text:
Talk:Shock absorber

Shock absorber - not a misnomer, just regional usage
An analogy is made in the Article between a vehicle's suspension system and an electrical RLC circuit, where the resistive component is the damper's equivalent, and the LC is the spring's.

In both systems it is the latter, i.e. the spring (or LC), not the R (or damper), which absorbs shocks (and temporarily stores the energy.) The damper slowly dissipates that energy.

Take the basic child's go-kart; a shallow wooden box with a wheel nailed to each corner.

Now, to improve the ride you may choose to add either a set of dampers ("shock absorbers") or a set of springs.

It would be rather pointless to ask which one you would choose, so let's ask why would you (inevitably) choose the springs?

Because they would absorb the shocks. The dampers, the so-called "shock absorbers", wouldn't.

It is my contention that "shock absorber" is one of the most misunderstood and mis-used terminologies.

Syncopator 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed, this article is very misleading as it deals with Suspension damping units NOT Shock absorbers.
 * This page really should be deleted or re-titled. Wikipedia should be educating its users, this page does the complete opposite by re-enforcing a common misnomer without any attempt at correction.Morr (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Absolutely correct. I am a mechanical engineering student and I hopped over here looking for a specific link.  the correct term is not 'schock absorber' its 'Damper' the shock loads are absorbed by the spring, the damper smoothes out oscillations.  The correct terminology is mostly used in europe and racing circles but never seems to have caught on here

 * Don't be so provincial. In the United States, these devices are universally referred to as "shock absorbers" because they prevent the sudden jerks (shocks) that unrestrained springs on a moving vehicle generate as they reach their limits of expansion or compression when traveling over obstructions or holes.  They are marketed, sold, repaired, and designed under that name.  In the United Kingdom, these are called "dampers" or "dampeners".  Both terms are legitimate regional usage and neither one is exclusively "correct" regardless of what your Mum told you, eh?  ;)  I have worked on British cars in the USA and it's the same issue as hood .vs. bonnet, or trunk .vs. boot.  Regional variation in language is normal, but if one page must be deleted or merged, I will point out that the term "shock absorber" is used by more people than "damper".  That's just a fact... borne out by Google's 46,700,000 results for "automobile shock absorber" versus 3,260,000 results for "automobile damper".  Note that the results for damper are high, because anti-sway bars are also called dampers.  Shock absorber is the most common name for these devices, globally.  Obviously Wikipedia should contain all this information.

 * "In the United Kingdom, these are called "dampers"
 * Nope. Not in the UK they aren't. Dampers is far more commonly a US term. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Both my 1500 MGA and BJ8 Healey shop manuals referred to them as dampeners. "Shock absorbers" do not absorb the shock of the suspension bottoming, they prevent it from happening. TVR (I had 3500 M (Oldsmobile) and 3900 S (Rover) TVRs) solved the bottoming problem by placing fat O-rings on the damper shafts, preventing the suspension from bottoming. Koni, in their aftermarket devices, didn't have the O-rings and the Koni devices quickly failed.Joninpalawan (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Hysteresis
According to this article, hysteresis is internal friction within springs and the chassis of a vehicle that dampens oscillations, but according to the hysteresis article, it is lag in a system, such as an inductor's reactivity or a piece of iron retaining a magnetic field for some time after leaving the field that originally magnetized it. These seem to be two different uses of hysteresis and I am confused as to whether they are the same or this article is using incorrectly and should be using "internal frictional forces" or something similar. 136.176.8.16 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Legend for illustration
The picture Gas_damper_mov.gif looks like a nice enough picture but it needs a legend explaining what parts A, B, C etc are. Nibios 15:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added them to the best of my knowledge. Hacktivist (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"B - the piston with seals" Well, it needs some kind of hole to let the oil pass trough, otherwise it won't dampen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebikesweden (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Other types of shocks?
The Trophy Truck article mentions coil-over, internal and external bypass shocks. Can someone explain these three types of shocks?--68.188.157.172 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Animated image is incorrect, cleanup required
The animated GIF image is misleading. It shows large changes of volume of the air (and the hydraulic fluid) in the damper / shock absorber as the piston moves. IMPORTANT: The volume of hydraulic fluid in monotube shock absorbers is constant. The piston usually has ports in it, allowing it to move with resistance through the fluid. The displacement of fluid within the cylinder is slight, being caused by the change in volume of the rod (which is shown over-size) that the piston is attached to within the cylinder, and the gradual expansion of the hydraulic fluid with temperature.

