text:
Talk:Nakba Day/Archive 2

Request for Mediation
There is an active request for mediation of the neutrality issue on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It would be nice if people at least could correct spelling and do wikilinks properly while they are disputing things. And certain points don't to be repeated more than once. It's a short article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article and found it biased and not at all neutral for eg: "They were exploited by the Arab governments of these countries as political pawns." Is this mischief of someone or simply a POV? I propose to remove this line as it's clearly a POV. 01:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr!mson K!ng (talk • contribs)

I have removed the line "They were exploited by the Arab governments of these countries as political pawns." as I found it as non neutral. --Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing sentence as there is no source cited for it and search for source provided no NPOV article. "Furthermore, Palestinians were on the whole were denied citizenship in the countries to which they fled." 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr!mson K!ng (talk • contribs)

Interwiki links
There are several links from this page to articles "in other languages". However, most of these are to general Nakba articles. Should the article link to these, or only to specific Nakba Day articles? RolandR (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban
This ban is a clear violation of the probation policy. Admin should misuse his privilage against policy and I expect for this ban to be removed.

'''Why did tony Sideway misused his admin powers ? '''

According to  probation policy  admin are expected to take the time to look into an issue before applying any bans.

I am not editing this article out of my own decision

If Tony would have taken the time to read the talk page he would find this message from me (placed  before  he applied a ban): " "*I don't think this article is the place  to fight over these issues. It is a 'nakba day' and all facts about what is 'nakba' should be moved to article Nakba. ramllite I left you a personal note."

"*I put a proposal to return this article to sanity and avoid discussion of what was the 'truth'." "*There is more than one 'truth' and it is found in other articles. This article is about a day  not about the whole 1948 war. think about it before you revert me." "* I will not participate in this edit war so if you revert me you will 'win' . I suggest we find a meditor instead. Zeq 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC) '"

So it clear that I did not want to partcipate in the edit war that Ian started in this article about what did or did not took place in 1948. Ian has threaten on this talk page) that he plan to use my probation to ban me from this article (or something with similar results) and Ian editing pattern show he was trying to "trap" an editor under probation who was trying to avoid this article turnning into another battle-ground for 1948 events.

I expect that the ban be removed, that Ian will not start another edit war. In anycase I have decided (at least for a while) not to edit this article and I am looking for a mediator to help resolve the issues here. Zeq 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review a ban from editing this article that I placed on Zeq under the conditions of an earlier arbitration case.

 * Meanwhile I am rescinding it because Zeq and others have raised several legitimate points that case doubt on my original decision. I've removed the ban notice and will place an update on all other relevant notices.  If he really needs to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it.  In the meantime I apologise to Zeq. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Appology accepted and there is no need for it since Tony did what ia have asked him to do: Look deeper at the real issues.

 * As I have stated here:,  and in the edit summary here:  - I do not plan to enetr any edit war, I think this article should be mediated and I plan to stay away from this article for a while anyhow.

I suggest that everyone will look at this talk page, it starts by asking Ian to use talk instead of reverts. Nothing that occured on this talk page has caused Ian to change any of his editwar/reverts.  this is the real problem

