text:
Bar (music)

In musical notation, a bar (or measure) is a segment of music bounded by vertical lines, known as bar lines (or barlines), usually indicating one of more recurring beats. The length of the bar, measured by the number of note values it contains, is normally indicated by the time signature.

Types of bar lines
Regular bar lines consist of a thin vertical line extending from the top line to the bottom line of the staff, sometimes also extending between staves in the case of a grand staff or a family of instruments in an orchestral score.

A double bar line (or double bar) consists of two single bar lines drawn close together, separating two sections within a piece, or a bar line followed by a thicker bar line, indicating the end of a piece or movement. Note that double bar refers not to a type of bar (i.e., measure), but to a type of bar line. Typically, a double bar is used when followed by a new key signature, whether or not it marks the beginning of a new section.

A repeat sign (or, repeat bar line ) looks like the music end, but it has two dots, one above the other, indicating that the section of music that is before is to be repeated. The beginning of the repeated passage can be marked by a begin-repeat sign; if this is absent, the repeat is understood to be from the beginning of the piece or movement. This begin-repeat sign, if appearing at the beginning of a staff, does not act as a bar line because no bar is before it; its only function is to indicate the beginning of the passage to be repeated.

A mensurstrich is a bar line which stretches only between staves of a score, not through each staff; this is a specialized notation used by editors of early music to help orient modern musicians when reading music which was originally written without bar lines.

Lines extending only partway through the staff are rarely used, sometimes to help orient the reader in very long measures in complex time signatures, or as brief section divisions in Gregorian chant notation.Some composers use dashed or dotted bar lines; others (including Hugo Distler) have placed bar lines at different places in the different parts to indicate different stress patterns from part to part.

If many consecutive bars contain only rests, they may be replaced by a single bar containing a multirest, as shown. The number above shows the number of bars replaced.

Bars and stresses
Whether the music contains a regular meter or mixed meters, the first note in the bar (known as the downbeat) is usually stressed slightly in relation to the other notes in the bar.

Igor Stravinsky said of bar lines:

"The bar line is much, much more than a mere accent, and I don't believe that it can be simulated by an accent, at least not in my music."

Bars and bar lines also indicate grouping: rhythmically of beats within and between bars, within and between phrases, and on higher levels such as meter.

Numbering bars
The first metrically complete bar within a piece of music is called "bar 1" or "m. 1". When the piece begins with an anacrusis (an incomplete bar at the beginning of a piece of music), "bar 1" or "m. 1" is the following bar. Bars contained within first or second endings are numbered consecutively.

History
The earliest bar lines, used in keyboard and vihuela music in the 15th and 16th centuries, didn't reflect a regular meter at all but were only section divisions, or in some cases marked off every beat.

Bar lines began to be introduced into ensemble music in the late 16th century but continued to be used irregularly. Not until the mid-17th century were bar lines used in the modern style with every measure being the same length, and they began to be associated with time signatures.

Modern editions of early music that was originally notated without bar lines sometimes use a mensurstrich as a compromise.

Hypermeasure

A hypermeasure, large-scale or high-level measure, or measure-group is a metric unit in which, generally, each regular measure is one beat (actually hyperbeat) of a larger meter. Thus a beat is to a measure as a measure/hyperbeat is to a hypermeasure. Hypermeasures must be larger than a notated bar, perceived as a unit, consist of a pattern of strong and weak beats, and along with adjacent hypermeasures, which must be of the same length, create a sense of hypermeter. The term was coined by Edward T. Cone in Musical Form and Musical Performance (New York: Norton, 1968), and is similar to the less formal notion of a phrase.

title: Bar (music)


text:
Geosphere

There are several conflicting usages of geosphere, variously defined. It may be taken as the collective name for the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, and the atmosphere. The different collectives of the geosphere are able to exchange different mass and/or energy fluxes (the measurable amount of change). The exchange of these fluxes affects the balance of the different spheres of the geosphere. An example is how the soil acts as a part of the biosphere, while also acting as a source of flux exchange.

In Aristotelian physics, the term was applied to four spherical natural places, concentrically nested around the center of the Earth, as described in the lectures Physica and Meteorologica. They were believed to explain the motions of the four terrestrial elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire.

In modern texts and in Earth system science, geosphere refers to the solid parts of the Earth; it is used along with atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere to describe the systems of the Earth (the interaction of these systems with the magnetosphere is sometimes listed). In that context, sometimes the term lithosphere is used instead of geosphere or solid Earth. The lithosphere, however, only refers to the uppermost layers of the solid Earth (oceanic and continental crustal rocks and uppermost mantle).

Since space exploration began, it has been observed that the extent of the ionosphere or plasmasphere is highly variable, and often much larger than previously appreciated, at times extending to the boundaries of the Earth's magnetosphere. This highly variable outer boundary of geogenic matter has been referred to as the "geopause" (or magnetopause), to suggest the relative scarcity of such matter beyond it, where the solar wind dominates.

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

title: Geosphere


text:
Rusty blackbird

The rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) is a medium-sized New World blackbird, closely related to grackles ("rusty grackle" is an older name for the species). It is a bird that prefers wet forested areas, breeding in the boreal forest and muskeg across northern Canada, and migrating southeast to the United States during winter.

Formerly abundant, the rusty blackbird has undergone one of the most rapid declines of any abundant bird species in North America in recent years, for reasons that are not well understood.

Description
Adults have a pointed bill and a pale yellow eye. They have black plumage with faint green and purple gloss; the female is greyer. "Rusty" refers to the brownish winter plumage. They resemble the western member of the same genus, the Brewer's blackbird; however, Brewer's has a longer bill and the male's head is iridescent green.

Habitat
Their breeding habitat is wet temperate coniferous forests and muskeg across Canada, New England, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the Adirondack Mountains in New York and Alaska. Birds usually nest at the edge of ponds and wetlands with the cup nest located in a tree or dense shrub, often over the water. Emerging dragonflies and their larvae are important food items during the summer.

These birds migrate to the eastern and southeastern United States, into parts of the Grain Belt, sometimes straying into Mexico. Additional vagrants have been reported inn Greenland and Russian Siberia.

Behavior
They forage on wet ground or in shallow water, mainly eating insects, small fish and some seeds. Their most common mode of foraging is to vigorously flip leaves and rip at submerged aquatic vegetation. The mast of small-acorn producing oaks, such as willow oak, is also important. In some areas, the nuts of planted pecans are heavily used. They very rarely will attack small passerine birds, and have been known to kill species as large as the Wilson's snipe. They feed in flocks during migration and on the wintering grounds, sometimes joining other blackbirds, both often occurring in single species flocks. They more often roost with other blackbirds; some small roosts are in brushy vegetation in old fields and others are in massive mixed flocks—sometimes in the urban areas.

The species nests relatively early for a boreal forest bird. They linger in the boreal zone to complete their molt. Their autumn migration is slow, with birds often remaining in the northern states well into December; spring migration is much more rapid. The largest wintering concentrations are found in the lower Mississippi Valley, with smaller concentrations in the Piedmont and south Atlantic coastal plain.

Fairly quiet in fall migration and most of the winter, both males and females will sing (particularly on warm days) in the late winter and spring. The song consists of gurgling and high-pitched squeaks.

Population
Rusty blackbirds have declined significantly in recent decades. The reasons are unclear, but habitat loss is likely a major contributor to the decline. The habitat loss is likely due to multiple factors, including development for oil, gas, and mining industries, hydroelectric projects, and the clearing of forests for forestry. Mercury contamination may be a problem for populations in northeastern North America. Rarer than previously believed, it was uplisted from a species of Least Concern to Vulnerable status on the 2007 IUCN Red List. Deliberate poisoning of mixed-species blackbird flocks, targeting brown-headed cowbird, common grackle and red-winged blackbird, in the southeastern U.S. may also be playing a role; there is currently no estimate of the number of rusty blackbirds killed by these poisonings. In the eastern part of its range, acid rain may be decreasing the availability of calcium-rich invertebrates that the rusty blackbird depends on for food.

Additionally, citizen science projects such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey and Christmas Bird Count have determined that rusty blackbirds have dropped 85%–98% in the past 40 years. This is very worrisome for many people, as scientists are desperately trying to figure out what exactly went wrong. Sighting submission services such as eBird are encouraging birders to keep track of rusty blackbirds. The International Rusty Blackbird Working Group has been actively coordinating and conducting research on this species since 2005.