The piston has constricted ports, so that when a force is applied to it, the piston moves through the fluid, encountering resistance. The energy dissipated in the fluid being forced through the piston ports heats it, causing it to expand.

Please amend the diagram
 * reduce the thickness (diameter) of the piston rod
 * show that the volume of air within the cylinder only changes a little as the piston moves
 * indicate that the fluid passes through ports in the piston.

See also  (see monotube shock absorbers section)

GilesW (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC), clarified GilesW (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Description
I suggest revising the article along these lines: Any comments?

Comparing a worn out shock absorber with a new one shows that the worn one offers little resistance to the motion of the piston, but the good one is much stiffer.

When the wheel encounters a bump, a worn shock absorber's piston provides little resistance to deflection, moving quickly through the fluid. This allows the wheel to bounce up and down (oscillate) relative to the car, and the car to oscillate relative to the road. Excessive movement of the springs and suspension joints increase the stress on other parts of the suspension, causing failures (often on the corner of the vehicle opposite to the faulty shocker). Vehicle handling and braking are also affected.

The resistance to movement provided by a good shock absorber allows the spring to deflect only relatively slowly. The shock absorber both transmits much of the shock load directly to the chassis, and damps the resulting oscillation of the wheel-suspension-vehicle system. The friction of the piston moving through the fluid converts the kinetic energy into heat, heating the hydraulic fluid in the shock absorber. The terms shock absorber and damper are thus both valid, though in engineering the latter is preferred.

(see monotube shock absorbers section)

GilesW (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Generality is good, but most people want info on modern cars' shock absorbers
It's fine that this article has lots of information about the history, etc. However, most people visiting this page would like info primarily on modern cars' shock absorbers.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is because this article suffers from an overdone round of group-think with too many editors contributing random bits of information without considering the overall article flow or intent. Honestly, I think the entire article should probably be gutted and rewritten from the beginning, with an emphasis on vehicle shock absorbers and a list of the myriad different kinds of shock absorbers in a "See also" section at the end.   KDS 4444  Talk   05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Air shock picture annotation
I've removed the annotation, because it was obviously not correct, pneumatic shock absorbers don't have oil in them, and even if some types do, the volume of the oil cannot change in the way shown.

I would have replaced it, but I don't know the correct terms used. Does anyone have a reference for this?Teapeat (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Refer reader to "Dashpots"
The article on "Dashpot"s explains the function and application of the shock absorber, making this article of no use.Longinus876 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion to Dashpot
Discussion about replacing this article with dashpot. See Talk:Dashpot Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * And wisely, that did not happen.  KDS 4444  Talk   06:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate link
I had added a link to Cushioning in the 'See also' section. This was removed without reason. It would seem obvious that the two subjects are related. Readers of this article might be interested to know of the article on cushioning as used in packaging to isolate shock. Please explain the deletion. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does "Shock Absorber" redirect to "Dashpot"?
For some reason typing "Shock absorber" into the search bar brings you here, while typing "Shock Absorber" brings you the article on Dashpot, which seems kind of silly to me. I don't know how to change that, or I would do it myself..45Colt 20:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Shock absorber.stl

Spiral shocks -
Could someone please research the rationale and physical function of spiral shocks, which seem to have been installed on GM and Nash cars in the 50s and 60s?

https://www.oldsobsolete.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DSCN6953.jpg 70.190.209.23 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, these Delco shocks had a spiral formed into the case in order to stiffen and strengthen the case (longer than previous designs, as there was more suspension travel) and because earlier models had been failing prematurely: a distorted case soon causes the seals to fail. The spiral had no function in relation to damping.
 * Once a simpler straight case of adequate longevity was available, the spiral was abandoned. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shock absorber


text:
TimeChase

TimeChase was a history-based quiz show series created by Sidney M. Cohen and Jay R. Cohen originally telecast on Canada's History Television channel.

Hosted by Sheldon Turcott, it featured questions based on decades in history. It was produced and directed by Sidney M. Cohen. The show ran from 1997 to 1999, and emcee Turcott died shortly after its cancellation. TimeChase was later rerun on GameTV from 2007 to 2011. Catherine Swing served as announcer during the show's first season.