Zeq 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a section on "Objections to commemoration of Nakba"? Is there a similar section in the article on the celebration of Israel's anniversary? If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First Nakba Day ever
When was the first Nakba Day ever? In what year? Israguy (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Seems like 1998. Israguy (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 * No, as you can see from the information I added to the article, its been practiced for decades.  T i a m u t talk 18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * This is no true. Land Day is practiced since 1976, but not Nakba day. Israguy (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The sources disagree with you. Read them. They are cited in the article in the section on commemorations at the end of the sentences they support. Do you need to see more?  T i a m u t talk 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It is still not clear what year was the first commemoration of the Nakba Day, using the term "Nakba". Your sources say not before the 1990s, but are not clear about the actual year. Israguy (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure there is a source that can pinpoint the first year. At the beginning, as noted by the sources, commemoration was a personal and communal activity. People started the commemorations and the official bodies representing Palestinians were slow to pick up on it. The rticle makes this clear right now by presenting whatever information we have and letting the reader decide for themselves how to interpret it, instead of picking an artificial start date, not borne out by the sources.  T i a m u t talk 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't think the article makes it clear. When is "At the beginning"? Israguy (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I answered your question. The commemorations were ad hoc for some time before being embraced by official bodies representing the Palestinian people. As there are many, depending on where the Palestinians in question live, the dates for official commemorations will differ. We have no source offering one definitive date for the first Nakba commemoration. We have two indicating that small scale commemorations took place decades ago (Masalha and Cohen), another that republished PLO calls for a day of national mourning in 1988, another saying the event was inaugurated by Arafat in 1998. We have reported what all these sources have to say without making any WP:OR conclusions. Let the reader read what the sources have to say and make up their own mind.  T i a m u t talk 19:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * By the way ... is there a reason you restored the bullet points in the government sub-section of the Israeli positions section? Generally, prose is prefereble to a list format. I'd like to remove them again. This would mean I made one revert and if you undo my edit that would be your second, which would not be allowed. I'm telling you this to make you aware of WP:EW in general. I'd also like to avoid an edit war, so your agreement in advance would be nice.  T i a m u t talk 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The Government section IS a list. A list of two items. I think it's better this way, since these two items are independent, years apart, and also were done by two different Government branchs (One is the Minister of Education, and the other is the Knesset). Israguy (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Its a list because you made it one. The source I added and the edit I made connected the two ideas, in prose format, and attributed both to the campaign of Yisrael Beitenu. You deleted that and separated the idea into two disparate events, which is not how the source dealt with it at all. I think we need to restore some of what I wrote that you took out.  T i a m u t talk 19:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * You say these two event are attributed to the campaign of Yisrael Beitenu. But the Minister of Education of Israel is from the Likud party. So this is a mistake to attributed both to Yisrael Beitenu. The list is a less misleading and a more neutral edit of the article. Israguy (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, the list problem was solved by GHCool, who turned the text into prose without bullet points. The ideas remain separated however which is not what the source cited indicates. You know as well as I do that Yisrael Beitenu is part of the Likud led coalition government in Israel, so its possible for the campaign against Nakba commemorations to be led by them and acted upon my other parts of the government. That's what the source cited indicates and that's what we should write. Are you challenging the source's reliability?  T i a m u t talk 20:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I's not a question of me challenging the source's reliability. A lot of things are possible. But an Encyclopedia should contain only facts, not things that may or may not be true. Israguy (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:TRUTH. There are no facts. There is only what reliable secondary sources have to say. This one is quite clear about the Nakba legisltation being tied to the campaign by Yisrael Beiteinu. If you have a problem with the sorce's reliability, please raise it at WP:RSN. Otherwise, its valid to include it.  T i a m u t talk 09:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of information
Israguy, you deleted text I added on Zochrot and changed the heading of the section from "Israeli positions" to "Israeli objections . This doesn't seem right. Its rather POV to highlight only Israeli objections to the Nakba Day events as though those are the only opinions that count. Could you please undo your edit? Or, could you let me now if you would object to my undoing it? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I object to you undoing it, simply because I didn't delete the Zochrot text. I just moved it to the "Commemoration" section (because this is what Zochrot do - commemorate the Nakba). The next section after that should be only about those who oppose the Nakba. In this case, maybe the word "Israeli" should be removed from the "Israeli objections" section's title (since not all Israelis oppose to the Nakba, and also there may be non-Israelis who do oppose the Nakba). Israguy (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Ah yes, I see the Zochrot text now. Sorry for missing it. However, your retitling isn't working for me at all right now. Changing the heading of the section to read simply "Objections to the Nakba" when all the content is Israeli objections is a little misleading to for the reader. That whole section is Israeli POVs on the Nakba and that's why "Israeli positions" was a better title (and why I added Zochrot, so as to balance the negative with positive views of Nakba Day events which do exist, albeit among a minority, in Israel). Will you reconsider your position? Or do you have an alternate suggestion to address my concerns?  T i a m u t talk 19:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Update: Because the title heading is "Objections to commemoration of Nakba", I've removed information that is a general critique of the Nakba narrative (i.e. Im Tirtzu's campaign, the education ministry banning of the word Nakba in textbooks, and the Jewish exodus info). I've also retitiled the subheadings gto include "Israeli" since the objections are from this sector.  T i a m u t talk 07:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Update: What I removed has been readded by Israguy without discussion. Am I to understand that this section should include Israeli objections to the Nakba narrative in general? Aren't those outside the scope of this article which deals with Nakba Day rather than the Nakba in general (which is discussed at the somewhat awkwardly titled 1948 Palestinian exodus?) Shouldn't we limit the objections (and support) to the commemoration activities rather than getting into a debate over why the Nakba was or was not justified?  T i a m u t talk 16:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Alternate suggestion for your concerns: I think there should be two sections about commemoration of Nakba - one for those who are pro-commemoration (such as: Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, Zochrot), and second for those who are con-commemoration (such as: Israel media, Israel government). Israguy (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * This is the same comment you made in response to my comments in the section below. Could you continue the discussion there and answer my question regarding article scope? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 20:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite "Objection to commemoration of Nakba" section
Currently this section in the article has a number of problems. First, it is essentially all about Israeli objections to the Nakba. It should be titled "Israeli positions" and it should include the views of Israelis who spport Nakba Day commemorations, like Zochrot, who I tried to include in the "Organizations" sub-section, and for example, Gideon Levy who wrote this article, "Israeli Jews should mark Nakba Day, too", whose views could be added to the "Media" section. This would make the article more NPOV. Are there any objections to restructuring this section in this fashion?  T i a m u t talk 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Could editors making bold rewrites to this section please respond to the suggestions and comments raised here? I'd appreciate feedback and coordination on how to proceed. If I don't get any, I'll just go ahead an make the edits and hope that those who have an issue with them will discuss here first before reverting. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Alternate to your suggestion : I think there should be two sections about commemoration of Nakba - one for all those who are pro-commemoration (such as: Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, Zochrot), and second for all those who are con-commemoration (such as: Israel media, Israel government). In this case, the word "Israel" should be removed from section's title. Israguy (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * All the material we have that is pro or anti-commemoration that needs a home comes from Israeli writers. As such, it should all be discussed in the same sub-section "Israeli positions on Nakba Day". I don't see why we should create separate sections for pro and anti commemoration positions.
 * Also, could you answer my question about the scope of the critiques or support we are including here? I've tried to remove rebuttals to the Nakba narrative itself from the material in the article and have been reverted. Are we going to include support for the Nakba narrative too? This article is about Nakba Day and not the Nakba itself (which is discussed at length at 1948 Palestinian exodus). It will become unwieldy if we don't set clear guidelines for the article scope.  T i a m u t talk 20:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Since this article is about the commemoration of the Nakba, the most neutral thing to do is to have a section, about those who oppose this commemoration. You say that only Israelis oppose this, and that may be right at this time, but this may change in the future. Also, since there is already a section about commemoration, why should it exclude Israeli commemoration? Israguy (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't see why we have to have a section abot objections to the commemoration of the Nakba when it is fringe minority that actally objects to it. Its only Israelis and not even all Israelis who oppose Palestinians mourning the loss of Palestine. Actually most of the people besides Palestinians and Arabs who care about this day one way or the other are Israelis. That's why its appropriate to have a section abot Israeli views, pro and con for the commemoration of this day. Plus, it is reflective of the material we have, rather than what might one day emerge. (Strange to wrtie an article anticipating the emergence of opinions that currently do not exist in any significant fashion). The section on commemoration by the way does include Israelis who participate in commemorations (Arab citizens of Israel are Israelis remember?) Israeli support for the commemorations from Jewish Israelis who do not participate in the events is important to note too though.  T i a m u t talk 09:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Reasons
It seems to me the reasons for the displacement that is commemorated in Nakba Day are not presented in the article. I think it is of acute relevance and importance. The way the article is presented, it sounds as though Muslims and Arabs where suddenly expelled for no reason, and without any prior events to explain it. While it is true that the reasons are presented in other (linked) articles, I think it should at least be stated that the exodus was primarily caused by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war following Israel's declaration of independence. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Its a common misconception that the exodus was a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In fact, however, it began before that (see Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus). The reasons are not simple and are disputed in the scholarship. Bringing that dispute here would overwhelm this article. It is enough to say that the 1948 Palestinian exodus occurred in the context of the 1948 Palestine war. The rest can't be easily summarized.  T i a m u t talk 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Even though it may have began before, the majority of the refugees left or where expelled during or because of the war. Furthermore, the Nakba itself is held annually on 15 May or on 5 Iyyar, making the link to Israel's declaration of independence and the following war even clearer. I'm not saying it should be portrayed as the main reason or cause for the Nakba, just that it should be mentioned, for clearly it is highly relevant. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * We already do mention the link to Israel's declaration of independence in the "Timing" section (and note that Israel's independence day falls on May 14th, and not May 15th in the Gregorian calendar, though that's beside the point since it is commemorated in Israel according to the Hebrew calendar date). In the first sentence of the article, we also state that the commemoration of Nakba Day centers around the displacement that accompanied Israel's creation. And in the "Defining Nakba" section, we mention that the refugees were expelled or fled during the 1948 Palestine War. I don't see what else specifically needs to be mentioned. Could you suggest a sample rewrite so that I can better understand what you are aiming at?  T i a m u t talk 16:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I think the main issue this article does not address is: Why the refugees are still refugees? The answer is not Israel's declaration of independence. Not the 1948 Arab-Israeli. And not the 1948 Palestine war. The answer has two parts to it:
 * Israel passed a law, that does not allow the refugees to return into the state of Israel and to become its citizens.
 * Some Arab countries that are hosting refugees also passed laws, preventing them civil rights and to be absorbed and becoming citizens of these Arab countries.
 * Israguy (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I think why the refugees are still refugees is outside the scope of this article. This article is about Nakba Day and not the Nakba itself, the continuing irresolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the Palestinian right of return. We need to include a little background on what the Nakba is, but we don't need to analyze the reasons it came about or remains an issue in an article about the how the day is commemorated.  T i a m u t talk 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to spin off 2011 commemorations into own article
The 2011 section is overwhelming the article s other years do not have the same level of coverage. I think its also only going to get larger as its significance grows in the days, weeks, and years to come. Could we spin it off to its own article and include maximum one paragraph on it here without its own subsection and wikilink to it for people who want to read more? We can title it Nakba Day (2011) or 2011 Nakba Day. Thoughts?  T i a m u t talk 19:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I think 2011 Nakba Day, with Category:Conflicts in 2011 in it. Israguy (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Strongly suggest 2011 Nakba Day clashes. That's why it is notable in and of itself. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Agree. It's already large and has potential to keep growing (lot of commentary on it, ex. Haaretz called it "unprecedented.") I don't think there's gonna be any opposition to a move anyway. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Started the article. I agree with Tiamut that we should have maximum one passage on the events here. Should we just delete the info in this article save the first paragraph which could be expanded a little? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes. Shall I go ahead?  T i a m u t talk 09:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note though that new info is being added all the time and shold be checked against what is in the other article to make sre things are not lost.  T i a m u t talk 09:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar
Should be "in light of their relatively higher standards of living when compared to that of Palestinians who are residents outside of Israel". —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

At least 12 killed
The source cited is no longer valid. It was released in haste less than 24 hours after the event. I'm not calling the AFP as a whole no good. I'm just saying the media report that is cited should no longer be concidered valid.

The "at least 12 killed" that some media reports is a combination of deaths not just in the Golan, but other places as well. Look at the source that appears alongside the AFP. It says 13 died across Israel. So "at least 12" died in Golan?

I understand the Nakba is an emotional issue for many people, but that is no reason to eschew the regular way we do things around here.

Most certainly we should mention the Nakba day demonstrations. We also shouldn't hide causualty figures. But finding something on the internet that you like doesn't necessarily mean you need to share it with people on Wikipedia. Is it still a valid source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modinyr (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Add video for Commemoration section
Hi, I am a volunteer of Global Lives Project. Dance video might be helpful on this page to show how people commemorate the day? Found a video on Shamaliya dance. The video is here Indu Murali (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012
I have found misleading information on this article where the author has selectively chosen information from a listed source. Please see below and accompanying explanation:

"On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event.[26] At least twelve Palestinians and supporters were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army.[27]"

On the [27] source page, it clearly states that "Tensions along the Israeli-Syrian frontier spiralled as thousands of protesters from Syria tried to force their way onto the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, prompting the army to open fire in one of the worst incidents of violence there since a 1974 truce accord."

However, in the wikipedia article, it misleads the reader into thinking that the Israeli army opened fire without reason or provocation. The same [27] source page also notes: "The Israeli army issued a statement saying "hundreds of Syrian rioters" had crossed onto the Israeli side, and in response troops had "fired selectively" towards them, injuring an unspecified number."