Book

 * Avery, M. L. 1995. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 200 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Articles
-->
 * Besser JF. (1978). Birds and Sunflower. In Carter, Jack F (Ed) Agronomy, No 19 Sunflower Science and Technology Xx+505p Illus American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Publishers: Madison, Wis, USA ISBN 0-89118-054-0 263-278, 1978.
 * Campbell RW. (1974). Rusty Blackbirds Prey on Sparrows. Wilson Bulletin. vol 86, no 3. p. 291-293.
 * Cicchino AC & Castro DC. (1996). Preliminary revision of the species of the genus Brueelia Keler, 1936 (Phthiraptera, Philopteridae) parasitizing Icterinae (Aves, Passeriformes, Fringillidae). Graellsia. vol 52, no 0. p. 3-30.
 * Crase FT & Dehaven RW. (1976). Selected Bibliography on the Food Habits of North American Blackbirds. U S Fish & Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report Wildlife. vol 192, p. 1-20.
 * Dickson JG & Noble RE. (1978). Vertical Distribution of Birds in a Louisiana USA Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Wilson Bulletin. vol 90, no 1. p. 19-30.
 * Dolbeer RA, Woronecki PP, Stickley ARJ & White SB. (1978). Agricultural Impact of a Winter Population of Blackbirds and Starlings. Wilson Bulletin. vol 90, no 1. p. 31-44.
 * Dyer MI & Kakalec NJ. (1976). Studies on Diet Overlap among Icterids Crows and Starlings. Proceedings Bird Control Seminar. vol 7, p. 136-146.
 * Fritzell EK & Thorne DH. (1984). Birds Predominate in the Winter Diet of a Barn Owl Tyto-Alba. Wilson Bulletin. vol 96, no 2.
 * Garner KM. (1978). Management of Blackbird and Starling Winter Roost Problems in Kentucky and Tennessee USA. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. vol 8, p. 54-59.
 * Grass A. (1969). Rusty Blackbird at Pitt Meadows British-Columbia. Murrelet. vol 50, no 2.
 * Greenberg R & Droege S. (1999). On the decline of the Rusty Blackbird and the use of ornithological literature to document long-term population trends. Conservation Biology. vol 13, no 3. p. 553-559.
 * Hudon J & Muir AD. (1996). Characterization of the reflective materials and organelles in the bright irides of North American blackbirds (Icterinae). Pigment Cell Research. vol 9, no 2. p. 96-104.
 * Hunter JE. (1994). Further observations of head-down displays by brown-headed cowbirds. Western Birds. vol 25, no 1. p. 63-65.
 * Larue P, Belanger L & Huot J. (1995). Riparian edge effects on boreal balsam fir bird communities. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. vol 25, no 4. p. 555-566.
 * Long RC & Russ A. (1968). Rusty Blackbird Kills House Sparrow. Ontario Field Biologist. vol 22, no 28.
 * McCaskie G. (1971). Rusty Blackbirds in California and Western North America. California Birds. vol 2, no 2. p. 55-68.
 * Meanley B & Royall WCJ. (1976). Nationwide Estimates of Blackbirds and Starlings. Proceedings Bird Control Seminar. vol 7, p. 39-40.
 * Norment CJ, Hall A & Hendricks P. (1999). Important bird and mammal records in the Thelon River valley, Northwest Territories: Range expansions and possible causes. Canadian Field Naturalist. vol 113, no 3. p. 375-385.
 * Peck MK, Coady G, Binsfeld G, Konze KR, Hodgson PC & Furino S. (2004). Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas expeditions yield additional information on solitary sandpiper nests. Ontario Birds. vol 22, no 3. p. 120-124.
 * Robertson RJ, Weatherhead PJ, Phelan FJS, Holroyd GL & Lester N. (1976). Species Composition Food Habits and the Economic and Ecologic Impact of Winter Blackbird Flocks. Proceedings Bird Control Seminar. vol 7, p. 155-162.
 * Rybczynski R & Riker DK. (1981). A Temperate Species-Rich Assemblage of Migrant Frugivorous Birds. Auk. vol 98, no 1. p. 176-179.
 * Smith TG. (1973). The Birds of the Holman Region Western Victoria Island. Canadian Field Naturalist. vol 87, no 1. p. 35-42.
 * Tallman D. (1990). Banding Recoveries of South Dakota USA Birds Part 2 Larks Corvids Starling and Blackbirds. South Dakota Bird Notes. vol 42, no 2. p. 29-36.
 * Wass ML. (1975). Hitchcock Revisited Burgeoning Blackbirds. ASB Bulletin. vol 22, no 2.

title: Rusty blackbird


text:
User:Kencomer

This guy is bonkers, and I should know, because I am him. If you really care to know more, go to my web site.

title: User:Kencomer


text:
Eyak language

Eyak was a Na-Dené language, historically spoken by the Eyak people, indigenous to south-central Alaska, near the mouth of the Copper River. The name Eyak comes from a Chugach Sugpiaq name (Igya'aq) for an Eyak village at the mouth of the Eyak River.

The closest relatives of Eyak are the Athabaskan languages. The Eyak–Athabaskan group forms a basic division of the Na-Dené language family, the other being Tlingit.

Numerous Tlingit place names along the Gulf Coast are derived from names in Eyak; they have obscure or even nonsensical meanings in Tlingit, but oral tradition has maintained many Eyak etymologies. The existence of Eyak-derived Tlingit names along most of the coast towards southeast Alaska is strong evidence that the prehistoric range of Eyak was once far greater than it was at the time of European contact. This confirms both Tlingit and Eyak oral histories of migration throughout the region.

Current status and revival
The last surviving native speaker was Marie Smith Jones (May 14, 1918 – January 21, 2008)  of Cordova.

The spread of English and suppression of aboriginal languages are not the only reasons for the decline of the Eyak language. The northward migration of the Tlingit people around Yakutat in precontact times encouraged the use of Tlingit rather than Eyak along much of the Pacific Coast of Alaska. Eyak was also under pressure from its neighbors to the west, the Alutiiq people of Prince William Sound, as well as some pressure from the people of the Copper River valley. Eyak and Tlingit culture began to merge along the Gulf Coast, and a number of Eyak-speaking groups were absorbed by the Gulf Coast Tlingit populations. This resulted in the replacement of Eyak by Tlingit among most of the mixed groups after a few generations, as reported in Tlingit oral histories of the area.

Revival
In June 2010, the Anchorage Daily News published an article about Guillaume Leduey, a French college student with an unexpected connection to the Eyak language. Beginning at age 12, he had taught himself Eyak, utilizing print and audio instructional materials he obtained from the Alaska Native Language Center. During that time, he never traveled to Alaska or conversed with Marie Smith Jones, the last native speaker.

The month that the article was published, he traveled to Alaska and met with Dr. Michael Krauss, a noted linguist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Dr. Krauss assisted Leduey with proper Eyak phonological pronunciation and assigned further instruction in grammar and morphology—including morphemic analyses of traditional Eyak stories.

In June 2011, Leduey returned to Alaska to facilitate Eyak language workshops in Anchorage and Cordova. He is now regarded as a fluent speaker, translator, and instructor of Eyak. Despite his fluency, Eyak remains classified as "dormant" as there are no native speakers. On the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) Eyak is graded a 9 (dormant); the language serves as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community, but no one has more than symbolic proficiency. Currently, Leduey provides instruction and curriculum assistance to the Eyak Language Project from France.

The Eyak Preservation Council received an Alaska Humanities Forum Grant that enabled them to start a website devoted to the preservation of the Eyak Language. Other funding supports the annual Eyak Culture Camp every August in Cordova. The Project provides countless language resources including immersion workshops, an online dictionary with audio samples, and a set of eLearning lessons, among others.

In June 2014, the Eyak Language Revitalization Project announced an online program called "dAXunhyuuga'", which means "the words of the people."

Language family
Eyak is a part of the Eyak-Athabaskan language family and Na-Dené larger grouping, which includes Eyak-Athabaskan and Tlingit with a controversial but possible inclusion of Haida. The Athabaskan family covers three distinct geographic areas, forming three subgroups: Northern Athabaskan in Alaska and the Yukon; Pacific Coast Athabaskan in California and Oregon; and Southern Athabaskan, also called Apache, spoken mainly in the American Southwest, which includes Navajo. There has been extensive comparative reconstruction of a Proto-Athabaskan-Eyak (PAE). A recent proposal of a Dené–Yeniseian stock has been widely well received by linguists, linking the Dené languages to the Yeniseian languages of central Siberia. If it proves correct, it will be the first validated genetic link between Old and New World languages. Far less accepted is a possible Dené–Caucasian stock that has been pursued for decades.

Phonology
The following charts are based on the material in Krauss (1965); IPA equivalents are shown in square brackets. The orthography used by Krauss is also used by the Eyak people. An alternative version uses $⟨ə ł x̣ g̣⟩$ instead of $⟨A L X G⟩$ for, and $⟨j č š c cʼ⟩$ instead of $⟨dj ch sh ts tsʼ⟩$ for respectively.

Consonants
Aspirated stops contrast with unaspirated stops only before vowels.

All consonants may be found stem-initially, except /h/, which is interpreted as zero. /h/ has the allophone [h] only word-initially or directly following a vowel.

Vowels
Eyak has five vowel qualities /ɪ e a ə ʊ/, three of which also distinguish duration, nasalization, creaky voice (i.e. glottalization), and breathy voice (‘aspiration’ in Krauss's terminology). The vowel only occurs as short and in modal voice, without nasalization. can also vary between or, and  can vary between , , or. Breathy voice vowels are all short, although most of them can also be nasalized.
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! ! colspan="2" | Front ! colspan="2" | Central ! colspan="2" | Back ! !Oral !Nasal !Oral !Nasal !Oral !Nasal ! Close ! Mid ! Open
 * ɪː ɪ̰ ɪ̰ː ɪ̤
 * ɪ̃ ɪ̃ː ɪ̰̃ ɪ̰̃ː ɪ̤̃
 * ʊː ʊ̰ ʊ̰ː ʊ̤
 * ʊ̃ ʊ̃ː ʊ̰̃ ʊ̰̃ː ʊ̤̃
 * ʊː ʊ̰ ʊ̰ː ʊ̤
 * ʊ̃ ʊ̃ː ʊ̰̃ ʊ̰̃ː ʊ̤̃
 * eː ḛ ḛː e̤
 * aː a̰ a̰ː a̤
 * ã ãː ã̰ ã̰ː
 * }
 * ã ãː ã̰ ã̰ː
 * }
 * }
 * }

Writing vowels in Eyak
In the system developed to represent Eyak in writing, long vowels are represented by characters following the basic vowel: a colon <:> for long vowels, an apostrophe < ’> for glottalized (or creaky voice) vowels, an  for breathy voiced (“aspirated”) vowels and an  for nasalized vowels.

Suprasegmentals
All syllables begin with an onset, so that no two vowels may occur consecutively. Only vowels can be the nuclei of syllables. Stems are heavy syllables, whereas affixes tend to be light.

Unlike many of the Athabascan languages to which it is related, Eyak is not tonal. It does not use variations in fundamental frequency (i.e. ‘pitch accents’) to convey contrast. Lexical stress usually falls on stems and/or heavy syllables. In sequences of heavy syllables, the stress falls on the penultimate syllable, as in qʼahdiʼlah /qʼa̤ˈtɪ̰la̤/ “goodbye”.

Morphology
Eyak is an agglutinative, polysynthetic language.

