Spinnaker Island), to cover the seaward approaches to Boston Harbor. The battery on Calf Island was never built.

title: Calf Island (Massachusetts)


text:
Storming of Farnham Castle

The Storming of Farnham Castle occurred on 1 December 1642, during the early stages of the First English Civil War, when a Parliamentarian force attacked the Royalist garrison at Farnham Castle in Surrey. Sir John Denham had taken possession of the castle for the Royalists in mid-November, but after the Royalists had been turned back from London at the Battle of Turnham Green, a Parliamentarian force under the command of Sir William Waller approached the castle. After Denham refused to surrender, Waller's forces successfully stormed the castle. They captured it in under three hours, mostly due to the unwillingness of the Royalist troops to fight. This allowed the Parliamentarians to get close enough to breach the gates, after which the garrison surrendered.

Background
Farnham Castle, near the town of Farnham in Surrey, is a twelfth-century castle which was the home to the Bishop of Winchester, Walter Curle. At the outbreak of the civil war, most of the area around Farnham favoured the Royalists.

In August 1642, King Charles I raised his royal standard in Nottingham and declared the Earl of Essex, and by extension Parliament, to be traitors, marking the start of the First English Civil War. That action had been the culmination of religious, fiscal and legislative tensions going back over fifty years. Both sides attempted to recruit the existing militia and new men into their armies. On 8 September, George Wither was given a commission as captain of a cavalry troop raised in Surrey. Just over a month later, on 14 October, with the addition of two squadrons described by the historian Stephen Manganiello as "weak, poorly-armed squadrons of volunteer horse with but 60 muskets between them", he occupied Farnham Castle.

Wither repeatedly requested additional troops and weapons to hold the castle, but when the Royalist army approached London in November 1642, after the Battle of Edgehill, Farnham Castle was considered of no strategic value, and Wither was ordered to abandon the castle. On the night of 8 November he evacuated his men and what ammunition he could, and Royalist forces under Sir John Denham took possession of the castle the next day. Denham had been appointed the High Sheriff of Surrey earlier that year by the King, and had also been issued with a commission of array, a medieval device for levying soldiers which had not been used since 1557. Denham's forces subsequently ransacked Wither's estate, ejecting his wife and children. Wither himself had been sent with his troop to Kingston upon Thames, and they subsequently fought in the Battle of Turnham Green on 13 November.

Prelude
The Royalist army was turned back from London after the stand-off at Turnham Green; the King retreated to Oxford, leaving a garrison at Reading. With London no longer threatened by the King's large army, the commander of Parliament's army, the Earl of Essex, wanted to clear the Royalists out of the south east of England completely. Command of the operation was given to Sir William Waller, a Member of Parliament and experienced soldier, who had rapidly gained seniority within the Parliamentarian army.

Most Royalist forces in the area withdrew to Reading or Oxford, but Denham remained at Farnham Castle. In his biography of Denham, Brendan O Hehir drew a parallel between Denham's experience and Wither's, saying that each had experienced "isolation amidst a rising enemy tide". Farnham Castle was not easily defensible, and Denham's troops reinforced the gate, barricading it with piles of wood.

Battle
On 30 November, the Parliamentarian force commanded by Waller, which comprised cavalry and dragoons, approached the castle and demanded its surrender. Denham refused, as the Parliamentarians had not brought any artillery with which to bombard the castle. The Royalists were well stocked; as well as plentiful weapons and ammunition, they also had 300 sheep, 100 oxen and plenty of other food.

The inexperienced Royalist soldiers shied away from fighting, unwilling to show themselves on the castle walls and hiding behind the castle's defences instead. After three hours of fighting, in the absence of substantial defensive musket-fire, Waller's troops were able to get close enough to attach a petard to the gate. Despite the meagre defence, Colonel Anthony Fane, one of the Parliamentarian officers, was shot in the cheek, and died from the wound at his home in Kingston shortly thereafter. According to Elliot Warburton, in his 19th century history, Memoir of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers, Fane was "almost the only person slain". Once the Parliamentarians had destroyed the gate, they were still unable to gain entrance to the castle because of the wooden barricade; however, the garrison surrendered after they had broken through and entered the keep.

The Royalist courtier, Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon was disdainful of the efforts of Denham and his men, writing in his history of the war that they "were taken with less resistance than was fit," and "deserved not the name of a garrison."