Round 1
Three contestants compete in this game. One of them was a returning champion. Sheldon announces six decades which act as categories. One decade is a timechase mystery category which remains a secret until it is chosen. The champion picks a decade and then Sheldon reads a question with three choices. The first player to ring in gets to answer. If he/she is right, they get 10 points. If they are wrong, the remaining players will have a choice from the remaining answers (although if the 2nd player is also wrong the 3rd player does not get to answer). 4 questions are in each category. After the category is gone, the player with the last correct answer picks from the remaining categories. The round ends when time runs out. There was no mystery decade during season 2.

Round 2: Double or Nothing
This round was almost the same as the first round. There were 6 more decades (5 in Season 2), but now those decades were all about a certain topic. In Season 1, there was another mystery decade and was only revealed if chosen. Correct answers were worth 20 points and the player had to decide whether or not to answer a follow-up question for another 20 points. A wrong answer takes those points away. The round ends when time runs out or all decades have been covered. The player who with the most points wins a prize and moved on to the Bonus Round.

Bonus Round
Sheldon reveals a topic and the winning contestant has to answer 5 questions. The first question is worth $25, the second, $50, the third, $75, the fourth, $100, and the fifth and final question is worth $250 for a total of $500. If the player answers them all right, he/she wins another prize. The player can stop anytime, but an incorrect answer along the way loses everything, but if there were any questions left, they would be worth $25 each. In any case, the champion comes back next time. Champions can stay for as many as 5 shows. If they make it that far, they win a cruise on the Saint Lawrence River.

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

title: TimeChase


text:
Broth

Broth, also known as bouillon, is a savory liquid made of water in which meat, fish, or vegetables have been simmered for a short period of time. It can be eaten alone, but it is most commonly used to prepare other dishes, such as soups, gravies, and sauces.

Commercially prepared liquid broths are available, typically chicken, beef, fish, and vegetable varieties. Dehydrated broth in the form of bouillon cubes was commercialized beginning in the early 20th century.

Stock versus broth
Many cooks and food writers use the terms broth and stock interchangeably. In 1974, James Beard (an American cook) wrote that stock, broth, and bouillon "are all the same thing".

While many draw a distinction between stock and broth, the details of the distinction often differ. One possibility is that stocks are made primarily from animal bones, as opposed to meat, and therefore contain more gelatin, giving them a thicker texture. Another distinction that is sometimes made is that stock is cooked longer than broth and therefore has a more intense flavor. A third possible distinction is that stock is left unseasoned for use in other recipes, while broth is salted and otherwise seasoned and can be eaten alone.

Similar dishes
Not every dish with the word broth in its name is, strictly speaking, a broth. For example, Aberaeron Broth is a Welsh soup. Scotch broth is a soup which includes solid pieces of meat and vegetables. Its name reflects an older usage of the term "broth" that did not distinguish between the complete soup and its liquid component. Similarly, Awara broth is a Guianan Creole stew from French Guiana.

Court-bouillon (French for "short broth") is a broth cooked for a short time, mostly used for poaching fish. Rosół is a category of clear Polish soups, primarily made of broth, with a popular version being similar to chicken noodle soup. Canja de galinha is a similar soup from Portuguese-speaking countries.

title: Broth


text:
User talk:Wik/Archive February 2004

Hi Wik,

U don't like "formerly in English: Danzig" and "Gdansk or Danzig". Nico doesn't like "formerly also in German: Danzig". The problem is that "formerly Danzig" is unacceptable because is suggest that Gdansk is a new, artifficial name created after 1945. This is a nonsens of course. But we should to solve this problem in any way. Do you have any proposal? user:Yeti

 * Yeti: What the city was called in foreign languages before 1945 is irrelevant. This is the English Wiki. In English it was Danzig and never Gdansk before 1945. Thus, "formerly Danzig" is correct here. Please stop making more trouble. You can explain that it has always been Gdansk in Polish in this section: Nico 20:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Does "St Petersburg, formerly Leningrad", suggest that St. Petersburg is an artificial name created after 1991? If not, I don't see why "Gdansk, formerly Danzig" would do this. john 21:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

well spotted
Thanks for spotting my mistake on Provinces of Cameroon, I'll upload a corrected image. - snoyes 23:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Wik, thanks for the help on AtStart's links. Dori | Talk 00:46, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Independence - strike?
I would move to strike the line on the table on the right that lists an independence date. Iraq is currently an occupied power - it is not an independent state, and thus, an independence date doesn't apply. As soon as the coalition authority officially cedes power to an Iraqi governing body, then it will be independent, and that line would apply once again, but with a new date.