Nouns
With few exceptions, Eyak nouns are morphophonemically invariable. Kinship and anatomical stems are the only noun stems that may take pronominal possessive prefixes, which are as follow:
 * First person singular: si- (siya:q’e’, "my aunt [mother's sister]")
 * Second person singular: ’i- (’ita:’, "your (sg.) father")
 * Third person singular and plural: ’u-
 * First person plural: qa:-
 * Second person plural: lAX-
 * Indefinite: k’u-
 * Reciprocal: ’Ad-

Preverbals
Preverbals in Eyak are the category of words made up of preverbals and postpositions. The two are grouped together because one morpheme may often be used as the stem in both categories. Preverbals are individual words that occur in conjunction with the verb. These combinations may almost be said to form lexemes, especially due to the fact that preverbals are rarely if ever used in isolation in natural speech. Preverbals are nearly always unbound and are phonologically separate from the verb, contrasting with the corresponding class in Athabaskan which may be incorporated or not. One preverbal is most common, but combinations of two are equally possible, as in ’uya’ ’Adq’Ach’ k’udAdAGu’ "hot water bottle" (in it onto self something/someone is kept warm). There are more than 100 Eyak basic preverbal morphemes.

Postpositions relate directly to an object outside of the verb. Current analysis by Krauss has been phonological rather than semantic, but there is at least one semantically grouped category of postpositions to consider, that of comparatives. This grouping includes P-ga’ "like P", P-’u’X "less than P", and P-lAX "more than P" where P is any postpositional phrase. Eyak lacks conjunctions and many postpositions assume a similar function, creating subordinate clauses. These postpositions attach to the verb, the most common example being -da:X "and" or "if, when".

Verbs
Eyak verb stems take many affixes: there are nine prefix positions before the verb (many of which may be subdivided) and four suffix positions after. All positions may be filled with zero, except the stem, which can be filled by any of several hundred morphemes but not zero.

Affix position

 * 1) Object
 * 2) Direct object: xu (1 sg.), ’i (2 sg.), ø~A (3 sg. and pl.), lAXi: (2 pl.), ’Ad(A)~’Ad(u) (reflexive), ’i~’i(dA) (indeterminate)
 * 3) Indefinite subject or object: k’u’
 * 4) * The indeterminate is used where there is no specific object (such as in intransitive verbs), while the indefinite is used where there is a specific but unspecified subject or object.
 * 5) Mark of semitransitive: ’~:
 * 6) Tense/aspect/mood A (inceptive imperfect): qu’~qa’~qe’~qi’
 * 7) ’i:lih ~ :lih
 * 8) * This position is filled only in a few verbs of thought or emotion, such as '''ilih
 * 9) Plurality emphasizer: qA (subject and object)
 * 10) Classificatory (nominal) and thematic (verbal) qualifiers: the most variable and characteristically Eyak affix position. gu, XA, lAXA, dA, yA, and lA may occur singly, the rest occur in combinations of two or three.
 * 11) GA, gu
 * 12) XA
 * 13) qi:, lAXA, ti:, ku:n, k’ush, tsin, tsi:
 * 14) dA, yA
 * 15) lA~:n
 * 16) * Only in position C. do the morphemes have specified meaning, and only nominally, for example: lAXA, "berry-like, ball-like, eye" or qi: + dA "foot". The other morphemes have unlimited, much broader meanings, but tend to concentrate in certain areas. They may be nominal classificatory or verbal thematic.
 * 17) ** gu+lA is nominally classificatory and refers to liquid or viscous matter; when gu appears by itself it refers nominally to basket-roots, thread, or hair, (but not rope), as well as thematically with -L-qu, "chase".
 * 18) ** XA+dA may nominally refer to matches or logs (but not sticks) or to clouds, among others. dA alone thematically refers to an unusually broad selection including but not limited to hunger, sleds, arrows, noises (only certain types), and non-solid round objects (including eggs, severed heads, and hearts).
 * 19) ** This is a very limited sampling of the breadth of the meanings of the possible morphemes in position 5.
 * 20) Tense/aspect/mood B1: GA, ø ~ A, : ~ A
 * 21) Subject: xw (1 sg.), ø ~ y(i) (2 sg.), lAX (2 pl.), ø (all else)
 * 22) Tense/aspect/mood B2: sA ~ s (perfective), (y)i ~ ø (inconclusive function)
 * 23) Verb voice classifier: ø, dA~di, L, LA~Li
 * 24) Verb stem

 * 1) Derivational: g (habitual action), X ~ ø (progressive)
 * 2) Aspectival: L (perfective); Derivational: k’ (customary)
 * 3) Negative: G
 * 4) Human subject or object of third person: inh (sg.), inu: (pl.); non-human object of imperative: uh

An artificial but grammatical example presents near-maximum affixal positions filled: dik’ lAXi:qAqi’dAxsLXa’Xch’gLG "I did not tickle your (plural, emphatically) feet." This gives:
 * dik’, negative particle
 * Prefix position 1: lAXi:, direct object, you pl.
 * Position 4: qA, emphasizing plurality
 * Positions 5C & D: qi’ + dA, pertaining to feet
 * Position 6: ø, negative active perfective
 * Position 7: x, 1st pers. sg. subject
 * Position 8: s, perfective
 * Position 9: L
 * Stem: Xa’Xch’, tickle
 * Suffix position 1: g, repetitive
 * Position 2: L, perfective
 * Position 3: G, negative

Tense, mood, and aspect
There are two moods, optative and imperative, and two aspects, perfective and imperfective. Verbs may be inceptive, 'active,' or 'neuter', such that the possibilities are as follows:

Morphemes in prefix position 2 modify the inceptive imperfective; in position 6 the perfective, optative, and imperative in inceptive, active and neuter; in position 8 the inceptive optative, active perfective and optative, and neuter perfective, imperfective, optative, and imperative; in suffix position 2 the inceptive, active, and neuter perfective; and in suffix position 3, negativity.

There are also three derivational modes, a repetitive, a customary, and a progressive. The infinitive takes approximately the same form as the imperative, with some variation.

Syntax
The majority of the Eyak corpus is narrative, with very little spontaneous conversation (and that only when embedded in the narratives). There is a better understanding therefore of the syntax of Eyak narrative style and performance than of natural speech. The basic word order of Eyak is subject-object-verb, or SOV, as in "Johnny ’uyAqa’ts’ sALxut’L" "Johnny shot his (own) hand." Relatively few sentences, however, follow this exact pattern; it is far more common to find SV or OV. The full word order of a transitive sentence is I S O [[C P] V] :
 * I, introductory sector: consists of two parts, a connective (e.g. 'and so,' 'then,' etc.) and one or more adverbs, especially temporal and spatial adverbs.
 * S, subject
 * O, object
 * V, verb sector: includes two subsectors in addition to the verb.
 * C, complement subsector: in Eyak syntax a complement is a noun or noun phrase (e.g. not a demonstrative pronoun) and does not have the same meaning as the usual use of 'complement' in ordinary syntax. This is due to traditional classifications of Eyak.
 * P, preverbal subsector: includes preverbals (preverbs and postpositions) and pronouns.

The subject and object categories can consist of a noun, a noun phrase, or a demonstrative phrase. All constituents may be filled by zero, excepting the verb.

title: Eyak language


text:
32nd Annual Grammy Awards

The 32nd Annual Grammy Awards were held on February 21, 1990, and hosted by Garry Shandling. They recognized accomplishments by musicians from the previous year.

Performers

 * Bette Midler - Wind Beneath My Wings
 * Gloria Estefan - Don't Wanna Lose You
 * Fine Young Cannibals - She Drives Me Crazy
 * Michael Bolton & Kenny G - How Am I Supposed To Live Without You
 * Don Henley - The End of the Innocence
 * Rodney Crowell - After All This Time
 * k.d. lang - Luck in My Eyes
 * Billy Joel - We Didn't Start The Fire
 * Bonnie Raitt - Thing Called Love
 * Mike + The Mechanics - The Living Years
 * Aaron Neville & Linda Ronstadt - Don't Know Much
 * Milli Vanilli - Girl You Know It's True
 * Ray Charles - Eleanor Rigby
 * Stevie Wonder - We Can Work It Out
 * DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince - I Think I Can Beat Mike Tyson

Presenters

 * Anita Baker, Sting & Stevie Wonder - Record of the Year
 * Natalie Cole & Ella Fitzgerald - Album of the Year
 * Michael Bolton & Kenny G - Song of the Year
 * Kris Kristofferson & Young MC - Best New Artist
 * Exposé & Randy Travis - Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals
 * Patrick Swayze & Paula Abdul - Best Male Pop Vocal Performance
 * Olivia Newton-John & Sam Kinison - Best Female Pop Vocal Performance
 * B.B. King & John Lee Hooker - Best Female R&B Vocal Performance
 * The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band & Dwight Yoakam - Best Male & Female Country Vocal Performance
 * New Kids on the Block - Best Rap Performance
 * Taylor Dayne & Mötley Crüe - Best Female Rock Vocal Performance
 * Meryl Streep - Presents Paul McCartney with the Lifetime Achievement Award
 * Bob Seger & Melissa Etheridge - Best Male Rock Vocal Performance
 * Lou Reed & Dave Stewart (Eurythmics) - Producer of the Year

Award winners
The Grammy Award for Best New Artist was originally awarded to Milli Vanilli. However, on November 20, 1990, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences revoked the award  after producer Frank Farian admitted the duo did not sing at all on their album, Girl You Know It's True. As of the 2023 ceremony, this is the only time where a Grammy has been revoked.