It is unethical to leave the current wiki page as is, because the author clearly picked and chose information from his/her sources that misleads readers. Please change the article in favor of more objective information. Here would be an example of the changed paragraph:

"On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event.[26] When hundreds of rioters stormed over the Israeli border, at least twelve were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army.[27]"

My edited paragraph above is only using information provided by the very source material that is already cited. However, now it shows a more accurate picture of what happened. This is not about taking sides, just about giving a full and less biased picture.

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Pol430   talk to me  19:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ezmode (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you rely on certainly does not say that "hundreds of rioters stormed over the Israeli border". The word "stormed" does not appear at all; the word "rioters" is only used by, and ascribed to, the Israeli army; and, as the source cited for the previous sentence states, "the Syrians penetrated an area held by the State of Israel, but they did not cross the Israeli border." So all three elements of your proposed edit are false and unacceptable, and the requested edit should not be made. RolandR (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I've changed it to the following. Addition from AFP highlighted. Revert/amend at will.
 * On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event. At least twelve Palestinians and supporters were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army. The Israeli army opened fire after thousands of Syrian protesters tried to forcibly enter the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights resulting in what AFP described as one of the worst incidents of violence there since the 1974 truce accord. The IDF said troops "fired selectively" towards "hundreds of Syrian rioters" injuring an unspecified number in response to them crossing onto the Israeli side.
 *  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you making the revision, as it is more accurate than what was previously there. Now, in defence of what I wrote. There is objection to my use of the word "stormed" because it does not appear in the article. I imagine you object because it could have violent implications (the article does confirm violence on both sides, as shown by Israeli injuries). However, "forcibly enter" also "does not appear at all" in the article. "Forcibly entered" sounds nicer (has less threatening implications) but I question which word would better fit what happened that day. I wasn't there, and the article is a bit vague, but it is clear (according to the source) that a large group of protesters crossed into another country's border in a clearly unwelcome fashion. As a result, protesters and Israeli soldiers were wounded and killed (the article states a total of 13 Israelis were injured). Both sides were violent. In light of these facts, "stormed" does seem to reasonably apply to at least some of the protesters who crossed the border and engaged in violence. As for "rioters," I put that because it is used in the article. Obviously, there exists an assumption that the Israeli army must be inaccurate in their use of the term. I think that using the term "rioters" is not entirely inaccurate. Let me provide you with the definition of a "riot" as found on dictionary.com: "a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets."

We see in the article that "Three army officers and 10 soldiers had been injured during the two incidents, it said, blaming Damascus and Beirut for the violence." ("It" being the Israeli Army) Some of the protesters were clearly violent and therefore clearly fit the definition of "rioter." So Roland, please do not attack my use of the word when it is both used in the source article and, based on the information, we can see that at least some of the protesters literally fit the dictionary definition of "rioter." I'm not debating the morality of any actions here, just defending the definitions of the words that you dispute.

Addressing your third claim, if a previous source disputes the crossing, that is a legitimate point. I was only addressing the fact that the author was CLEARLY grabbing information from a source without grabbing other critical information from that very same source.

Anyway, in terms of specific revisions to the paragraph, I think it is at least reasonable to mention the Israeli injuries if you are going to mention protester injuries and casualties. In favor of objectivity, all who were maimed or killed that day should be mentioned. So below is my proposed change. Please feel free to write it better. My only goal is to eliminate bias by providing as full a picture as possible. It just seems to me that there is too much cherry picking of this source. First, the border crossing was not mentioned, which is a critical point in this story. Now, the injured Israelis are not mentioned, which of course subtly biases the wiki by making the reader think that only one side was violent.

On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event.[1] At least twelve Palestinians and supporters were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army. In addition, three Israeli army officers and ten Israeli soldiers were injured during the protests.[2] The Israeli army opened fire after thousands of Syrian protesters tried to forcibly enter the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights resulting in what AFP described as one of the worst incidents of violence there since the 1974 truce accord.[2] The IDF said troops "fired selectively" towards "hundreds of Syrian rioters" injuring an unspecified number in response to them crossing onto the Israeli side.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezmode (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I used "forcibly enter the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" because the source said "force their way onto the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights". There is always a thin line been reflecting a source accurately, close paraphrasing and copyright violation.
 * "Obviously, there exists an assumption that the Israeli army must be inaccurate in their use of the term." - no, but it is the IDF's narrative/version of events and it therefore needs to be attributed to them rather than presented in the voice of the encyclopedia.
 * We can't measure the accuracy of IDF statements using dictionaries. It doesn't really matter whether they were rioters or not. What matters is that that is what the IDF said and a reliable secondary source reported it.
 * Yes, I agree, the Israeli deaths and injuries should be included too.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The loss of Palestine
I included this phrase in the section on Defining Nakba. It was deleted by Israguy citing POV. There are numerous scholarly sources that define the Nakba as "the loss of Palestine" [See google books). Below, a sampling:

 * "The nakba of 1948 — the loss of Palestine — had been compounded by another catastrophe ..." The Modern Middle East: A Political History Since the First World War By Mehran Kamrava
 * "The idea of creating such a Palestinian framework was born at the time of the nakba (the Arabic term for disaster, or the loss of Palestine) and was nurtured by the revolutionary experience of Algeria." Syria and the Palestinians: the clash of nationalisms By Ghada Hashem Talhami
 * "One of the most impressive aspects of the "return to 1948" phenomenon is the restoration of the collective historic memory of the "Nakba" — the catastrophic loss of Palestine in the 1948 war." Israel studies: IS., Volume 7 Merkaz le-moreshet Ben-Guryon, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Association for Israel Studies

More can be found at the google books link provided above. Are there any objections to restoring this phrase in the Defining Nakba section and if so, please explain why we should ignore its use by multiple reliable sources in a neutral voice.  T i a m u t talk 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Referring to the Nakba as "the loss of Palestine" is one thing. But that is not what you wrote. The following are two different things:
 * People define "Nakba" as "the loss of Palestine".
 * The loss of Palestine is known as "the Nakbe".
 * In this discussion, you are using the first of the two, but in the article, you used the second one - which is clearly POV, and not neutral. Israguy (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The sources cited use the second formulation in a neutral voice no less. We should reflect what the sources say, not what you believe to be true.  T i a m u t talk 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, there are scholarly sources that refer to "Nakba day" as "Yom Ha'atzmaut", day of independence. The 1948 Arab–Israeli War is also known as "Milkhemet Hashikhrur", war of liberation. Whould you like to use these terms instead? Israguy (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't follow what you're getting at. Can you provide sources that say what you are trying to say?  T i a m u t talk 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed "as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army" as according to refferences most were killed by arab armeis e.g. the lebanese army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Please provide sources here that support your assertion for examination prior to removing information that is in the source cited in the article.  T i a m u t talk 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source you cited (Yediot Aharonot/Ynet) does not make this claim. It simply states that at one stage the Lebanese army fired in the air; it says nothing about any resulting casualties. The only deaths it mentions are four killed by Israeli fire in the Golan Heights. RolandR (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to add this, but according to many sources including Wikipedia itself 1948 Palestine War everyone agree that the Nakba was a result of an arab attack on what would become Israel as a direct result of the declaration of independence of Israel, in accordance to the UN resolution. Palestinians refused to accept this UN resolution and in an attack would hope to destroy Israel. The Nakba, therefore, is a result of their loss to Israel. Many refer to Nakba as the disaster of the creation of an Israeli Jewish state, and the failure in preventing it. Demonstrators and Arab media describe Nakba as "the "catastrophe" of Israel's creation in 1948" as well. I think this article should reflect these simple truths that are well known. If more sources needed I'm happy to provide. This will make the article less bias since it will expose some of the not so comfortable truths about the Nakba. Also see this great post about this book and many, many other sources that attibutes the Nakba to the failure of the arab attack to destroy the new state of Israel. It is amazing to me that none of this is even mentioned throughout this article. Shaipetel (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nakba Day/Archive 2


text:
1994–95 Liga Nacional de Fútbol Femenino

The 1994–95 División de Honor de Fútbol Femenino was the seventh edition of Spain's women's football premier league. Ten teams took part in the competition, which took place from 19 September 1993 to 27 March 1994, with Anaitasuna and León replacing relegated teams Olímpico Fortuna and Athenas.

Añorga won its second title with 16 wins in 18 matches and an eight points difference over defending champion Oroquieta Villaverde. Espanyol, Sondika and Sabadell followed in the table. León and FFP Alcobendas were relegated as the two bottom teams, and Anaitasuna FT, which ended in mid-table, also asked for relegation.