Comments?

Apology
I'm sorry I offended you on Slashdot. Maybe I'm the idiot... that said...  are there better ways to handle this little crisis maybe? Thanks. Pakaran. 04:01, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, yeah, and if you're going to read slashdot, dude, you may want to be aware that you're going to find stuff you consider deliberately offensive. Last time I checked, there's no requirement under policy for sysops to speak kindly to others (and I don't think I'm the worst offender there, despite my ill-considered remark).  This whole thing is making you look far worse than it is me.  Pakaran. 04:05, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dude, there's ways to deal with this a bit more professionally than reverting for the rest of the evening. Pakaran. 04:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you can't behave on the real pages, have you own so you don't need to bother the rest of us: Wik's requests for deadminship. Angela. 04:24, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik, if you're going to keep moving pages around all day, fix the stinkin' redirects. - Hephaestos 04:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gee Wik! You really get into their nerves... I guess one of the two: 1) You do it for the fun of it ; 2) You do it because you like Wikipedia better than your blood pressure. Either of them, i'm starting to like you. But maybe there is a third... Muriel 17:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I like Wikipedia and my blood pressure is fine. Maybe theirs is getting up, but they only have themselves to blame. --Wik 17:55, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Danzig
Re:

Wik, you are lying!

 * "Searched the web for danzig polen": 37,800
 * "Searched the web for gdansk polen": 31,000 (and that includes a couple of other languages in addition to German, in which Poland is known as Polen) -- Nico 04:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "Danzig Polen" 1,650
 * "Gdansk Polen" 1,790
 * The quotes are necessary to limit the search to references to the present (Polish) city. --Wik 04:56, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

You usually do not write it in that way. It would be a horrible language, and in any event, you operate with too small numbers. Nico 05:01, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * It doesn't matter which one is marginally ahead. It is clear that both versions are used almost equally, so it cannot be simply said that the German name is Danzig in the same way that, for example, Warschau is the German name for Warsaw. As the Google test demonstrates:

 * "Warschau Polen" 8,390
 * "Warszawa Polen" 1,740

 * Clearly a much different ratio there. --Wik 05:24, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * "gdansk polen", German domains, German language sites: 1,250:
 * "danzig polen", German domains, German language sites: 1,720

 * But, as noted, Germans usually don't write "London England", but rather "London in England" or something like that. And btw, the internet consists of much trash and is not very representive for German usage. German newspapers nearly always use Danzig. -- Nico 05:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great Britain
I added Faroe Islands to the list of non-GB territories in the British archipelago for a reason, namely that it is mentioned as a part of the archipelago in the very first paragraph of the article. It could very well not be (and British Isles indeed says it isn't), but if so you should delete it from the introduction as well. -- Jao 10:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I'm asking you formally here to relax and not enter into any edit wars for at least a week or so. You're getting on people's nerves. Take a breather, it isn't worth it. I've seen your work, and a lot of it is good, but at the same time, you violate general etiquette pretty often, too.

Wikipedia appears to be in a state of anarchy, but rest assured that it is not. We do have some rules and those rules will be enforced. I prefer persuasion, but ultimately the community has to be respected, and if that means some people have to go, then some people have to go.

So relax, huh?

Jimbo Wales 10:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for confirming that rules will be enforced. I take this to mean that Hephaestos will be de-adminned for his repeated unilateral bans of logged-in non-vandals. You might also want to explicitly inform Angela of the fact that, until the committee is ready, you are still responsible for bans and that therefore there is no power vacuum into which individual sysops can pretend to step in without your authorization, otherwise there will be pointless ban-unban revert wars between sysops (as there have been). (See Delirium's mailing list message and Requests for de-adminship.)