General

 * Record of the Year
 * Arif Mardin (producer) & Bette Midler (artist) for "Wind Beneath My Wings"
 * Don Henley, Bruce Hornsby (producers) & Don Henley (artist) for "The End of the Innocence"
 * Christopher Neil, Mike Rutherford (producers) & Mike + The Mechanics (artist) for "The Living Years"
 * David Z. Fine, Fine Young Cannibals (producers) & Fine Young Cannibals (artist) for "She Drives Me Crazy"
 * Mick Jones, Billy Joel (producers) & Billy Joel (artist) for "We Didn't Start The Fire"
 * Album of the Year
 * Don Was (producer) & Bonnie Raitt for Nick of Time
 * Don Henley, Danny Kortchmar (producers) & Don Henley (artist) for The End of the Innocence
 * Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, Mike Campbell (producers) & Tom Petty (artist) for Full Moon Fever
 * Fine Young Cannibals (producers) & Fine Young Cannibals (artist) for The Raw & the Cooked
 * Jeff Lynne, George Harrison (producers) & Traveling Wilburys (artists) for Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1
 * Song of the Year
 * Jeff Silbar & Larry Henley (songwriters) for "Wind Beneath My Wings" performed by Bette Midler
 * Jeff Silbar & Larry Henley (songwriters) for "Wind Beneath My Wings" performed by Bette Midler

Blues

 * Best Traditional Blues Recording
 * Bonnie Raitt & John Lee Hooker for "I'm in the Mood"
 * Best Contemporary Blues Recording
 * Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble for In Step

Children's

 * Best Recording for Children
 * J. Aaron Brown, David R. Lehman (producers) & Tanya Goodman for The Rock-A-Bye Collection, Vol. 1

Classical

 * Best Orchestral Performance
 * Leonard Bernstein (conductor) & the New York Philharmonic for Mahler: Symphony No. 3 in D Minor
 * Best Classical Vocal Soloist Performance
 * David Zinman (conductor), Dawn Upshaw & the Orchestra of St. Luke's for Knoxville - Summer of 1915 (Music of Barber, Menotti, Harbison, Stravinsky)
 * Best Opera Recording
 * Cord Garben (producer), James Levine (conductor), Hildegard Behrens, Gary Lakes, Christa Ludwig, Kurt Moll, James Morris, Jessye Norman & the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra for Wagner: Die Walküre
 * Best Choral Performance (other than opera)
 * Robert Shaw (conductor), the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra & Chorus, and the Atlanta Boy Choir for Britten: War Requiem
 * Best Classical Performance, Instrumental Soloist (with orchestra)
 * David Zinman (conductor), Yo-Yo Ma & the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra for Barber: Cello Concerto, Op. 22/Britten: Symphony for Cello and Orchestra, Op. 68
 * Best Classical Performance - Instrumental Soloist (without orchestra)
 * Andras Schiff for Bach: English Suites
 * Best Chamber Music Performance
 * The Emerson String Quartet for Bartók: 6 String Quartets
 * Best Contemporary Composition
 * Steve Reich (composer) & the Kronos Quartet for Reich: Different Trains
 * Best Classical Album
 * Wolf Erichson (producer) & the Emerson String Quartet for Bartók: 6 String Quartets

Comedy

 * Best Comedy Recording
 * Peter Schickele for P.D.Q. Bach: 1712 Overture and Other Musical Assaults

Composing and arranging

 * Best Instrumental Composition
 * Danny Elfman (composer) for "The Batman Theme" performed by the Sinfonia of London Orchestra
 * Best Song Written Specifically for a Motion Picture or Television
 * Carly Simon (songwriter) for "Let the River Run"
 * Best Album of Original Instrumental Background Score Written for a Motion Picture or Television
 * Dave Grusin (composer) for The Fabulous Baker Boys
 * Best Arrangement on an Instrumental
 * Dave Grusin (arranger) for "Suite From The Milagro Beanfield War"
 * Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocals
 * Dave Grusin (arranger) for "My Funny Valentine" performed by Michelle Pfeiffer

Country

 * Best Country Vocal Performance, Female
 * k.d. lang for Absolute Torch and Twang
 * Best Country Vocal Performance, Male
 * Lyle Lovett for Lyle Lovett and His Large Band
 * Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal
 * Nitty Gritty Dirt Band for Will the Circle Be Unbroken: Volume Two
 * Best Country Vocal Collaboration
 * Hank Williams Jr. & Hank Williams Sr. for "There's a Tear in My Beer"
 * Best Country Instrumental Performance
 * Randy Scruggs for "Amazing Grace"
 * Best Country Song
 * Rodney Crowell (songwriter) for "After All This Time"
 * Best Bluegrass Recording
 * Bruce Hornsby & Nitty Gritty Dirt Band for "The Valley Road"

Folk

 * Best Traditional Folk Recording
 * Marcel Cellier (producer) for Le Mystere des Voix Bulgares, Vol. II performed by the Bulgarian State Television Female Vocal Choir
 * Best Contemporary Folk Recording
 * Indigo Girls for Indigo Girls

Gospel

 * Best Gospel Vocal Performance, Female
 * CeCe Winans for "Don't Cry"
 * Best Gospel Vocal Performance, Male
 * BeBe Winans for "Meantime"
 * Best Gospel Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group, Choir or Chorus
 * Take 6 for "The Savior Is Waiting"
 * Grammy Award for Best Soul Gospel Performance, Male or Female
 * Al Green for "As Long as We're Together"
 * Best Soul Gospel Performance by a Duo or Group, Choir or Chorus
 * Daniel Winans for "Let Brotherly Love Continue"

Historical

 * Best Historical Album
 * Andy McKaie (producer) for Chuck Berry - The Chess Box

Jazz

 * Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Female
 * Ruth Brown for Blues on Broadway
 * Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Male
 * Harry Connick Jr. for When Harry Met Sally
 * Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Duo or Group
 * Dr. John & Rickie Lee Jones for "Makin' Whoopee"
 * Best Jazz Instrumental Performance, Soloist (On a Jazz Recording)
 * Miles Davis for Aura
 * Best Jazz Instrumental Performance, Group
 * Chick Corea Akoustic Band for Chick Corea Akoustic Band
 * Best Jazz Instrumental Performance, Big Band
 * Miles Davis for Aura
 * Best Jazz Fusion Performance
 * Pat Metheny Group for Letter from Home

Latin

 * Best Latin Pop Performance
 * Jose Feliciano for "Cielito Lindo"
 * Best Tropical Latin Performance
 * Ray Barretto & Celia Cruz for Ritmo en el Corazon
 * Best Mexican-American Performance
 * Los Lobos for La pistola y el corazón

Musical show

 * Best Musical Cast Show Album
 * Jay David Saks (producer) & the original cast with Jason Alexander & Debbie Shapiro & Robert La Fasse for Jerome Robbins' Broadway

Music video

 * Best Music Video, Short Form
 * Jim Blashfield, Paul Diener, Frank DiLeo, Jerry Kramer, (video producers), Jim Blashfield (video director) & Michael Jackson for "Leave Me Alone"
 * Best Music Video, Long Form
 * Aris McGarry (video producer), Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (video producers & directors), Dominic Sena (video director), & Janet Jackson for Rhythm Nation 1814

New Age

 * Best New Age Performance
 * Peter Gabriel for Passion - Music For the Last Temptation of Christ

Packaging and notes

 * Best Album Package
 * Roger Gorman (art director) for Sound + Vision performed by David Bowie
 * Best Album Notes
 * Phil Schaap (notes writer) for Bird - The Complete Charlie Parker on Verve

Polka

 * Best Polka Recording
 * Jimmy Sturr for All in My Love for You

Pop

 * Best Pop Vocal Performance, Female
 * Bonnie Raitt for "Nick of Time"
 * Best Pop Vocal Performance, Male
 * Michael Bolton for "How Am I Supposed to Live Without You"
 * Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal
 * Aaron Neville & Linda Ronstadt for "Don't Know Much"
 * Best Pop Instrumental Performance
 * The Neville Brothers for "Healing Chant"

Production and engineering

 * Best Engineered Recording, Non-Classical
 * George Massenburg (engineer) for Cry Like a Rainstorm - Howl Like the Wind performed by Linda Ronstadt
 * Best Engineered Recording, Classical
 * Jack Renner (engineer), Robert Shaw (conductor), the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra & the Atlanta Boy Choir for Britten: War Requiem
 * Producer of the Year
 * Peter Asher
 * Classical Producer of the Year
 * Robert Woods

R&B

 * Best R&B Vocal Performance, Female
 * Anita Baker for Giving You the Best That I Got
 * Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male
 * Bobby Brown for "Every Little Step"
 * Best R&B Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal
 * Soul II Soul & Caron Wheeler for "Back to Life"
 * Best R&B Instrumental Performance
 * Soul II Soul for "African Dance"
 * Best Rhythm & Blues Song
 * Kenny Gamble & Leon Huff (songwriters) for "If You Don't Know Me By Now" performed by Simply Red

Rap

 * Best Rap Performance
 * Young MC for "Bust a Move"

Reggae

 * Best Reggae Recording
 * Ziggy Marley & the Melody Makers for One Bright Day

Rock

 * Best Rock Vocal Performance, Female
 * Bonnie Raitt for Nick of Time
 * Best Rock Vocal Performance, Male
 * Don Henley for The End of the Innocence
 * Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal
 * Traveling Wilburys for Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1
 * Best Rock Instrumental Performance
 * Jeff Beck, Terry Bozzio & Tony Hymas for Jeff Beck's Guitar Shop with Terry Bozzio & Tony Hymas
 * Best Hard Rock Performance
 * Living Colour for "Cult of Personality"
 * Best Metal Performance
 * Metallica for "One"

Spoken

 * Best Spoken Word or Non-musical Recording
 * Gilda Radner for It's Always Something (awarded posthumously)

Special Merit Awards
Nat "King" Cole, Miles Davis, Vladimir Horowitz, and Paul McCartney were each awarded the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.

title: 32nd Annual Grammy Awards


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Cunctator

 * ''Moved from the main Requests for adminship page 11am 4th December 2003.