Aftermath
Denham and his men were taken prisoner and sent to London, where they arrived on 3 December. The common men were quickly released, but others were held for longer at Lambeth House. It is unclear exactly when Denham was released, but it was before 23 March 1643. After gaining his freedom, he joined the King in Oxford. He soon after petitioned to Charles I on behalf of Wither, who had been captured, brought to Oxford, and faced the death penalty for fighting against the King. Denham pled to the King to spare Wither, as "while Wither lives, Denham will not be the worst poet in England." Wither was given a reprieve, but after his release, he seized Denham's estate with Parliament's permission in an effort to offset his financial losses during the war. Denham retired from military life, and is best remembered as a poet; he published an array of propaganda for the Royalists during the war.

Waller captured over £40,000 worth of plunder, along with gunpowder and shoes. He subsequently captured Winchester, Arundel and Chichester, and within one month, he had asserted Parliamentarian dominance over Surrey, Sussex and most of Hampshire. His successes saw him appointed as Major-General of the West the following spring, and he was sent by Essex to attempt to claim the south west of England for Parliament. Farnham Castle was subsequently used by Waller as his base of operations; after the war it was slighted by Parliament.

title: Storming of Farnham Castle


text:
Perth Prohibited Area

The Perth Prohibited Area was an area of the metropolitan area in Perth, Western Australia that Aboriginal people were not permitted to enter without a permit. The prohibition was in force from 1927 to 1954, and covered approximately 5 mi2 wholly within the boundaries of the City of Perth. The ban was instigated by A. O. Neville, the protector of Aborigines, and proclaimed under the Aborigines Act 1905 (WA) in 1927.

Aboriginal people working in the city had to leave by 6pm or face the threat of arrest and a fine,  or in some cases a custodial sentence. The edict was actively enforced, with the records of the Central Police Office showing 78 indigenous people charged from July 1949 to February 1950. The historian Stephen Kinnane has suggested that Neville did not like the fact that Aboriginals were beating white Australians at competitive events held in White City.

title: Perth Prohibited Area


text:
frígido

Etymology
Borrowed from, from , from ,. Compare the inherited doublet.

Adjective

 * 1) cold; frigid having a low temperature
 * 2) cold emotionally distant or unfeeling
 * 3) frigid sexually unresponsive, especially of a woman
 * 1) frigid sexually unresponsive, especially of a woman
 * 1) frigid sexually unresponsive, especially of a woman

Etymology
, from, from , from ,. Compare the inherited doublet. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) frigid

title: frígido


text:
Afrikaans

Afrikaans is a Germanic language closely related to Dutch and is spoken in Southern Africa in the Republic of South Africa and Namibia. The language stems from 17th century Dutch and has been influenced by local African languages as well as languages spoken by other immigrants to the 17th century Cape region - German, French and Malay.

Are you traveling to South Africa? Well, Afrikaans is one of the languages of South Africa. If you know Dutch, you won't have a hard time learning Afrikaans. Even if you're English, Afrikaans won't be hard! Good luck!

Lessons

 * /Pronunciation/
 * /Alphabet/
 * /Greetings/
 * /Tenses/
 * /Vocabulary/

title: Afrikaans


text:
Talk:Area 88

DVD release of original OVA by ADV
"Central Park Media would later let the original OAV license lapse, which allowed ADV Films to release it on an undisclosed date in 2006."

What's the source for that? -CWD 04:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that ADV Films is releasing each episode for $5 on their website. Kschang77 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline Section
The article states that the F-14 Tomcat was not deployed until after US forces were withdrawn from Viet Nam. Technically, this is incorrect. F-14s flew 'top cover' from the USS Enterprise during the evacuation of Saigon in 1975, although they did not in fact see combat action at this time. However, in the context of the anime, it is not impossible that Mick Simon flew a previous generation of naval aircraft in combat operations over Viet Nam prior to being assigned an F-14 in the closing hours of the war. Thus there would be no 'timeline' issue. BradTraylor 11:41, 24 Dec 2007