 * As to my supposed violations of etiquette, can you document them please so that I know what the problem is? I am at a loss here, since I take special care to avoid insults, although I have been repeatedly insulted by some sysops. If it's about edit wars, can you clarify when exactly an edit war becomes wrong, considering that almost everyone naturally gets involved in them; are you saying that every edit war is wrong (in that case, should persistent vandals etc. just be allowed to have their way? how are content disputes to be decided when one side is not willing to engage in good-faith discussion?) or, if you agree individual edit wars may be justified, then can you tell me which of the ones I was involved in were not justified? I'm the first to agree that there must be a way to avoid edit wars in general, but the only solution here is to create an arbitration committee for content disputes, and before we have that edit wars are inevitable. --Wik 17:54, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Consideration
Thanks for fixing the "may be considered a forerunner" thing. You have good copy-editing skills. --Uncle Ed 20:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Death camp is not semi permanently protected. It is protected until you and Lir can agree on the issue that you were edit warring about. Stop messing up Protected page. Angela. 03:36, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreement with Lir will not happen. So if you wait for that, it's permanent. If you don't like me pointing that fact out, just unprotect the article. --Wik 03:39, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

VfD
I moved a lot things off VfD to the talk pages today because VfD was 110kb, which is completely unacceptable. I tend to move discussions where they are too long, or liable to get too long, or where the outcome is almost certainly delete. In the Cruikshank case, I thought the article was almost certainly going to be delete at the end of the five days and that the discussion was not likely to be interesting enough to be archived, so it might as well take place on the talk page and be deleted along with the article. Other discussions are worth saving and are moved to /delete subpages at the end of the five days, which is probably what I'll do with some of the other ones I moved today that were moved for the reason they were too long. Angela. 20:30, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Earlier this evening I deleted George Francis Cruickshank per your request on the Pump, but Angela just alerted me that Anthony listed it on VfU because it had not been listed five days so I undeleted it. Tomorrow will be five days so, unless the vote suddently swings the other way or someone else beats me to it, I will redelete it tomorrow. -- Viajero 23:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks. --Wik 23:18, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
You have been nominated for adminship. Although some nasty comments from the usual people, I think there are enough support votes. 66.36.249.149 07:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've removed that nomination, as it was from an anonymous user (217...) with a history of troublemaking and vandalism, who in fact was banned shortly thereafter for vandalizing another article. The user above (66...) is an anonymous proxy, and possibly the same user. None of this is particularly related to you or a comment on your fitness for adminship; you're free to nominate yourself for adminship if you believe you should have it. --Delirium 07:21, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * What article exactly did he vandalize? I guess nominating me for adminship was just too much "troublemaking". In any case, I don't see why there was a need to remove the nomination so quickly, even though there is no doubt the Angela cabal will always muster enough votes to veto such a nomination. But I want to thank two of the coolest Wikipedians, Dori and Secretlondon, for their admirable groupthink-resistance. --Wik 19:17, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no cabal. Angela. 23:08, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * I would be pleased to nominate you on my own account, Wik, if that fits in with your wishes. Frankly, I'm not sure that I'd vote for you. But then I'm not sure I'd vote against you either. I greatly admire your edits and your ruthless dedication to accuracy, but am less enamoured with your propensity to get into edit wars. (Yeah, pot, kettle, "he that is without sin, cast the first stone", all that stuff.) I thought about doing exactly that yesterday - i.e., replacing your (probably invalid) anon nomination with a (presumably valid) nomination of my own. But in the end I decided not to as I wasn't sure if you really wanted to deal with the wikistress of it all. Anyway, just say the word, and I'll nominate you. Or not, as you please. And vote for you? .... Maybe. I'm still thinking about that. Best wishes -- Tannin 08:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see how you can nominate one without implicitly voting for him. In general, of course I could make use of the adminship, so if I were successfully nominated I'd accept. But that is unlikely given the known hostility of a number of users, who already called for my ban. --Wik 08:11, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

East Germany
Wik, please... cut out the pointless multiple reversions and edit wars. Even if/when your edit may be better, you wind up looking bad. Try discussing differences in talk, and if that doesn't work, try asking other wikipedians for their opinions. -- Infrogmation 07:21, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I care more about the quality of the articles than how I look. Asking other Wikipedians has never resolved an edit war I was in; what's needed is a formal arbitration procedure that would result in binding decisions on disputed content. --Wik 07:26, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry Wik - we are going to mostly focus on behavior. So listen to Infrogmation. --mav 07:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, he's trying to cut out alternate spellings in some of the cities that are in Bavaria, Germany.