Attempt to summarize opinions

 * people who get hopping mad at Cunc now and then, but still trust him with admin rights: Uncle Ed
 * support desysoping: Maximus Rex, Hephaestos, FearÉIREANN, Daniel Quinlan, Viajero, alexandros, —Noldoaran (Talk), Mark Ryan, Green  Mountain
 * not opposed to desysoping: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, Cyan, Jiang
 * opposed to desysoping: Lir, Silsor, Tuf-Kat, Jamesday
 * people who do not like voting, expressed in length their position on the matter below, and think it was enough Anthere, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
 * uncertain: Fuzheado

 * people who think there's no point voting because no-one's going to be desysopped on the basis of a vote: Angela, Κσυπ Cyp, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
 * people who think this list is rather long: Silsor, Κσυπ Cyp, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, —Noldoaran (Talk)
 * People who wonder whether the number of options in this vote, where p is the number of people voting, grows as a function of log(p), √p, p, p2 or ep: Κσυπ Cyp, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, —Noldoaran (Talk)
 * people who wonder why this couldn't have been discussed privately first: Martin, Mkmcconn, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
 * People who find adding polling options a year after a poll closes amusing: Snowspinner 21:17, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * ... and a year and a half even moreso: furrykef 22:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ... and six years later than that: Inter  change  able | talk to me  19:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and six years later than that: Teelosdomain (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(this may or may not be a vote, depending on your wikipolitiks) (summary created by Daniel Quinlan, trying to determine whether there is any consensus)

Original request and subsequent discussion
I would like the request that User:The Cunctator be de-sysoped -- or could someone tell me why they should be a sysop. Recently they undeleted the santorum page, after the page had been deleted after the normal vfd procedure, and undeletion talk favored keeping the page deleted. Then they decide, unilaterally again, that a certain page listed on vfd shouldn't be deleted and proceeded to remove the vfd boilerplate from that page. When this change was reverted, they instead moved the boilerplate to the bottom of the page -- leading to small edit war over the position of the notice. Another sysop stepped in a protected the page, however 12 hours later The Cunctator unprotected the page (something that only sysops can do) and restored their edit. The Cunctator seems to believe that the vfd page is irrelevant and that he is not bound by it, or the communities consensus, in any way by. Beyond that, I don't trust their judgement, and good judgement is why someone is supposed to become a sysop in the first place. Maximus Rex 06:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Please note that all of the editing had nothing to do with the content of the article, and that there is nothing in the formal VfD policy which states that the boilerplate text must appear at the top. --The Cunctator

I support this request. It is worth pointing out also that when questions were raised about The Cunctator's behavior in the edit war, the main reasoning behind his remarks in his own defense were along the lines that different rules should apply to administrators than apply to other users. This is not the sort of attitude we should foster here. - Hephaestos 14:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * That is a misinterpretation of my remarks. --The Cunctator

 * Read them again. Or, just read below. - Hephaestos 05:31, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I cannot honestly oppose this request. In my view he is a valuable contributor. But we should be able to require that sysops, either accede to the policies formed in consensus which even non-sysops have an equal input, or in the contrary case act consistently to change the policy, but remain within the policy while the change is being debated. This is just my view. Others may legitimately disagree. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:11, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

 * Out of curiosity, where is that proposition that sysops and non sysops should follow different rules Cimon ? What does it consist in ? Is it just in a talk page or is there a meta page mentionning it ? ant

 * Definitely not in my comment, maybe you are mistaken somehow. My comment in fact made the point that sysops should be as bound by rules decided by the editorship as other editors. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:47, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * I never said it was in your comments Cimon. I did see you did not say such a thing. It is more in reference to what Hephaestos said and to tc answer just above. I just asked you because I know you a little bit more, and because you appeared more neutral, so more likely to provide me with information. I was just asking, not criticizing. I see that no one seems to be willing to answer to me, or to point out where tc said different rules should apply to admin and to regular users. I think it is unfortunate that things are said about a user without providing references. That is all. Hope today is better for you than the other day. Anthère

 * Anthère, it was when TC said that protecting a page in an edit war between admins was pointless, because they could both just ignore it, that I decided to support this motion. Protection and other measures are in place in the software to prevent disruption of honest work here.  When we appoint administrators, we are implicitly saying that we trust them to conduct themselves during the heat of the moment as we could force them to if they did not have the power to override the software.  TC violated that trust by overriding safeguards on a page in which he was involved in an edit war (not by unprotecting it, but rather to continue identical edits).  It is not this violation that inclines me to support the revocation of his adminship; it is not his apparent ignorance of the guidelines, despite having been here longer than most of us; it is not his history of ignoring (seemingly egotistically) consensus opinion; it is not his utter lack (to this point) of any admission of wrongdoing whatsoever on his part; it is rather all of these put together that makes me thing he should go, and makes me wonder again about my original question (which as you rightly pointed out is much more logically answered by those who made the appointment than by him), why was this appointment made?  So far this question remains unanswered. - Hephaestos 03:06, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I deeply thank you for your detailed answer Heph. Your position is perfectly understandable and fair. I think the guidelines have changed in 2 years very much. I could not say whether they change for best or worse, they just changed, because the situation is different and people are different. There mostly were far less rules, there were less people. This was a time where most people knew each other more, and perhaps conflicts, though of similar substance, were managed differently. There was a time there was no page protection, not even any notion of sysops. Just Larry and Jimbo for en :-). I think that was a time of more creativity possibilities, with less factions. These are my memories, and this is also my feeling of the evolution of smaller wikipedias.  More liberty of action did not mean people were less trusted. And perhaps, one person could impact more then than now. But the current evolution is perhaps one that cannot be avoided. Perhaps is it a sign that some oldbies feel drifting away from a project, that endorse another direction than before. The needs may be different for the project.
 * I have no memory of how sysops were made before. But perhaps was it less relying on this "trust" point (though, naturally, they were probably trusted), than in balance of powers, in mixing of positions, in representativity, and in involvement. I think that, because this is how we make sysops on fr. Not by suggesting any trusted person should become one. It is my belief this is a better option, and in this view, people like tc are part of balance very much. Maybe is that part of the answer you are looking for ?
 * (In case I said something inappropriate or offensive to anyone, I did not mean to).

He should receive a specific warning before any further action his taken. His actions, while inappropriate, were not substantially so. Other sysops have made more serious violations, and no action has been taken whatsoever against them. Lirath Q. Pynnor

 * I think this is a worrysome interpretation, because it raises the spectre that we should continue to tolerate the kind of behaviour that the person under discussion has been guilty of; by him and others, maybe even newcomers. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:47, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think The Cunctator's behaviour over a long period has been way beyond what is acceptable for a sysop (his antics on ignoring the consensus on the redesigned front page was just one example). But using sysop powers to unprotect a page so that he could, not for the first time, ignore everyone else, was abuse of his powers. On its own it was highly questionable, but given it was not the first, or the second, or the third, time he acted in gross breach of consensus, I think there is no other alternative now but to remove his administratorship. FearÉIREANN 22:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * If you claim that I have repeatedly acted in gross breach of consensus, please list such actions explicitly, rather than making the broad claim, with links to support your characterization of my action. --The Cunctator 03:23, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Most of Jtdirls comments I agree with, and have no problem with. But I would remark that the repetitive nature of his infractions over a long period should not in my view compound the effect of the current acts under discussion, any more than his acts should be valued differently just because he is a long time contributor.

 * What those repeated problems definitely do, is prevent him from claiming that his actions were a momentary lapse of judgement, and thus should be given a bye "just this time". But that is all.

 * The other statement by JTDIrl I would take issue with is the claim that there is "no" other solution but forcible de-sysoping. Clearly there are alternatives.
 * He may decide voluntarily to ask that his sysop powers be rescinded. I think it is a fair assessment, that such a decision would not diminish his stature within the community in any way.
 * He may make a statement which addresses the concerns of those requesting his de-sysoping to a sufficient degree for them to withdraw their claim. The possible statements which could achieve this include:
 * "I was wrong to do what I did, let me off the hook already."
 * "I was right to do what I did, but I promise not to do it again."
 * "I accept that the mere fact that what I did was right, does not releive me of the obligation to try to follow the guidelines which most other sysops try to follow. I will try to do better in the future."
 * "I accept that many people perceive that I did not follow the common guidelines set for sysops to excercise their special powers. I do not contest this view, but ask that the judgement be made on the whole of my character, and my motivations."
 * He may make a direct appeal to his seniority in this project, and this may be sufficient to grant him special dispensation to flout our guidelines, as long as his motives for this flouting are not malicious. This may become a policy for all other senior contributors. Thus codifying something people already seem to believe is the rule now. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:12, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

In my estimation, The Cunctator has not been using his administratorship well, so I support removing it. Most notably, he repeatedly unprotected a page where he was actively involved in an edit war and seems to have been the main instigator. 4 or 5 different sysops attempted to re-protect the page, but The Cunctator repeatedly unprotected it. This is way over the line. I am concerned that sysops who abuse of their status can cause more harm to Wikipedia than users, drive more people away, waste more time, etc. Daniel Quinlan 00:17, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

 * Let's be clear: protecting and unprotecting the page had no effect on my, or RickK's, or Angela's, or MyRedDice, or Fuzheado's ability to edit the page. I removed the VfD heading once; RickK put it back. I moved it to the bottom three times in a twelve-hour period. Is that an edit war? What is the criteria? Does the VfD heading need to be on the top of the page?
 * Protecting the page prevents non-sysops from being able to edit the page--the only users that are being harmed by such an action are non-sysops. The page should not have been protected, especially after any of the involved parties had stopped editing the page.
 * No-one other than RickK asked me to stop moving the header to the bottom before Haephestos protected the page.
 * Finally, I would like to note that this page states "If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question." I may be wrong, but I don't feel that those requesting my de-adminship have tried to discuss the issue with me first. --The Cunctator

 * Your appeal to the guidelines enunciated at the top of this page would carry a heck of more weight, if they were accurate and if you demonstrated that you yourself were bound by other similar guidelines. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:12, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Protecting the page, as one can see by reviewing the edit history, certainly did effect the editing of RickK, Angela, Fuzheado etc. Just not you. The sole diffence here is that they are all responsible administrators. You are not.

After no edits to the page for ten hours, you and Rick reverted each other six times in an hour, and there was no reason to think either of you would stop. So I protected the page, stated so on the talk page and on Protected page, and thought that was the end of it. The next step should have been a resolution of differences on the talk page, not a unilateral decision by you to continue it twelve hours later with no discussion whatsoever.