During the last minutes of Week 5's Sondika–Oroquieta Villaverde match, which ended in a 0–3 away win, a brawl degenerated into a beating which resulted in three injured Oroquieta players. RFEF, whose attitude following the incident was harshly criticized by Oroquieta executives and players, sanctioned one player from each team plus Oroquieta's manager and closed Sondika's ground for one match.

source: wikimedia

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


text:
invisible export

Noun

 * 1)  Any export that does not have a tangible physical presence (e.g. expertise, insurance underwriting).
 * Although physical imports exceeded exports, when invisible exports were accounted for the balance of payments was healthy.

title: invisible export


text:
Hege

Etymology
Spelling variant of, a dialectal form of with a loss of -l- following a lengthening of the preceding vowel.

title: Hege


text:
User:Jamiedorman/sandbox

the biggest weed boy in all of dundonald he smonks too much haishish and then str8910 died cse his dog called lily ate his mum and then he got the 188 and jkeestered a screwdriver(s)

title: User:Jamiedorman/sandbox


text:
Anne Marie Lütken

Anna Maria (Anne Marie) Lütken (1916–2001) was a Danish painter who is remembered above all for her distinctive figure paintings, frequently based on her mother, her grandmother or herself as models. She also painted scenes of nature, including landscapes from Vendsyssel in the north of Jutland. In 2008, her works were presented together with those of Agnete Bjerre in an exhibition at Vrå where she was a member of the cultural association from 1956.

Biography
Born on 29 September 1916 in Årby near Kalundborg, Anna Maria Lütken was the daughter of the writer Povline Lütken (1893–1977). From 1947, she studied at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts under Vilhelm Lundstrøm, Kræsten Iversen and Elof Risebye, graduating in 1955. While still studying, she exhibited her works from 1951, contributing to the Charlottenborg Spring Exhibitions (1953–1975) and Vrå exhibitions (1953–1984), and to many other shows.

From her début in 1951, Lütken developed her monumental figure style, becoming a distinctive contributor to Danish painting. She frequently used her mother and grandmother as models, her female figures extending over most of the painting surface. Her figures are usually combined with details such as the side of a chair leg or a table top, resulting in their appearance as part of a spatial whole. In her well balanced compositions, dark brown, green and greyish black areas form contrasts with a few much brighter areas. In her most successful works, the figures present stunning expressions of human existence.

In 2008, her works were presented together with those of Agnete Bjerre in an exhibition at Vrå. She had grown up in Vendsyssel and had been a member of the cultural association in Vrå from 1956.

Anne Marie Lütken died on 10 August 2001 and is buried in Hellerup Cemetery.

title: Anne Marie Lütken


text:
Gebrehiwot Baykedagn

Gebrehiwot Baykedagn (1886–1919) was an Ethiopian doctor, economist, and intellectual. He was born in 1886 in Adwa, Tigray. In a trip to the port of Massawa, Gebrehiwot and his friends got permission from the captain of a German ship to visit the ship. On departure, he stowed away (this may not have been deliberate, according to Alemayehu Geda, 2004). On arrival, the captain entrusted the young boy to a rich Austrian family, who adopted him. This good fortune opened to him the opportunity to study the German language and to go to school. His exposure to Western education was thorough, and he pursued medical studies at Berlin University. He returned to his country and became private secretary and interpreter to the Emperor Menelik II, who defeated the Italian colonial army in 1896 at the Battle of Adwa. Later on, while the Haile Selassie was still the successor to the throne, he fulfilled important administrative functions. He served as inspector of the important Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway until his premature death in 1919.

In government
Becoming an important member of Menelik's entourage, Heywät served as a senior counsel and advised on and was a strong proponent of Ethiopia's modernisation. Specifically, Heywät sought to integrate Ethiopia into the global economy while maintaining Ethiopia's cultural and political integrity. Deeply concerned with the state of the Ethiopian economy, and understanding the economic importance of a productive middle class, Heywät pushed for structural social, political, and economic reform, which are partially reflected in efforts to remove unjust taxation and patrimonialism, while bureaucratic rationalism, the prohibition of slavery, and the elimination of noble privileges were promoted. Heywät exerted a considerable degree of influence over Menlik's making of policy, which was compounded by the influence of other senior policymakers that were informally grouped as the 'Young Japanisers' - a loose grouping that sought to replicate Japan's industrialisation, which included the likes of Heruy Wolde Selassie. A lead advocate of industrialisation, Heywät's publication of Government and Public Administration advised the emperor to 'follow the example of the Japanese government' or 'be enslaved'. Following Menelik's death and the 1916 coup, he was first appointed controller of the (French built) railways and later collector of customs in Dérre Dawa, where he died.

Major works
He published two majors works in Amharic, the Ethiopian national language: "Mengistna ye Hizb Astadadar", published in 1924 after his death and translated into English in 1995 as "State and Economy of Early 20th Century Ethiopia"; and in 1912, "Atse Menilik na Ethiopia", which was translated into French in 1993 as "L'Empereur Menelik et L'Ethiopie".

Professor Emeritus of History at Addis Ababa University, Professor Bahru Zewde tells us that the latter book was written with the hopes that Menelik’s successor, Iyasu V would take up his recommendations and proceed to modernize the Ethiopian state.

While his recommendations went unheeded by a young prince little interested in the affairs of state, Gebrehiwot went on to exert considerable influence on Ethiopian affairs for the rest of the century. His writings expressed deep concern with national institutions, structural economics, income inequality in development, and trade imbalance between developed and underdeveloped nations. It is for this reason that Addis Ababa University Professor of Economics Dr. Alemayehu Geda calls Gebrehiwot one of the world’s pioneers in the study of "Development Economics".

Death
After his death at the age of 34, his ideas went on to influence generations of Ethiopian intellectuals. One can clearly distinguish Gebrehiwot’s ideas in the thought processes of the young revolutionaries of the 1970s.

title: Gebrehiwot Baykedagn


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiftyloop

The result was delete. Tone 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Fiftyloop

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete unsourced article on what appears to be a defunct website (no URL in the article and the link on a Twitter profile is broken) and no coverage found. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
The Casteless Collective

The Casteless Collective is an Indian indie band based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The band was formed in 2017, with support from the Neelam Panpaatu Maiyam started by filmmaker Pa. Ranjith and filmmaker and film composer Tenma, founder of the label Madras Records.

Early years and band formation
Tenma, the leader and the music producer of the band was trying to put together a group of indie musicians and artists, the Madras Indie Collective, in 2017 when he received a call from Neelam's Pa. Ranjith, enquiring if he could train Gaana singers and musicians from the Gaana genre. They put out calls for an audition and received about 150 applications. Since the band was embarking on a socio-political journey, the auditions were looking to understand the motivations of the performers, as much as their musical strengths. A blend of Gaana, hip-hop, rock, rap, and folk musicians were among the ~19 singers who formed the initial ensemble.

The band's name originates from the usage, Jaathi Illadha Tamizhargal, a phrase coined by 19th century anti caste activist and writer C. Iyothee Thass, who urged Dalits across Tamilnadu to register themselves without caste. The name of the band was inspired by a phrase – "jaathi bedha matra Tamilargal" – used by Tamil anti-caste activist and writer C Iyothee Thass. Iyothee Thassa Pandithar (1845-1914) was the first to moot the phrase "Jaathi Bedha Matra Tamizhargal" in the early 20th century by publishing the same in his Tamil Journal Tamizhan (1907-1914).

The band's music is political, and their songs rebel against the inequality of the caste system, and the oppression of women and minorities by the state. The current lineup consists of 19 members including Tenma, leader and music producer, singers Muthu, Bala Chandar, Isaivani, Arivu and Chellamuthu, Dharani (Dholak), Sarath (Satti), Gautham (Katta molam), Nandhan Kalaivanan (Parai and Tavil), Manu Krishnan (drums) and Sahib Singh (guitar).

As of November 2019, the band had released thirty-five songs. In 2020 Gaana singer, Isaivani, who is the only woman in the band was recognised for her role by the BBC. She was included in the BBC's 100 Women because she inspires others because she has sung and performed for a long time in a space that is dominated by men.