Wik, what is the big problem with those alternate spellings in those articles about Germany? Please don't touch the articles until we get to some agreement over this. WhisperToMe 00:04, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Those are insignificant villages which are not "often called" anything in English. Just because every German ä, ö, ü can be rendered ae, oe, ue, does not mean we mention this in every article containing such letters. We don't have "Gerhard Schröder, often spelled in English Gerhard Schroeder" either. --Wik 00:11, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

But look at Hermann Goering... and besides, thanks for tipping me off. ;) And yes, we SHOULD mention this as the difference in spelling of names can be confusing for some. I know that people have been confused over multiple spellings of names, e.g. Akhilleus, an alt spelling of Achilles. WhisperToMe 00:49, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * This shouldn't be in the article as it gives the false impression that it is a particular alternate spelling for that name. Redirects are OK, though. Feel free to create Schoellkrippen etc. --Wik 01:02, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

But it is an alternate spelling. Most people who speak English do not use the umlauts, so the spelling Goering is more commonly seen than Göring. Therefore, one should not that Goering is the spelling most often used in the English language. WhisperToMe 01:49, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree on that particular name, but I agree with Wik that we don't need this for every single German village that has an umlaut in its name. --Delirium 02:02, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'd add that while, say, fifty years ago, umlauts were rarely used in English, their use has been increasing tremendously in recent times. Many books now use Göring or Führer, rather than Goering or Fuehrer. (Goebbels, say, is a different matter, since that is how the name is spelled in German). john 02:20, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It depends on which name it is. E.G. Düsseldorf is most commonly spelled as just that in English, displacing Duesseldorf, while "Goering" is still more common than "Göring". WhisperToMe 02:33, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps over all. But in recent scholarly works, Göring is probably replacing Goering as the spelling of choice. Presumably this will eventually filter on down to the masses. john 03:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anthony DiPierro
Hi Wik,

please stop reverting all of Anthony's edits. Anthony is not officially banned. He has, in my opinion, done some trolling, but it will be up to the arbitration committee to decide whether this is grounds for banning. In the meantime, please treat Anthony with the same respect that you extend to other Wikipedians, and only revert edits when you really have to. Better yet, spend time doing something else entirely and let others deal with the problem.

Please also note that our guidelines recommend not to revert the same page more than 3 times a day.—Eloquence 21:17, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not reverting all of his edits, only the most stupid ones. And I don't see others dealing with the problem. As to the 3-revert guideline, it's not official and it doesn't make sense to me, so I'm not following it. --Wik 21:25, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Stettin
Let's keep one name in the article okay? The Polish Szczecin is mentioned in the first sentence, and the German and English Stettin is used elsewhere. Jor 23:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Stettin is not English. --Wik 00:12, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * It is the more common name. And most English speakers can't even pronounce Szczecin. Jor 00:22, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * No it isn't. Google: "Stettin Poland" - 524, "Szczecin Poland" - 15,000. --Wik 00:23, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Words
Wik, please stop rv the defintion that was used ... and is explained by wordspy. Wordspy is an authority on words; it is the exact explainations. Sincerely, JDR [as an expample, it is used in the google article ... http://www.wordspy.com/words/google.asp in the links ...]

 * No, it isn't. It's just some website. It's OK as an external link, but not within the article. --Wik 19:49, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Wik here; I'd never even heard of this website, so I searched for it on Alexa.com (amazon.com's website traffic ranking service), and this site is barely on the radar: -DropDeadGorgias 20:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 199 Alexa is not "barely on the radar." Wikipedia is around 800. - Hephaestos|§ 20:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Oops, I'm a moron, I included the wrong link. Here's the right one:  - it ranks something like 36,000.  -DropDeadGorgias 19:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't take a side. But please please don't just revert the edit by saying only 'rv'. Such revertion is immediately followed by another revertion. -- Taku 20:48, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Look at the edit history. I made my point before. --Wik 20:49, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Not everyone is closely involved in edits. -- Taku 20:50, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