Now you compound the situation with an outright lie, claiming that nobody discussed your de-adminship with you before bringing it here, when I specifically did so on that article's talk page and it is still there for all to see.

You ask JTD for an explicit listing of complaints against you, I think, in an effort to buy time. Unilateral undeletion of an article voted for deletion, the fiasco over the redesign of the main page, heck nobody has time to list every single one of your screwups, there've been so many (although you've done a fair job of archiving them yourself). I repeat the question I asked on the mailing list and never got an answer to: why on earth were you ever made an admin at all? - Hephaestos 05:31, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Cunc et al, I've been following this little dustup, and I'd like to share my point of view on the events. First off, here's my understanding of what has occurred:
 * Cunc removed the VfD notice from Sunset High School, and RickK reverted.
 * Cunc then moved the VfD notice to the bottom of the article, and RickK reverted. I believe RickK was under the misimpression that Cunc was still removing the VfD notice entirely; unless one scrolls down, the diff does make it seems that way.
 * Cunc again moved the VfD notice to the bottom of the page; Fuzheado reverted.
 * Hephaestos protected the page.
 * The page remained protected (other than an accidental unprotect by Fuzheado, which he quickly caught) for about 12 hours. The action moved to Talk:Sunset High School, although the question of where the VfD notice should go was not discussed in any detail.
 * Cunc unprotected the page and moved the VfD notice to the bottom almost simultaneously; the ordering of the two events is ambiguous from the logs and histories.
 * Four and a half hours later, Angela reverted to Fuzheado's version and reprotected the page.
 * Angela and Cunc cycled between protecting and unprotecting the page four times; Hephaestos took a turn protecting, and Cunc unprotects; and finally RickK protected, and Cunc unprotected.

This is, I believe, the undisputed sequence of events. Now, those who want Cunc's de-adminship have one interpretation of these events, and Cunc (and perhaps also Eclecticology, who seems to support him on the mailing list) have a different interpretation.

The anti-Cunc interpretation:
 * the cycle of reversions constituted an edit war, and so protection was justified; since the participants were all sysops, the protection was symbolic: any sysop editing a protected page to pursue an edit war is clearly abusing sysop powers;
 * as a party to the edit war, Cunc did not have the moral right to either edit or unprotect the page, and in doing so, abused his sysop powers.

The Cunc interpretation (which has been affirmed by Cunc on my talk page):

 * the reversions that occured did not constitute an edit war, although it might possibly be called a "meta-edit war", the difference being that no substantive changes were being made to the content of the article
 * protecting the page was an empty gesture, because the participants were all sysops, and could edit the page anyway;
 * furthermore, protection fruitlessly prevented non-sysops from editing, so Cunc unprotected it. He didn't need to unprotect it to edit it, but rather to allow non-sysops to edit;
 * at the same time as he unprotected the page, he reinstated his edit, once again moving the VfD notice to the bottom.

Now here's my opinion:
 * the cycle of reversions that occured before the first protection did indeed constitute an edit war: the editors, having a difference of opinion, were trying to "win" a contest over the existence/placement of the VfD notice. Also, if protection had not occured, the cycle of reversions would likely have continued unabated;
 * the lack of discussion, post-protection, of the question of where the notice would be placed was a failure of our protection system for resolving disputes;
 * the key idea of protecting a page when the disputants are sysops is specifically because after protection, editing (or unprotecting) by the parties to the dispute can bring the possibility of loss of sysop powers; it is the threat of this punishment that makes protection useful even when the disputants are all sysops. I do not believe Cunc is acquainted with particular idea, and I don't know if he would accept it (in fact, I rather doubt it).

In the end, I perceive that Cunc's understanding of how and why to use protection in the resolving of disputes is out of sync with my understanding of the community consensus on these issues, which I believe I share with Maximus Rex, Angela, Hephaestos, Jiang, Daniel Quinlan and Cimon avaro. I accept Cunc's claim that he believes his actions were reasonable, but nonetheless, I do not oppose the removal of his sysop privileges (but will I not actively seek such action). -- Cyan 05:50, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I oppose this request. silsor 06:44, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

I have been reluctant to support this motion but I find unprotecting a page six times in a row grievously disrespectful to one's fellow admins as well as being in clear contravention of due process for resolving conflicts. In favor. -- Viajero 22:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oppose. The Cunctator seems to have complied with the proposed policy regarding no more than three reversions and the protection seems to have been applied too early (just), when discussion would have been a better course and did resolve the matter. The Cunctator, while the presence of the notice is not mandatory it belongs at the top even though the edit had already served the purpose of alerting those interested in the VfD process. Your editing after the protection was applied, even though I think the protection was done too early, and your repeated protection/deprotection issue, were not appropriate and shouldn't be repeated. Ask others to intervene instead - this time they would have told you that you were acting foolishly, as you were. Jamesday 16:32, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that Cunc needs to explain himself BEFORE making a major edit. He cut lists from the Philadelphia article and plaed them in about six other articles. He did the same thing, to about the same extent, in the New York, New York article.

In the New York article, he moved the history off to a separate page and then gave one sentence as a summary, which isn't much. Mav told me not to do that about a month ago, unless I make a good "news style" summary.

And I don't see why the Timeline of New York city crimes deserves its own article.

Meh, I haven't voted yet. I'm still trying to make up my mind on him. WhisperToMe 00:06, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Observations as to his behavior strictly as a user don't really have a bearing on the question anyway. - Hephaestos 00:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Haeph question
Heaph is asking tc a question ''I repeat the question I asked on the mailing list and never got an answer to: why on earth were you ever made an admin at all? - ''

I think Haeph, that is not a question to ask to tc. Because it is not him to justify why he has been thought worth of trust by a communitee. It is to the communitee you should ask this question. When a long time employee is called by a new boss who want to fire him, the new boss will pile up a list of griefs, he will not request from the employee to justify why he has been hired in the first place. First because the employee "cannot" answer that question other than by "well, I had some good references, and the previous boss thought I would do the job" and second because the employee is not responsible for having been chosen. the responsability relies on the employer, here the community. Tc has been a nearly 3 years old contributor, and probably somewhere like 2 years old sysop. He was probably made sysop after the upgrade to phase II, and likely, the sysoping was either suggested by a group of core contributors, or by Jimbo himself, and in any case, it was supported by Jimbo at that time. So, I suggest you ask the old contributors still here, Stephen Gilbert, Astronomo, I suggest you contact Koyannis, and mostly I recommand you ask Jimbo, ~why on earth did they ever made tc an admin at all :-) Anthère

About the role of tc in the community
This is just my perception. Tc role is to break groupthink, to insure community is not taking the first visible and thought correct decision. Usually, the first easy solution, is the easiest one, and it is easy for a community to quickly agree on it, forgetting to look for other solutions. To avoid hasty decision, most communities relying on consensus need someone (or a group of someone) to question decisions taken, a devil advocate. This is an essential element. But this is a dangerous state for a person, because this person finds itself always in the role of complaining, of grumbling, of opposing. Often, and it is the case in my firm, the role is hold anonymously (that is the little white box where you put the anonymous complaint or suggestion); another way to avoid someone becoming the black sheep, is that this role turns in a community, several members taking the role one after the other. I believe tc is taken more than his share, and is now bearing the consequences for holding that essential role, which is often not recognised. I know it is tough to have someone always opposing, but that is one of the ways to avoid hasty decisions. The second benefit (after the one suggesting that the solution found is perhaps not the best one) is to nurture those who do not dare to speak, because they see the flow of dominators going over a discussion, and they dare not speaking up their mind. All to aware speaking up their mind might results in bad consequences for them. And, all to often, this is true. In voicing in very loud voice, and convincing voice he does not agree, tc helps those who are timid to speak; in not saying why a decision is wrong, he fosters thoughts in other people minds; so that other people, not him, find a good solution, and are proud of it. In all communities, there are those who are noisy, and those who are shy. Tc nurtures the shy ones; he gives them protection, shield them a bit, to allow them to speak. Whatever what you can think of him (and I sure recognise these actions may be irritating), I think those who made him sysops recognise this ability in tc. Anthère 07:59, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

About what we are building : community or encyclopedia
We are first building an encyclopedia. Building a community is a side project, as it helps building the real project. TC has been helping to build the main project, I am sure everyone will recognise this. Many people also think he has been building the community as well. I certainly do.Anthère 07:59, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * But there is also the question of what role do the rules and guidelines we are supposed follow fulfil. Do they have any significance at all? Or are they just something to scare the newcomers with?

 * I suppose that is just a rhetorical question :-)

About exclusion of the community
This is what some of you are suggesting. Do not answer "but no, we are not excluding him, we are just unsysoping him". That is the same. There are two communities on Wikipedia. The community of trusted users, who are sysops, and the community of non trusted ones (essentially, though I agree there are a few sparse elements who are trusted), the non sysops. You are excluding him from the trusted community, from which he has been part for three years. That is, the importance of building the community is placed above the importance of building the encyclopedia. I regret this. In any cases, I think exclusion, be it from the trusted or from the other community is a *major* act, and not to be done quickly, i also suggest that oldbies and Jimbo's opinion is taking into considerationAnthère 07:59, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Here you are flat-out wrong. Those who genuinely treat sysops and other editors differently are the people I cannot trust at all, and should be watched over most meticulously (they exist, and I do keep my eye at least, on them). Sysops should not be trusted in any special way; rather, we should all endeavour to distrust those who only trust sysops.

 * Sysops should not be trusted in any special way; rather, we should all endeavour to distrust those who only trust sysops. :
 * Extract from the page about admin : Administrators are Wikipedians who have "sysop rights". Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community.
 * This is clear evidence that what defines a sysop is 1) someone known and trusted and 2) willing to be one (in effect, some trusted people delibaretly choose not to be, as I mentionned above, this does not make them less trusted). It is generally practiced on the english wikipedia to propose trusted people for sysophood. Consequently, your position that claims we should not trust sysops appears to be one of a minority

 * Nope. It is only clear evidence that a sysop must at the moment of his inception be a trusted person. As you say, some people (for me most) who do not attain, nor perhaps aspire to sysopdom, are quite as trusted as sysops, and the way most of us trust them is in no way special from the way we trust some (but in my case at least, perhaps only just only a majority of) sysops, just as I also said.