Singles

 * Jai Bhim Anthem - 2018
 * Quota - 2018
 * Magizhchi - 2018
 * Vada Chennai - 2018
 * Thalaiva - 2019
 * Dabba Dabba - 2019

Albums

 * Magizhchi - 2018

title: The Casteless Collective


text:
Portal talk:Portals

Portal talk:Portals is a discussion of Portal:Portals which is part of a learning project to list and classify all Topic:topic pages and their related Portals on Wikiversity. Please do not delete Portal:Portals as it is an integral part of an ongoing project. The root project is at Topic:Topic. CQ 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

title: Portal talk:Portals


text:
Template:Did you know nominations/Jeanne Geneviève Labrosse

Jeanne Geneviève Labrosse

 * ... that in 1799 Jeanne Geneviève Labrosse was the first woman to make a parachute jump?
 * Reviewed: Dominique Allen, Clive Allen (basketball)

Created/expanded by Chienlit (talk). Self nom at 22:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ done.  Images have acceptable copyrights. Hook is properly formatted and neutral enough.  Hooked fact is found in article with an inline citation. Source supports.
 * Symbol question.svg Article not fully supported by inline citations. (Cannot check plagiarism as a result.)
 * Symbol question.svg Some of these sources are not verifiable because not enough information: Aeronautics and Space Flight Collections by Catherine Scott, 1985.The Challengers: A Century of Ballooning by Diane Thomas Darnal, Published 1989. The Aeronauts by Donald Dale Jackson published 1981. (Cannot check plagiarism as a result.)

Once concerns addressed, please comment here and on my talk page so I can follow up on the review. --LauraHale (talk)

 * Issues addressed. I believe it can now proceed. Chienlit (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about delay. Article is now fully supported by inline citations. Citations are now more verifiable. No real plagiarism concerns on spotcheck. Should be good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Laura. Chienlit (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ


text:
Arabic/Arabic alphabet

Here are all the official letters of the Arabic alphabet in order.

The following image shows which letters have an equivalent in the English language. Note that the r differs from the English one; it is a trill like in Spanish and Russian.

Because you know English, you have an advantage that speakers of other Western European Languages don't have:

The rest of the letters have no true English equivalents. Before you learn them they will sound silent, or seem like another letter. We will learn to pronounce and recognize these letters later.

Arabic Letters have tails

Some Arabic letters have extra parts to them. These parts are only written at the end of words, and a few of them are optional. Look at the picture above. These extra parts have been cut off and brightened so you can see the important part of each letter. Without the extra parts, you see what letters look like at the beginning of words.

Some letters
In the picture before the one above, there were some letters that didn't seem to have any extra parts. Some don't. These don't connect to letters after them—connecting them to letters after them would make words very difficult to read, and is not allowed. We boxed these letters in the picture directly above. Some letters do connect to letters after them, but don't have tails; instead, the whole shape of the letter changes. These letters are circled above, and their different shapes are shown in the picture below..

Explanation
Arabic letters change shape according to their place within a word. Usually this means not writing a tail, because the letter is not at the end of the word. But because Arabic is meant to be written mainly by hand, there are also other changes (i.e., shortcuts) that make writing easier. Here is an important shortcut. Because the shortcut is always used in handwriting, it has made its way into Arabic printing. Notice how the hole in the middle and final forms of the letter get covered presumably due to thick ink. This comes from calligraphy, Arabic has an incredibly rich calligraphic history.

There are even more shortcuts (mainly ligatures) that we will cover later. Just in case you didn't notice, Arabic is written and read from right to left.

The Arabic alphabet is very focused on representing sounds. Some of the sounds may be hard to distinguish for English speakers. See Arabic sounds and Wikipedia:Arabic Alphabet for more details on sounds.

The alphabet does not have capital letters (letters especially designed for names or certain grammar cases). But the way letters are written does depend on the location of the letter in a word. A letter at the beginning of a word (initial) is often written slightly different from the same letter at the ending of a word (final), or somewhere in between (medial).

The easiest way to learn the language is to try to recognize certain shapes in the letters (like hooks, bows, and points). Based on these shared shapes, the letters can be divided in shape groups. See Arabic alphabet (by group) to learn more on how to tell the written shapes apart, and how to write them.

= Synthetic table =
 * ''Note that 'a' is pronounced as the sound 'a' in 'cat' or the sound 'u' in 'but'.

Each Arabic letter is made up of two parts: a shape, a number of dots. Rules for all writing systems using the Arabetic (writing using Arabic shapes, with dots) system. The following Rules apply.

 * 1) Every letter consists of a shape with no dots or some dots.
 * 2) The placement (above or below) is important. A shape with a dot underneath is not the same letter as the same shape with a dot above.
 * 3) The number of dots is important. A shape with one dot is a different letter than the same shape with a different number of dots.

In Arabic Arabetics, dots can only be above or below the shape, never both at the same time. The way the dots are placed relative to each other, (i.e. diagonally, vertically, in a triangle) does not make different letters.

title: Arabic/Arabic alphabet


text:
Li Jianzhen

Li Jianzhen (1907 – March 30, 1992) was a female People's Republic of China politician. She was born in Fengshun County, Guangdong. A follower of Peng Pai, she participated in the Guangzhou Uprising of 1927. As a member of the Chinese Red Army, she was active in Changting County, Fujian, which was part of the Jiangxi Soviet. At the end of the Long March, she arrived in Shaanbei and was in the border region of Shaanxi, Gansu and Ningxia during the Second Sino-Japanese War. She later returned to her home province. She was a delegate to seven consecutive National People's Congresses, from the 1st (1954–1959) to the 7th (1988–1993). She died in Guangzhou.

title: Li Jianzhen


text:
Talk:Philander C. Knox

I am amused
What an unfortunate first name. Philander. Just look at what that search brings up. One wonders if the name was intentional, or just an unfortunate coincidence.

Yes, I am aware this is mostly irrelevent. That's why it's on the talk page and not on the main article.--Swiftblade21 03:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The name was almost certainly intentional. I have not been able to find any data on whether he was named in tribute to Philander Chase, the first Episcopal Bishop of Ohio, and the founder of Kenyon College. Knox was born eight months after Chase died. --Nufftin 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikification
I think that this article needs to be broken up into a couple of sections. The existing format is confusing, and makes the article seem very short. --Cremepuff222 ( talk,  review me! ) 00:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Sectioning has now been done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Quote?
The large block quote about US intervention in Nicaragua doesn't seem to have much to do with Philander Knox. I didn't tamper with or remove it, but it probably belongs elsewhere (history of Nicaragua springs to mind). <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of presidents served under?
In the intro section, there's a sentence that reads: "He served in the Cabinet under three presidents." However, in the infobox on the right, it mentions four presidents, not three. According to the infobox, he served as Attorney General under William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, and then as Secretary of State under William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. One of these two items is incorrect, either the sentence in the intro, or the list of presidents in the infobox. Does anyone know which needs to be corrected? Gabefarkas (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Philander C. Knox


text:
General Biology/Genetics/DNA, The Genetic Material

DNA
DNA stands for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. That is, a nucleic acid with two sugars. DNA is the hereditary material of cells and is considered the blueprint of life. DNA is found in all kingdoms of life. Even most viruses have DNA. A molecule of DNA is chemically stable (it does not have a 2-prime alcohol group.)

When someone says DNA, they may be referring to one's genetic material on multiple levels: They may be speaking about a single deoxyribose nucleic acid molecule, a section of a double helix, a section of a chromosome, or one's entire hereditary composition.

 * antiparallel
 * Double helix
 * Semiconservative replication
 * Sequence of nucleotides encodes functional RNA or polypeptide

Historical perspective

 * Mitosis and meiosis
 * Regular distribution of chromosomes suggested that they contain hereditary information
 * Bridges/Morgan, using Drosophila melanogaster showed that genes are on chromosomes (1910s)
 * Hammerling: nucleus contains hereditary information (1930s)
 * Griffith: transformation of bacteria (1928)
 * Avery, MacLeod, McCarty: transforming substance is DNA (1944)
 * Hershey, Chase: DNA is hereditary material of viruses (1952)
 * Rosalind Franklin
 * Watson and Crick: structure of DNA (1953)

Hershey-Chase Experiment
Two batches of isotopically labeled bacteriophage T2 particles were prepared. One was labeled with 32P in the phosphate groups of the DNA, the other with 35S in the sulfur-containing amino acids of the protein coats (capsids). (Note that DNA contains no sulfur and viral protein contains no phosphorus.) The two batches of labeled phage were then allowed to infect separate suspensions of unlabeled bacteria. Each suspension of phage-infected cells was agitated in a blender to shear the viral capsids from the bacteria. The bacteria and empty viral coats (called “ghosts”) were then separated by centrifugation. The cells infected with the 32P-labeled phage were found to contain 32P, indicating that the labeled viral DNA had entered the cells; the viral ghosts contained no radioactivity. The cells infected with 35S-labeled phage were found to have no radioactivity after blender treatment, but the viral ghosts contained 35S. Progeny virus particles (not shown) were produced in both batches of bacteria some time after the viral coats were removed, indicating that the genetic message for their replication had been introduced by viral DNA, not by viral protein.