I unbanned you. I feel I need to protect you from the US right. Hope you don't mind. Secretlondon 20:50, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course not. Thanks. It's great to have you here. --Wik 21:05, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I've protected Pila now. Can you please stop and converse with the people you are reverting? Follow Conflict resolution. If you feel it's broken down, request comments, request mediation, do what you have to do. Just please stop the revert wars. I know, it takes two sides. I'm asking you not to be one of those sides right now. Let's settle things. Thanks, Wik. Jwrosenzweig 20:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I made my point. The Google stats clearly prove that it is not the German name today. Nico didn't react to that. Furthermore, I announced a slowdown in the reverts precisely to defuse the edit war. And what's the thanks for that? Since Nico immediately reverted, you now protected the Wrong Version! --Wik 21:05, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * A google result of exactly 262 is irrelevant as a source of German usage. The German name of the city is surely Scheidemühl. The fact that some people may use a foreign (local) name on the internet does not make any difference. You, a Pole (I guess), have no right to decide which names can be used in German. Nico 21:19, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 262 for the one, and only 6 for the other, is certainly statistically relevant. Schneidemühl is no longer used. It has gone out of business. It is history. It is an ex-name. --Wik 21:27, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Am I just in a humorous mood today, or were you alluding to the Dead Parrot sketch there? Anyhow, Wik, I'm sorry you feel I protected the wrong version...of course, your versions have been protected by me in the past, and no one has complained to me about it.  Anyhow, auto-reverting a page every hour isn't really an end to the edit war....it's just a way of trying to keep it stealthy and unnoticed on RC, in my opinion.  I don't see that agreeing to only launch attacks every three days would make war any less warlike than attacking everyday would.  Maybe I missed something.  I hope though that your note above indicates a general desire to avoid edit wars...you really need to, in my humble opinion.  Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, but people have told me previously that edit wars are bad precisely because they clutter up RC. That's why they came up with the 3-revert rule, which of course does nothing to solve an edit war and only stretches it out. So I thought it would be appreciated if I reverted only once an hour. Apparently I was wrong, so I will revert immediately again next time. I want to avoid edit wars, but if the other side can't be reasoned with, and there is no arbitration system for content disputes, I have no other option (except leaving things stand which I know are wrong, and that I refuse to do; if I'm banned for that, so be it). (You are right about the parrot. To get the correct version through can be as difficult here as it is for the man in the sketch to get a replacement for his dead parrot. Sometimes it's even as futile as the attempt of the man in the cheese shop to get some cheese.) --Wik 21:51, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

You need to chill out - Anthony is not worth being banned for. Secretlondon 23:14, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I think his trolling is obvious enough for him to be banned before me. --Wik 23:16, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think they'll ban both of you. Even though Anthony is clearly worse. Secretlondon 23:18, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

To continue the original discussion... shows that this city is really named Pila, so what's wrong with getting rid of the old name? ugen64 02:41, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs on Talk:Pila. --Wik 16:52, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion
Dear Wik, why dont you just lay low for a while, to allow everybody else's adrenaline levels to normal? You can help me fix the Punic Wars and subpages. There are so many things to be done! And since its such a boring subject its edit war free! Tell me what you think, all the best, Muriel 10:47, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * please dont start rverting again. If you want to see Anthony banned or something, atracting sympathy to his cause is not going to help. And this is the last time i bother you! Muriel 16:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * He started reverting. --Wik 16:42, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Every time I see you getting into revert wars, I think of all the existing and new articles that you could be using your considerable talents in improving without annoying people or making enemies. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Revert wars are about improving articles. I don't care if I annoy trolls, or those people who can't discern trolls from serious editors. --Wik 17:05, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