 * I still maintain that those who do not belong to that "most of us"; those elitists who explicitly only trust or respect all sysops, and no others, potentially do harm to wikipedia, and bear close watching.

 * OK. I see no problem with that. I trust most users. A few I do not. Some of those I do not trust are sysops, some are not. I do not see to who you make reference as being elitists who give trust only to sysops. I do not think there are any of us thinking that.

 * I personally will not trust The Cunctator any more (perhaps less), if he retains his sysopdom than if he rescinds it by choice or is stripped it by force. In fact either case might well make him considerably more trustworthy. This is my opinion, and if it genuinely is a minority one, as you state, I am very worried about this community. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 08:21, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think we did not understand each other.

 * Newcomers may be reasonably be expected to be in need of guidance; but experienced users who are not sysops, are definitely not second class editors. And as for your implied opinion that oldtimers should be the only voices (along with Jimbo) to consider; I fart in its general direction. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:47, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * And as for your implied opinion that oldtimers should be the only voices (along with Jimbo) to consider;, it is non sequitur. Please, do not distort my point of view.

 * I fart in its general direction. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:47, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

It is pitifull to see a good argument being spoiled by rude langage.

 * Uhh. What is French for "backfire"? Cause that line sure did, big time.

 * Retour de feu ? Aller retour direct ? Cimon, je ne connaissais pas l'expression que tu as utilisée. J'ai vu la plupart des films des Monthy Pythons, mais je les ai vu en français. Pas en anglais. Je n'ai donc pas la moindre idée des phrases tirées de ces films, faisant partie de votre language collectif. Je peux aussi choisir de communiquer avec toi en français, et m'amuser à te lancer des bons mots, dont tout français comprendrais qu'ils ne constituent que de l'humour, mais que toi ne pourra interpréter que comme une insulte.

 * Je fais l'effort de parler dans ta langue, et est donc régulièrement victime de mon ignorance culturelle. Le terme que tu as utilisé (fart in its general direction) pourrait un peu être traduit par "je te pisse à la raie" par example, et crois moi, si un de mes collegues de travail s'aventurait à me dire cela, il se prendra directement une bonne baffe dans la figure.

 * I still haven't really decided what to think of your reaction to my little bon mot. But I think I can directly explain what my thinking was while I typed those "fateful words".

 * Je pense que ma réaction est parfaitement compréhensible si on estime que je ne connaissais pas cette expression. Il ne restait au final qu'une insulte bien franche de mon point de vue.

 * My hand on a stack of amulets, the other hand holding my testicles (may they shrivel if I tell a lie), by the stump and stone, cross my heart and hope do die (spit, spit, spit); I did not have the slightest intention of offending you, quite the contrary.

 * Do not press the testicles too hard though. It would not be necessary for you to feel pain over this.

 * Don't worry, I wasn't really grasping them fully. (too small hands :-)

 * Braggart ;-)

 * D'accord. J'appécie cette remarque. Et je suis désolée de ne pas avoir compris ton commentaire comme de l'humour. Je saurais désormais que ton humour est assez noir.

 * I thought that I should indicate in some way, that I was not disagreeing with you, but merely your opinion. So how to do it? Suddenly a figurative lightbulb lit up next to my head: "Aha, Anthere has a wonderful sense of humour; maybe if I cracked a joke, she would realize that my profound disagreement with her views does not mean that I am not still most empathetic towards her!" Well, you can see above how that turned out... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:01, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * Anthere a un tres grand sens de l'humour. Encore faut il qu'elle comprenne qu'une blague est une blague. A partir du moment ou tu utilises des références culturelles que je ne connais pas, il y a toutes les chances que je ne saisisse pas *du tout* ce qui est amusant. La prochaine fois Cimon, je te suggère de considérer ta blague avec un oeil innocent, et de te demander si la blague peut être mal interprétée par son destinataire. Si oui, suggestion : met ta blague entre commentaire : I fart in its general direction..

 * Dans ce cas, je commencerais par te demander en quoi consiste la blague, puis, quand tu me l'auras expliquée, je rirais avec toi. Avec plaisir :-)

 * je suis profondemment désolée. Je veux bien faire l'effort d'imaginer que ce qui ressemble à une insulte est juste une blague, mais vous aussi, les anglophones, pouver faire l'effort de comprendre que *justement* je ne comprend pas tout ce que vous dites.

About the fault and the punishment
I will not say anything about the fault itself, because I know not enough the en rules to be able to weight precisely enough the amound of the misdeed. The important point indeed is that some do not trust tc, and this is a fact. If some think he has done wrong, that must be acknowledged. But wrongs and punishment are two different things, which must be evaluated separatly. I am glad Cyan gave a two sided perspective for that, showing that the situation is not a clear as some would like to say. Whatever the conclusion (fault, or not fault), to my opinion, a punishment should be at the level of the fault, or the exclusion should be at the level of the lack of trust. That is, just unsysoping is quite a final act. There are several options at hand. First, there could be a warning, and I believe this discussion sure is a warning. Second there could be a limited in time desysoping just to show displeasure (perhaps a week, perhaps a month, dunno); and most important, there could be a limitation in sysop powers themselve. Do we trust tc to fight against vandalism (ie, to block ip) ? do we trust tc to delete a page that has been vandalised (ie, to delete a page, or to do an administration deletion) ? do we trust tc to protect a page (ie, like in an edit war). These are thoughts I offer, as I believe, just as when we ban someone, there are warning, there are steps. It is never black and white. We might trust him to stop doing on the things we think him doing bad. Perhaps he could be ask not to use protection/unprotection for a while, but be allowed to delete or undelete. This is just a suggestion.

Error description first; estimate whether it is a fault or a mistake; if a fault estimation of the gravity and risk for the encyclopedia itself; depending on the risk, decision over a punishment. One step at a time would be nice. Anthère 07:59, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Wow. Are you trying to out-talk everyone?  It's not really about punishing TC.  At least, I don't see it that way.  It's just that TC has illustrated particularly poor judgement as a sysop.  He could be a nice guy and a great contributor and a boon to the community, but I've opposed nice guys, great contributors, and boons to the community — when I didn't think they would be good sysops based on how they interact during the editing process.  That is why I think it would be better to not have TC as a sysop.  We have plenty of other sysops who do a better job of staying above reproach.  If I wanted to show displeasure, I would complain on a talk page.  Daniel Quinlan 21:24, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

 * what does out-talk mean ? ant

 * Well, you are not quite making an Argumentum ad nauseam, which is common on Wikipedia, but writing a lot about any topic is often sufficient to cause any decision or resolution to be avoided, rather like a filibuster. That is what it seems is happening here, so I will try to summarize opinions and see if there is any consensus.  I don't like doing that, but it now seems necessary given the length of discussion by a few people.  Daniel Quinlan 23:19, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

 * you are not quite making an Argumentum ad nauseam

 * Not quite yes. It would be pleasant to quality a comment as an argument from repetition when the comment is only made one time, at one place, about one person :-)

 * but writing a lot about any topic is often sufficient to cause any decision or resolution to be avoided

 * So...are you saying we should limit discussion of the topic and of the options at hand to insure speed resolution of the case ? :-))

 * rather like a filibuster

 * Are you comparing my carefully crafted set of points, and suggestions for conflict resolution to the satisfaction of everyone (such as voluntary abstention of doing certain sysop functions) to senatorial disgression ? :-)))

 * My sentiment is towards desysoping, but I've registered as uncertain and not not opposed to... because I agree with Anthere. Unsysoping is quite a grave act and a collective failure of the Wikipedia community, and should not be taken lightly. I've had my run-ins with TC, on the VfD notice location and the purported logical fallacies. I find TC evasive, oblique, condescending and instigative on many issues, something I do not find ideal sysop qualities. (Maybe I've changed my own mind during the crafting of this comment). But as such, I'm not convinced yet that it warrants what amounts to expulsion. Any type of contrition from TC would also convince me to keep TC around. Fuzheado 04:20, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree with Fuzheado; any type of contrition from TC would convince me to keep TC around. My confidence in that ever happening is such, though, that I'm not moving my name around on the roster yet. - Hephaestos 15:45, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The Cunctator - I would encourage you to voluntarilly refrain from unprotecting pages or editing protected pages over the next few months. This seems like the best way forward at this point. Martin 23:09, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * In my personal view, which has not changed one iota by all the verbiage above, is that his acts "as acts" were bad enought to warrant immediate de-sysoping. But his motivation was not malicious or vandalous, but merely grievously self-righteous. Self-righteousness can be an evil in itself (and this is the category which the statement "Mother Teresa did evil things" falls under BTW). If he had done the exact same acts with pure vandalous intent, we would not be discussing here for one byte. He would have been gone, history, finito. It really is as simple as that.

 * The fact that we justly are not de-sysoping him out of hand, may well give some comfort to someone less moral than himself, who comes on later. "Hey, The Cunctator did the precise thing earlier, and you in the end decided not to de-sysop him, why are you busting my balls?". Just this fact in itself is evil. Even he be a good man who eventually be de-sysopped, the reguarding agaist this impersonal evil, to me is enough to justifie such an act, though I would not feel it in me to instigate it against a moral, useful contributor. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:47, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think it should be made clear that it is not the case that the community has decided not to de-sysop The Cunctator, but that the community has not decided to de-sysop The Cunctator. The community reserves the right to act decisively, even where it has previously been divided. Martin 16:22, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jimbo has appointed the Cunctator to a wikiquette arbitration committee (see the mailing list) which, along with this post, pretty much puts an end to the possibility of the Cunctator being de-sysoped. Maximus Rex 22:18, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's true: Firstly, arbitrators don't need to be sysops, though the arbitration committee needs the respect of sysops to enforce its judgements. Secondly, the community can act in these matters even if Jimbo does not: specifically, it would require a sufficiently bold developer. That said, while opinion is somewhat split on the matter, we're unlikely to find a sufficiently bold developer - but if by some miracle we reached a consensus, Jimbo is not required to explicitly agree with that consensus.