DNA/RNA components

 * Miescher: discovered DNA, 1869

Structure of DNA
DNA is in a double helix structure made up of nucleotides. The "backbone" of the double helix is composed of phosphates connected to a five-carbon sugar called deoxyribose. The "rungs" are composed of organic compounds, purines and pyrimidines. Purines contain Adenine(A) and Guanine(G) and have two rings in their structures. Pyrimidines contain Cytosine(C) and Thymine (T) and have one ring in their structures.

Chemical structure of DNA

 * Polynucleotide
 * Phosphodiester bonds between nucleotides
 * 5’-pGpTpCpGpTpApApTp-OH 3’
 * Chargaff’s rules, in DNA: equimolar amounts
 * A = T
 * G = C

3D structure of DNA

 * James Watson and Francis Crick (1953)
 * Nucleotide
 * Keto and amino forms of bases
 * Chargaff’s rules
 * X-ray crystallographic data (Rosalind Franklin)

Franklin
DNA model
 * X-ray diffraction of DNA crystals
 * revealed regular pattern explained by antiparallel double helix
 * Double helix of polynucleotides
 * antiparallel
 * 3’-5’ phosphodiester bonds
 * Base pairs held by hydrogen bonds
 * AT
 * GC
 * There are about 10 base pairs per turn of helix
 * model has predictive power
 * mode of DNA replication
 * encoding of genetic information

DNA replication

 * Conservative model
 * One double helix of both old strands
 * One double helix of two new strands
 * Dispersed
 * Each strand mixture of old new
 * Semiconservative
 * Meselson-Stahl experiment confirmed its viability over the previous two
 * grew E. coli bacterium in a culture containing 15N (a heavy isotope of nitrogen)
 * bacterium assimilated the 15N into their DNA
 * a similar process was then done using 14N, a lighter isotope
 * following centrifugation, the densities were observed to be that of combined in the middle, and 14N on top, thereby confirming the semiconservative model

DNA replication

 * Semiconservative
 * New nucleotides added to 3’ –OH
 * Replication fork
 * Replication complex
 * DNA polymerase
 * Associated enzymes/proteins
 * Energy from phosphate bonds of triphosphate nucleotide substrates (dNTP)

DNA polymerases

 * Prokaryotes, E. coli
 * 3 DNA polymerases
 * III is main enzyme for DNA replication
 * ~1000 nt/sec
 * Eukaryotes
 * 6 DNA polymerases
 * Add nucleotide to 3’ –OH end
 * All require primer, i.e., free 3’ –OH

DNA replication complex

 * Helicase "unzips" the DNA double helix
 * Primase: synthesize RNA primer
 * Single-strand binding proteins
 * DNA gyrase (topoisomerase)
 * DNA polymerase III
 * DNA polymerase I (remove primer, fill gaps)

DNA replication

 * 5’ → 3’ replication
 * Nucleotide addition at 3’ –OH
 * No exceptions
 * New strands are oriented in opposite direction due to 5’ → 3’ constraint
 * Leading strand: continuous replication
 * Lagging strand: discontinuous replication
 * contains multiple Okazaki fragments
 * Joined by DNA ligase

DNA replication fork

 * primer required by all DNA polymerases

Replicon
A region of DNA that is replicated from a single origin.

What is gene?

 * Garrod
 * “inborn errors of metabolism”
 * Alkaptonuria: enzyme deficiency
 * Beadle and Tatum
 * One gene one enzyme
 * Genetic and biochemical analysis in Neurospora
 * Today: gene is sequence of nucleotides encoding functional RNA molecule or the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide


text:
Heffron

Heffron may refer to:

 * Heffron (surname)
 * Electoral district of Heffron
 * Heffron, Wisconsin
 * Heffron Hall (St. Mary's University)
 * USAT Heffron

title: Heffron


text:
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 September 21

21 September 2019

 * Draft:Patrick Domo ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://www.patrickdomo.com/cv. Missvain (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. MER-C 19:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:European Private Label Awards ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://www.retailtimes.co.uk/european-private-label-awards-2019-winners-announced/. Missvain (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. MER-C 19:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Janki Vidya Niketan ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from jankividyaniketan.org. MB 18:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — JJMC89  (T·C) 04:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Medúlla ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from multiple sources Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Could you please provide the sources? Money emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 03:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found the Ga review and have scanned the article. There's several copyvios, this is going to be a mess. Money emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 03:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Money emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI!  19:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth

 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

AzaToth
Final (54/20/8) ending 23:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