Aircraft section
There's nothing wrong with the information here but I think it could benefit by being written as a encyclopedic summary rather than a big, long list. I understand that it would be difficult to do without being repetitive, i.e. "so and so flew this, so and so flew that, etc." but I'm sure somebody with enough knowledge and interest (obviously, some of you do) could pull it off. Elvrum 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Formatting question: Should it be split into gov./rebel/other sections, or left as an alphabetical list? I think splitting it up would make things a little easier to read. Virogtheconq 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Splitting the list shouldn't be necessary. In fact, there was already a "rebels" section, but I combined it with the longer list because there were redundant entries (jets flown by both forces) between the two sections. Also, there were jets flown exclusively by rebels in the main section, so they were inconsistent. Since it is an aircraft section, I think it should focus on aircraft first, pilots second, so as far as lists go, alphabetical would probably be best. If you want something easier to read however, I could propose a table. Elvrum 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I like the wikitable idea, but that's because I've worked with them before to improve other lists. The story section, while not a bad idea, might be a bit hard to use since the article shouldn't contain an in-depth story summary of A88. As far as the table structure goes, your version isn't bad, though I would suggest perhaps we could change pilots to "Notable pilots", with "notable" criteria meaning appearing in more than one mission (manga) or episode (OVA, series). Otherwise, the entry would just be blank and/or leave a note regarding which side it was used by - it'd cut down on the vertical size of the table. Virogtheconq

 * You're right: too much detail for alt. 1. I wouldn't mind changing "pilots" to "notable pilots," but you bring up an interesting point: should that same criteria be applied to the aircraft, i.e. notable aircraft only? Either way, we shouldn't quite delete anything just yet. Let's compile as much information as we can and see what can be trimmed out later. One more thing: do you think detailing the exact mission/act/episode is too much? Personally, I think it makes the list more useful, but it's probably not necessary. Elvrum 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 1: detailed summary
I think the aircraft section could benefit from a detailed summary as opposed to a list. The problem with this is it could get very redundant, i.e. repeating story details already mentioned in the story summary. Because of that, I think that aircraft info could be detailed in the story section. For example:

 * In his early days at flight school, Shin flew a Cessna 150. At Area 88, he initially flew an F-8E Crusader. Shin's ally Boris also flew a Crusader, and because of the its capability to fly with its wings folded, they were able to squeeze through the narrow holes of a metal barrier called a "fang." Upon totaling his Crusader, Shin borrowed Saki's F-15 Eagle until purchasing his own F-20 Tigershark. Etc., etc., etc..

Elvrum 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 2: wikitable
Here's one possiblity. This would need to be cleaned up big time, but it could work. However, I would still like to explore some other possiblities. Elvrum 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * A wikitable sounds better. Most people would understand. <IP_ADDRESS> 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest the table and include how it used and such as the copters are used for reuse missions or to transport personnel and the Ch-130 herkules planes for fuel, missile, and other such supply work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan117009 (talk • contribs) 22:10, July 8, 2006 (UTC)

Characters
The list of characters is getting rather long. I suggest moving all the character descriptions to a separate List of Area 88 characters article, so the main A88 article doesn't have this ginormous section that's really not worth much in it.Virogtheconq 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

sound tracks
re the dases for the Soundtracks Japanese or us relesed time?

suggestion
i think we can remove some pilots that have first name only or no importance to the story really( like campbell). or terms like unknown pilots since we dont know who pilots em' why place that in? --Spartan117009 00:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point
{| style="width:100%;background:none" ! bgcolor="#abcdef" colspan="2" bgcolor="#abcdef" | Cleanup Co-ordination The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that: For a full list of possible problems see Manual of Style.
 * width=60 bgcolor="#ffdead" |[[Image:Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg|100px]]
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
 * the article has multiple overlapping problems.
 * the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |

Discussion
i think i'll just start ahead--Spartan117009 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * }

Trivia Section
Hello, I've just noticed this article has no trivia section, and I've noticed for now one element that could fit in one, on the Playstation 2 videogame "Ace Combat Zero" which deals with mercenary fighter pilots on a similar way Area 88 does, there is a paint scheme available for the F-20 (Improved version of the F-5) which colours and patterns are identical to Shin's F-5 colours, this seems to me one of many tributes included on the game by the programmers (other paint schemes include real-life and popular culture aerobatic teams and fighter wings), this could be worth of mention along with any other elements that could be out there in order to make the article richer.

Area 88 characters?
Just want to holler that we need photos of the characters (Not sure if OVA or 2004 version would suffice?) and VAs too... Ominae 11:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Area 88. 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/20070929094941/http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html to http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.advfilms.com/Films_PRDetails.asp?ID=1781
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201043125/http://www.1999.co.jp:80/item_cart_e.asp?It_c=10038101 to https://www.1999.co.jp/item_cart_e.asp?It_c=10038101

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Area 88