 * Agree emphatically. Jimbo's pronouncements have the outward form of imperial decree (of necessity), but their force comes largely from the fact that he is usually (but not exclusively) merely stating the obvious. In this he is much like the king in Antoine de St Exuperys The Little Prince who every morning commands the sun to rise. I am 110% certain he would be the first to acknowledge (and 99% sure he has even said this on occasion) that though we are "playing with his toys", he is the tyrant (in the classical sense) very much through our consent.

 * If this issue is still going in the new year, this is one possible case that might be referred to mediation and/or arbitration. Martin 00:04, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree with martin.
 * One can NOT mediate a case involving their self. So T.C.'s membership in the mediation committee is irrevelent. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:09, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * I support desysopping The Cunctator if he does not stop acting so unilaterally. Some of his posts are quite biased (e.g. Dividend tax), and a sysop should know better than to act like this. - Mark Ryan 06:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Procedural note
Well, I think all those who intend to express an opinion have done so, and it is therefore time to take the next step. There are two ways this can go: further pursuit of de-sysoping, or closing the matter and archiving the discussion.

I don't believe that developers have the responsibility of deciding when a user can no longer be trusted with sysop privileges. Therefore, the next step in the "de-sysoping" direction is for someone who actively seeks de-sysoping to collect evidence and make a case to Jimbo. (Any such case should note the dissenting opinions expressed here.) If no one will do this within 3 days, I will take it as a sign that the matter is considered closed, and will perform the required archiving (unless I hear different from someone). -- Cyan 22:16, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It seems I was too hasty in saying that all those who intend to express an opinion have done so. I will archive this discusison when it receives no posts for three consecutive days (unless I hear different from someone). -- Cyan 05:20, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Back to Requests for adminship.


text:
Brewer's blackbird

Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) is a medium-sized New World blackbird. It is named after the ornithologist Thomas Mayo Brewer.

Description
Adult males have black plumage with an iridescent purple head and neck and glossy bluish-green highlights on the rest of the body. The feet and legs are black and the eye is bright yellow. The female is brownish-grey with slight hints of the male's iridescence. The female's eye is dark brown, while the male's is bright yellow. Overall, they resemble the eastern member of the same genus, the rusty blackbird; Brewer's blackbird, however, has a shorter bill and the male's head is iridescent purple. This bird is often mistaken for the common grackle but has a shorter tail. The call is a sharp check which is also distinguishable. This bird is in a different family from the Eurasian blackbird.

Habitat
Their breeding habitat is open and semi-open areas, often near water, across central and western North America. They are also very common in parking lots or around schools, and easily acclimate to the presence of people. They can live in low elevation, as low as below sea level in Southern California, and elevation as high as 8,000 feet. They are capable of surviving in diverse environments, including marshlands and forests.

These birds are often permanent residents in the west. Other birds migrate to the Southeastern United States and Mexico in Spring. The range of this bird has been expanding east in the Great Lakes region. They've expanded their habitat as recently as the 20th century.

Behavior
When Brewer's blackbirds identify threats, such as hawks or even humans, they dive towards them and omit an alarm call. Sometimes, when particularly threatened, they will use physical force on predators.

Brewer's blackbirds often walk along the ground. They can be seen making jerking motions with their heads. In colder months, these birds tend to flock together and forage. Sometimes, other species of blackbirds will join these flocks. During nesting season, their foraging behavior becomes more independent. Brewer's blackbirds have been seen cleverly following vehicles plowing fields, eating the churned up insects.

Feeding
They forage in shallow water or in fields, mainly eating seeds and insects, some berries. They sometimes catch insects in flight. They feed in flocks outside of the breeding season, sometimes with other blackbirds. In marshy areas, they are known to stand on aquatic plants and wade in shallow water to catch insects. Some have even been known to eat smaller mammals, amphibians, and the nestlings of other birds.

Reproduction
These birds have mates but the mates don't stay together all year round. The same pair tends to reunite for mating season and both parents take a role in feeding. During mating, male Brewer's blackbirds will puff up their feathers while simultaneously spreading out their wings and tail to look as large as possible. They will point their beak out forward. Their clutch size can vary, usually between 3–7. Eggs are usually a tan color with darker speckles throughout to allow for camouflage. The female bird primarily incubates for 12–14 days. The chicks leave the nest only 2 weeks after hatching.

Nests are not built in isolation, but in colonies of up to 30 pairs. Pairs prefer to nest in areas that are around 20–40' in treetops. However, colonies that live near water may also nest in reeds and other freshwater plants. Nests are made from nearby material such as reeds, sticks and hair. They are built by the female in a cup-like shape and are bonded with mud or other securing substances. The color of the nest usually matches the coloration of the eggs and the surrounding environment as it is crucial to survival. Brewer's blackbird chicks do not immediately open their eyes upon hatching and do not hatch with feathers.

Protected status
Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) is protected in the United States under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, however exceptions are granted under 50 CFR part 21 (2014) for animals committing or about to commit depredations upon ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or wildlife, or when concentrated in such numbers and manner that they are a health hazard or other nuisance. They are moderately threatened by climate change. However, this could change if temperatures continue to rise. If temperatures rise by 3 degrees celsius, they could lose 30% of their range. Heat and wildfires are particularly threatening. Their numbers have dropped 57% from 1966 to 2019. It is estimated that there are currently 23 million Brewer's blackbirds in the wild.

title: Brewer's blackbird


text:
User:Masao

Masao (まさお, born in Kita-ku, Tokyo, 1976 - ) is a male Japanese Wikipedian. I lived in Kita-ku, Tokyo and Tsukuba, Ibaraki, and am now living in Kawaguchi, Saitama.

I received a Ph.D. in Information Science in 2004. My favorites include sports, music, sake and so on.

Other projects/languages

 * meta:User:Masao
 * ja:User:masao

Tools

 * /monobook.js

&

title: User:Masao


text:
Pehr Kalm

Pehr Kalm (6 March 1716 – 16 November 1779), also known as Peter Kalm, was a Swedish explorer, botanist, naturalist, and agricultural economist. He was one of the most important apostles of Carl Linnaeus.

In 1747, he was commissioned by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to travel to the North American colonies in order to bring back seeds and plants that might be useful to agriculture. Among his many scientific accomplishments, Kalm can be credited with the first description of Niagara Falls written by a trained scientist. In addition, he published the first scientific paper on the North American 17-year periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim.

Kalm wrote an account of his travels that was translated into numerous European languages; a 20th-century translation remains in print in English as Peter Kalm's Travels in North America: The English Version of 1770, translated by Swedish-American scholar Adolph B. Benson.

Biography
Kalm was born to Gabriel Kalm and Katarina Ross in Ångermanland, Sweden, where his parents had taken refuge from Finland during the Great Northern War. His father was a Finnish clergyman and his mother was of Scottish ancestry. His father died six weeks after his birth. When the hostilities were over, his widowed mother returned with him to Närpes in Ostrobothnia, where Kalm's father had been a Lutheran minister.

Kalm studied at the Royal Academy of Turku from 1735. In 1740, he entered the University of Uppsala, where he became one of the first students of the renowned naturalist Carl Linnaeus. In Uppsala, Kalm became the superintendent of an experimental plantation owned by his patron, Baron Sten Karl Bielke.

Kalm did field research in Sweden and The Russian Empire from 1742 to 1746, when he was appointed docent of natural history and economics at the Royal Academy of Turku. In 1747, the academy elevated him to professor of economics. That same year, he was also appointed by Linnaeus and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (of which he had been a member since 1745) to travel to North America to find seeds and plants that might prove useful for agriculture or industry. In particular, they wanted him to bring back the red mulberry in the hope of starting a silk industry in Finland (which was then an integral part of Sweden).

On his journey from Sweden to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Kalm spent six months in England, where he met many of the important botanists of the day. Kalm arrived in Pennsylvania in 1748; there he was befriended by Benjamin Franklin and naturalist John Bartram. Kalm based his explorations at the Swedish-Finnish community of Raccoon, which is now Swedesboro, New Jersey. This town had been founded as part of the former Swedish colony of New Sweden. There, he also served as the substitute pastor of Trinity Church, the local Swedish Lutheran church. Kalm subsequently married Anna Margaretha Sjöman, the widow of Johan Sandin, the former pastor. He remained in Raccoon until 19 May 1749.

Kalm made trips as far west as Niagara Falls and as far north as Montreal and Quebec before returning to Finland in 1751. He took a post as professor at the Royal Academy of Turku. In addition to teaching and directing students, he established botanical gardens in Turku. He taught at the academy until his death in Turku in 1771.

Anders Chydenius, another noted scientist, was a student of Pehr Kalm's.

Legacy

 * Kalm's journal of his travels was published as En Resa til Norra America (Stockholm, 1753–1761). It was translated into German, Dutch, and French. Kalm described not only the flora and fauna of the New World, but also the lives of the Native Americans and the British and French colonists whom he met. A United States edition was later translated and edited by Swedish-American scholar and literary historian Adolph B. Benson (1881–1961). It was published as Peter Kalm's Travels in North America: The English Version of 1770 (Wilson-Erickson Inc., 1937). This version has become an important standard reference regarding life in colonial North America and has been in continuous print in several updated editions.
 * Kalm's paper on the lifecycle of the North American 17-year periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim, was the first published scientific description of the species and its recurrent appearances.
 * In his Species Plantarum, Linnaeus cites Kalm for 90 species, 60 of them new, including the genus Kalmia, which Linnaeus named after Kalm. Kalmia latifolia (Mountain-laurel) is the state flower of Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
 * The Mint of Finland issued a coin in Kalm's honor. He is regarded as one of the most notable Finnish explorers. In Finland he is also known as Pietari Kalm.

title: Pehr Kalm