– Most of my time here, I usually try to help, so my count of genuine articles isn't the highest. The most I have done is wikifying articles and stub-sorting. Otherwise I have been most in template space, helping creating useful templates people want or might want (I sadly created a lot of controversy by creating qif etc...), and a lot in project space, for example writing and editing help pages at meta, closing at WP:TFD. I think personally that wikipedia could get more help from me if I got adminship. → A z a  Toth 23:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: per selfnomination I accept. → A z a  Toth 23:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Of course. Thank you. --Ligulem 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Capable and worthy of our trust. Sarge Baldy 00:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks like a great administrator-to-be. Tutmosis 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. The nominee's low mainspace edit count is misleading because he contributes to articles indirectly by editing templates. Admin tools would help him because a lot of high-profile templates, including several that he has created, are protected. He will also likely show good judgement at WP:TFD, since he has plenty of experience with templates. There is no reason not to trust him with adminship. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  00:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Pegasus1138 Talk 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Has made numerous exemplary herculean contributions. Great Wikipedian. --CBDunkerson 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Great # of contributions and a lot of contributions to the WP namespace. Keep up the editing! -- J @  red  [T]/[+ ] 00:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Trustworthy user, specialist in template space, and we will all benefit from his having admin tools.  Antandrus  (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support specialized admins. Editor is a "god of templates", which makes him mop-worthy. I trust him not to use the mop in areas where he less familiar.  I would like more thorough answers to the questions, though. Xoloz 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Robert McClenon 01:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support. I think the template work has been extremely useful and even just the reason of wanting to edit protected pages is enough reason for me.  AzaToth's behind-the-scenes work to improve Wikipedia and provide tools to that end are a bigger benefit to the project than one more administator concerned with debating policy.  No reason to suspect he will abuse admin privledges, and adminship is no big deal, right? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support This user shows that he can be trusted. - Richardcavell 02:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I have very little to do with the template pages, but it looks like he's done good work there. JoshuaZ 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) --Jaranda wat's sup 02:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per TantalumTelluride and Richardcav. Joe 05:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Strongest possible support, absolutely great template editor and wonderful to work with. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, I see no problem with this user. J I P  | Talk 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per Xoloz who always seems more capable at making my arguments than I am. Hiding talk 10:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Qif is protected anyway, so I suppose AT needs adminship to do his job! Good potential admin, in any case. haz  (us e r talk) 14:10, 20 March 2006
 * 20) Support We need more admins. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Seems like this fellow has a genuine need for the tools, and that people trust him. It would be better if we could just hand him the ability to edit protected pages, but since we can't, well, I'm sure he won't abuse the other tools. --kingboyk 15:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support After further review of this candidate, I've decided to change my vote from "Oppose" to "Support". [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]]  mm  e  inhart ''' 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, for all his great template work. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - I don't usually vote, but; AsaToth has good uses for the tools. Go to it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I see no evidence that this nominee will abuse his admin tools.--MONGO 00:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support good admin candidate --rogerd 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support no reason to believe AzaToth will abuse admin privilleges, also shows initiative in wanting to serve the project in such capacity. -- Jay  (Reply)  02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - templates are just as important as articles, since most articles have templates. Mostly per kingboyk. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support per above. --Khoikhoi 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Writing articles isn't for everyone. Doing amazing magic voodoo with templates isn't for everyone either, but it is for AzaToth. He's contributed a lot to Wikipedia on the meta-level, in places where it needs it, and the ability to edit protected templates would let him contribute even more.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support.  Grue   19:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Apparently a controversial nomination here... I don't quite get why though. Reasons given seem valid, user seems worthy. Give Carl the mop... Support  + +Lar: t/c 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support --Latinus 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. per CBDunkerson, who has good opinions. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support --Ter e nce Ong 09:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support, perfectly valid reasons for requiring admin tools. Far more valid than the countless editors who breeze through RfA with 60+ supports and no opposes, gained by toeing the line, never being bold, taking care to always support other's RFAs (at least, until they become admins themselves), and doing virtually nothing in article space but vandalism reverting, which confers no more knowledge of article editing than AzaToth has.     Proto    ||    type    13:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. Merits the mop. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 23:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support per Xoloz. the wub "?!"  00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support I agree with CBDunkerson and Doug Bell. Template work is extremely important; at least as, if not more so, than main page edits. --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support - The fact that he does not want to use the admin tools extensively does not mean he should not have them. Admin powers will probably come in handy during the course of his template work - they'll be a tool for what he already does, not a new job.  --  stillnotelf   has a talk page  02:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support - I Don't agree with any reason given by those who oppose his candidacy. His work is important. --h y dkat 06:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support An oppose, for me at least, would be to underestimate AzaToth's hard work behind the scenes. Good candidate! - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support, looks like a very valuable user who could make good use of the tools. Leith p 09:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support per rspeer and supporting useful, non-cookie-cutter candidates. No one objecting seems to have anything more strenuous to say than "299 article edits?!?!?", totally disregarding his otherspace edits. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Obviously a bit of a specialist in template space. Low article count in this context doesn't trouble me. Would definitely be an asset to WP with admin tools. Need to improve use of edit summaries though. -- Cactus.man  ✍  12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support: Editing protected templates seems like a good reason to me, and there's no evidence he'll misuse admin tools. TimBentley 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support Seems trustworthy, needs admin tools to edit permanently protected templates, adminship is no big deal. Enjoy your mop. — Omegatron 00:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support The inventor of qif should be able to continue its development, and the development of all protected templates. Plus, I don't see any way he could misuse adminship, so why not? -- M  @  th  wiz  20  20  00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support: helpful and friendly, even if I can't always follow him into the realms of template genius[[Image:Teeth.png|16px]]. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support. I'm amazed with the low main namespace edit count, 'cause I remember seeing AzaToth here and there, but I still support per his answer to Q4 (myself also hardly being able to find any issues to write about). Misza 13  T C 11:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. Locking templates to guard against mass vandalism, if nothing else, will be useful.--HereToHelp 03:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Strong Support -- This is not your average candidate. Please support this active and competent template editor; do not force him to make article edits outside of his competence in order to succeed at a later date. He's not entirely sure what he'll do with the tools, but I trust his good sense of workmanship. John Reid 05:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, he does know one thing he'll do with the tools: maintain the many templates he's created that are now indefinitely protected. That reason is enough for me. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support This user will use the admin. abilities to the good of Wikipedia and can be trusted with them. Jedi6  -(need help?)  07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support; a lot of good work with templates, and he would do good work with the tools. Ral315 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Come back when you want to actually DO something with admin tools - your answers below don't show any current desire of that type Cynical 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you are definitely living up to your username, care to give a less snide and rude reason to oppose? Pegasus1138 Talk 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone, please mind WP:CIVIL. M o e   ε  01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I hade some trouble formulate a good answer, I can try to reformulate me tomorrow, but now I have to go to sleep. → A z a  Toth 01:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, this was not intended as an attack on AzaToth - quite the opposite, I think he's a great Wikipedian having read some of his talkpage contributions, I just don't see any intention to use admin tools to do anything in AzaToth's answers, therefore I don't see the point in awarding them Cynical 18:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not enough actual article editing. Only 299 edits to main namespace. Low communication with other editors too. No clear-cut knowledge of policies shown. And his answers to the admin questions aren't very convincing either. Sorry, but IMO, you should retry when you become more involved as a whole on Wikipedia rather than based solely around template editing, although you're doing a fantastic job with that. :-) M o e   ε  01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Cynical, honestly these tools are to clean house, protected pages do not stay protected for long and there is no need to grant sysop rights just to edit them. Formulate new answers and I will revise my decision tomorow. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are incorrect about the length of protection in this case. There are dozens of templates which have been protected continuously for months now. Thus, admin access is fairly often a requirement for performing the sort of template work AzaToth does. It is amusing to note that there are several templates which he created that he now does not have the access to maintain. --CBDunkerson 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just in case it's not been made clear elsewhere; certain templates will remain protected for a long time period in order to prevent one abusive edit causing serious problems across the 'pedia. Rob Church 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While I do like his work on templates, and disposition, I feel he needs more mainspace edits. --Masssiveego 01:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Your answers to the questions are a bit weak and vague. In question one, you don't indicate why you feel the ability to edit protected articles is important. And given that you don't edit too many articles in the first place, I'm not sure why you would need that. joturner 01:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that many of the template pages are protected. Needing to edit protected pages doesn't imply a need to edit protected article pages.  Plus, many of the protected templates are permanently protected. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of that. But I still believe the answers are weak overall and thus am staying with Oppose. joturner 04:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose not enough article edits, question answers are woolly.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Sorry, but a big no for me. Self-nom is usually a minus, and you have very few article edits. Also, as said above, your question answers are quite shaky and short. Weatherman90 03:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Moe ε.  Of the 299, a large portion are stub sorting and reversions, too. ×Meegs 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose strongly per above and more. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Moe - Aksi great 12:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: Sorry, but 300 edits to the main article space don't show enough experience. Please keep building the encyclopedia, using an edit summary every time, and in time this will come. Jonathunder 23:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry you have not yet met my minimum standards. Changing vote to support.  [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]]  mm  e  inhart ''' 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Jonathunder - with thanks for all the hard work on the templates - just not enough yet in all facets of wikipedia for me to support  Trödel  03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Need nore article edits. 69% of edit summary usage looks not high enough to me.--Jusjih 03:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for edit summaries and count. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, nowhere near enough edits in main article space, and concerns about edit summaries. Stifle 15:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Moe. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) *(switched to neutral) Fantastic template editor, but you need more experience in other editing spaces. To produce less than 400 edits in mainspace and expect admiship is an bit of an insult to other, more active editors with edit counts that would make one's eyes water. -ZeroTalk 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Moe and Megaman Zero. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Moe. –Joke 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Very Strong Oppose. Meets most of my requirements but has <500 main edits (article edits) I mean really. What's the point of supporting someone with <500 main edits and yet she has >1000 template and >900 project edits. Comment:EDIT A LOT MORE!!!! [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]] CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your question was answered in the discussion that has been taking place on this page (see comments). Perhaps you didnt' read them before casting your vote?  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 18:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose lack of mainspace edits. Computerjoe 's talk 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Despite his great contributions to templates which helps the project, less than 300 edits and the answers to the q's below need to be improved upon.  G i zza Chat  © 06:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Agree with DaGizza. Just short of my Yes vote criteria--Looper5920 08:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral In all honesty I thought AzaToth was already an admin, and I don't see any real reason to oppose. However, the answers to the questions below cause me to 'vote' neutral. Prodego  talk  20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. His work on templates is breathtaking, and he's made it much easier for the rest of us. However, he is not a very active user in terms of article space edits. -- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, I'm afraid. Changed to neutral. Weak answers to questions, rather cliché nomination and he doesn't have enough main or Wikipedia namespace edits; interaction in either area is important to my mind. Rob Church 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As this here is a discussion about giving Carl the sysop bit (and not a mere voting), I'll deposit some of my thoughts about your opposition. As you are one of the developers you have a good understanding of the technical matter that relates to this candidacy. Therefore you have a bit a higher responsibility when stating your opinion. As you are one of the "hidden" opposers of qif, I assume your bad faith here in opposing Carl. Instead of having taken part in the discussion at WP:AUM you appear on the RFA's opposing admin candidates that have an opinion which does not conform to yours. You guys have tried to fight against that qif, but you have failed. On the en Wikipedia more than 100'000 articles depend indirectly on qif today. This is a fact. You can oppose wherever you want and be against whoever you want, qif will not vanish by this. As you obviously believe the damage that Carl would do with the sysop bit to Wikipedia outweighs his potential benefit, I assume you will put qif on your watchlist and take care of it personally, as your are better suited for this task. You are responsible for it, due to the fact that you hinder attempts to effectively protect qif. Ah, yes, I forgot, that's one of the arguments of the qif opposers, the vandal vector. Really great. Good luck! --Ligulem 17:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Outrageous. I don't like meta-templates, but I don't care, either. I oppose candidates who I feel do not demonstrate qualities suitable to be an administrator. This response shows an appalling lack of good faith. I do not oppose people on the basis of their opinions and never have done. I am rather angered that anyone could consider that to be the case, and I am frankly appalled at the thoroughly foul attitude of this response, and I am appalled at your childish and rude tone. I would like an apology. Rob Church 18:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "You are responsible for it due to the fact that you hinder attempts to effectively protect [it]." What a load of bollocks. I re-read your comment and now I am angry. You are completely out of order. Rob Church 18:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral.  psch  e  mp  |  talk  15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Fantastic template editor, but you need more experience in other editing spaces. To produce less than 400 edits in mainspace and expect admiship is an bit of an insult to other, more active editors with edit counts that would make one's eyes water. Changed to neutral, I find the canidate's calm attitude and honest nature sastisfying. I understand his qualm about not contributing to mainspace.-ZeroTalk 16:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Edit summary usage: 69% for major edits and 69% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 100 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See AzaToth's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

 * I would ask everyone not to apply the usual 'cookie cutter' standards to this candidate. No, he is not an exact clone of every other admin... but he is an outstanding Wikipedian. People looking at 'main space edits' should consider that templates created or updated by AzaToth are used in hundreds of thousands of main space pages. No, he doesn't spend alot of time editing articles, but because of the templates his work is probably used in more articles than that of any other Wikipedian. Our admins should not all have to contribute in the same ways... often it is the ones who contribute in ways others do not who are the most valuable. --CBDunkerson 02:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with CBDunkerson—in fact, if I applied my own standards for adminship, I would vote oppose. However, AzaToth's work with templates has been a great enabler and provided fantastic examples for my own work with templates.  I think the issue with adminship rests on two questions that each editor needs to decide when voting:
 * Can the user be trusted to use admin powers responsibly and for the good of the encyclopedia?
 * Are granting admin privileges to the user going to benefit the encyclopedia?
 * For me, the clear answer to both questions is yes. (Note that while I've had no direct interactions with the nominee, this is the first nominee that I've given strong support because the work he has done has been of such a great benefit and it is valuable in large part precisely because it is different than what most editors are doing.) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have changed my vote from "oppose" to "support" mainly in light of the proceeding comments made by User:Doug Bell. [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] mm  e  inhart ''' 19:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Seems like those citing "minimum standards" and edit counts in the "main space" are making quite arbitrary judgements. If those same minimum standards were applied to editing on templates and template talk pages, almost no sysops would be qualified to carry the mop.  Therefore, they are very lop-sided.  AzaToth has an interest in templates.  He has not completely ignored the rest of Wikipedia, but he has an interest in templates and that's what he's good at.  Most current sysops, and most of those who voted here so far, have an interest in writing articles, editing articles and discussing them.  AzaToth has an interest to work on templates, edit them and discuss them on the Template talk pages.  So please explain to me, what makes the contributor better who has an interest in military history, and who will therefore automatically accumulate all those "main space" edits that satisfy the so often quoted minimum standards, but who pretty much ignored template work alltogether, what, prey tell, makes him more qualified than the contributor who's project page is not Military History or German Translations but rather Templates, and who has therefore contributed mainly to templates while, by the way, still accumulating a fair number of edits in the main space?  Those minimum standards are worrysome, to say the least.  More so, I dare say, they're discriminatory.  They say that article editors are better and worth more than those who do work on the infrastructure that is used in all those articles.  Therefore, please take note:  Template work affects all the other -spaces in the pedia.  Yes, all of them.  It should therefore count at least as much as edits to the main space.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For my part I guess I'm putting faith in the 'crat that closes this to see that main-space article edits is the only significant objection of just about every oppose vote, yet AzaToth is not requesting adminship to preside over article space matters. His request is mostly narrowly focused on obtaining the tools he needs to best continue his valuable and somewhat unique contributions to the encyclopedia.  So in deciding whether to grant the mop, the oppose votes do not need to be discounted, but rather, the issue needs to be decided whether AzaToth's narrowly focused request for adminship is worthy of granting privileges that are "no big deal".  Nobody has raised any concerns about whether AzaToth is trustworthy, nor whether he does good work that benefits the 'pedia.  So the question is simply whether or not adminship should be granted for the narrow purpose of furthering AzaToth's template work, not one of his worthiness to weild the mop for that purpose. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Outrageous. I hate these sorts of quibbles with people's objections. I know these comments are not targeted exclusively at my vote, but for me lack of mainspace edits is not a problem if I see strong evidence of needing administrator tools or clear evidence that the user is thoughtful and unlikely to abuse admin tools (either with prior experience mediating conflicts, thoughtful answers to RfA questions, or demonstrated prior experience with policy issues). I don't see this here. I am convinced, based on the numerous support votes here, that AzaToth is a great editor, but I stand by my vote (per Moe and Rob Church's neutral vote). To say that it all reduces to mainspace edits is rubbish. –Joke 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you were directing your outrageous remark at me, but I wasn't quibbling with people's objections, and in fact said that they should not be discounted. I just think it's not an issue at this point with how many more people don't think that AzaToth doesn't have enough article edits—heck, I don't think he does either for general-purpose admining. I think the question is whether his non-article purpose is valid, which obviously I'm swayed by. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Doug. AzaToth's not asking for sysop tools to start banning people and get involved in sorting out revert wars.  From what I read between the lines, he'd run for dear life before getting into anything like that.  Main space edits are a fairly good indicator for sysops that work in updating and adding articles.  The point I was trying to make is, you can't measure a specialist by the rules you apply to generalists (i.e., editors in the encyclopedia).  That would be tantamount to requiring the applicant for a Chief Financial Officer position at a hospital to go to medical school and get an MD first.  It would be nonsense because he doesn't need a medical degree but rather experience in the field of finance.  Same thing here.  It just doesnt' make sense to apply the same measuring stick to a template specialist that would be perfectly fine if applied to a generalist.  Along the same lines, our RfA questions are really geared toward main space editors.  Therefore it doesn't surprise me that AzaToth's answers don't sound particularly great to many who have read them.  -  AzaToth needs sysop tools to do his work on templates.  That's the bottom line.  And that's why he should get them.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I often read the administrators noticeboards, and even if I can't do anything, I usually find it relevant to know what's going on. I have closed a couple of discussions on TFD, so it's logical that I continue my work on such areas (MFD and TFD mostly, or perhaps AFD also).
 * Because I have a somewhat good insight into how mediawiki works, I think my work here would benefit from being able to edit protected pages (templates and mediawiki space for example).
 * Otherwise I would probably do the usual RC-patrol and simlar to protect and unprotect pages as needed for the wikipedia to function optimally.

 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. As stated, my edit count in the main space isn't the highest, this is mostly because I have usually worked behind the scene, trying to improve for others. One other reason for the relatively low edit count there could be that I usually have a problem finding anything to write about, perhaps this is psycological, but I always think that what I could write about is non-notable. If I have to choose, I would say that I helped some at Leet and Jamtlandic.

 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I'm not foolproof, for example when WP:AUM was hot, I sadly found myself in conflict with others, as I tried to explain my point of view on technical grounds, I felt that no one listened. But luckly I managed to calm down, and let the time have it's pace (I don't know what I just wrote here, but...). The best way to avoid conflicts is to ignore yourself, and try to look at the problem in a such objective way as possible. So now sometimes, even if my inner ego assumes bad faith, I'll try to force my mind to assume the opposite.

 * 4. Some editors in this RfA have expressed concern over a lack of mainspace edits. Do you have any specific response to those concerns? Thanks, JoshuaZ 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A. I can understand those concerns, and I'll try to explain. The main reason is that I have had trouble finding specific issues to write about. My area of expertise is computer science, and because of some reason, there are already a lot of data in that area, finding anything new to write about I find rather tricky. Perhaps I could write a lot about Perl etc... but I don't know if people want such articles.

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Dean Gordon

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dean Gordon. 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/20120908232605/http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?&newsmode=FULL&nid=56410 to http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?&newsmode=FULL&nid=56410

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dean Gordon. 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/20071013100242/http://www.aucklandcityfc.com/cgi-bin/control.pl?Function=Display&Item=mh_playapp.txt to http://www.aucklandcityfc.com/cgi-bin/control.pl?Function=Display&Item=mh_playapp.txt

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dean Gordon. 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/20070930035211/http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=32230 to http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=32230
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930030806/http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=30793 to http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=30793
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930040755/http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=33272 to http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=33272
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033414/http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=33490 to http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=33490
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201025/http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=33567 to http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=33567
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927030701/http://www.socceraust.co.uk/2006/ALGE/player00185.html to http://www.socceraust.co.uk/2006/ALGE/player00185.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930031439/http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=40200 to http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?newsmode=FULL&nid=40200

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dean Gordon


text:
Talk:Sibpur S.S.P.S Vidyalaya

 * Welcome to the talk page of Sibpur S.S.P.S. Vidyalaya.--অনিন্দ্য (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sibpur S.S.P.S Vidyalaya