German names
I see you are allowed back. Are you going to continue removing all German names from German towns currently in Poland, or claiming they are historical names only? If that's the case, I'll just wait until you are banned again before correcting your misinformation, I'm tired of your revert wars. Jor 16:47, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you going to stop lying? I have never removed a German name. That they are historical only is an incontrovertible fact. You might have missed a little event in 1945. --Wik 16:52, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion
How about instead of constantly reverting, you do it once, if you get reverted, put the page and maybe the diff in a list of your own (call it "Articles that I think are innaccurate" or whatever). Keep making other good contributions like you do (new articles, info, spelling, catching vandalisms, copyediting of). There is plenty of things that need fixing on Wikipedia that no one would argue with. As it looks to me, the reversions do not contribute anything worthwhile to wikipedia. It seems to me that where you are likely to get into a revert war is in matters of convention and inclusions of different names. This may be important in the long term, but it is not important in the short term. I think you are a very good contributor, and you could make Wikipedia better if you stopped engaging in these wasteful revert wars. Obviously it is your time to spent as you please. If however your goal is to make Wikipedia better, I would suggest changing course. I really think that your behavior is hurting Wikipedia a lot more than any innacuracies or unconventionalities do. Just let the process work for a while. Report users you think are making bad edits and see if mediation/arbitration works. Give it a couple of months, and then you can go back to the old behavior if it doesn't work. You'll have your target list as I mentioned above and you can continue to shoot from the hip. Of course the changes others make, may nag you to the point that you just can't let it go, but I hope that's not the case. Also, I guess you may disagree with me on which behavior improves and hurts Wikipedia more. Just some friendly advice, Dori | Talk 17:23, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * What hurts Wikipedia is the tolerance of all kinds of trolls, POV pushers, and morons. Ignoring them doesn't help. Is it better to have an apparent peace and an uncluttered RC while under the surface one article after the other is damaged? The list you suggest would just get longer and longer, and what am I supposed to do with it? If I later were to revert all of it at once it would be even more disrupting. A revert war is not wasteful if the right side prevails, as I have many times; it was me who made that Indian POV-pusher give up after reverting 2002 Gujarat violence a hundred times, otherwise this article would still be full of nonsense today, and not only that, the person would have been encouraged to spread his POV onto more and more articles. Ultimately trolls and POV pushers are less determined than one who cares about the truth. As I said over and over, I wish there was a way to avoid edit wars other than just giving in to the trolls - but this would require a system of content arbitration. As long as no one seems to be interested in that, I can't be blamed for edit wars. No one, not even Jimbo (see above on this page), has ever explicitly answered me this: what am I to do when I am in a conflict with someone who insists on something I am certain is wrong, and who cannot be reasoned with, and not enough other people are getting involved? 1) Let the error stand, or 2) Edit war? --Wik 18:03, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Arbitration is also for content disputes, so I would say let the error stand, until it is resolved. All disputes result from the content of some page. As I said, I wouldn't want the pages to degenerate, but the wiki process is to use the conglomeration of many knowledgeable individuals to make pages better. Answer this, what if you get banned? Will those pages be any better than if you hadn't reverted them? I would say no, but at the same time your other contributions will have been lost, and this would hurt Wikipedia more. I am not saying that bad editors should be allowed to roam, but rather that it needs to be an orderly process. Also, I don't think name-calling helps anyone. I think mediation/arbitration is currently broken, but it was just the first attempt, and it can be fixed IMO. You just have to give it time. Dori | Talk 18:12, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * That is not my understanding. Mav said on this page: "we are going to mostly focus on behavior". And indeed, the present arbitration committee is probably not qualified for content arbitration. A content arbitration committee would have to consist of editors recognized for their knowledge in the various fields, not for their experience in wikipolitics. I agree there should be an orderly process, I just don't see it in the near future. So if edit wars underline the need for it and speed up the establishment of such a process, that's a good thing. As to what if I'm banned - in that case Wikipedia would have indicted itself so that I would just give up on it for the time being, though I would expect that sooner or later (though it may take years) either Wikipedia would adopt better governance or there would be a successful fork with better governance (which essentially would mean zero tolerance for trolls and other useless users who tyrannize the real editors). --Wik 18:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, focussing on behavior does not preclude focussing on vandalistic (?), trolling, POV, inaccurate editing, etc behaviors. The arbitration committee does not need to know directly whether the content is valid. Each side has to provide evidence for their claims, and the committee can look at the evidence and decide who is right. Content that cannot be verified shouldn't be in Wikipedia anyway. Also, if you took more time to converse with other editors (not necessarily those you have a conflict with), to explain your position, and solicit their help, I think you would fare a lot better in getting yourself taken more seriously, as well as getting issues resolved. I would strongly suggest you show up on IRC from time to time and chat with other editors there. This is after all a Wiki and one person cannot do it alone. Dori | Talk 18:57, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I tried that before without success. The result is always that a page is protected, and then nothing happens, as one side will be satisfied to have its version protected and not feel the need to discuss anything. Or can I ask you to unprotect Pila and defend my edit, which I have backed up with Google figures but which Nico and Darkelf, two German-revisionists, like to revert based on nothing but empty claims? And this is indeed a wiki - which is why I don't like extra-wiki forums like mailing lists or IRC which just help form cabals. I want to abolish cabals not become part of them. --Wik 19:09, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I can look at the issue on Pila if the other editors also want me to take a look and would agree for me to resolve the issue. If they won't accept that, then there is no point in removing the protection because another revert war will ensue, and I hate revert wars. Most of these naming issues could be resolved by explaining what has happened (i.e. this was the name from so and so, it changed to so after so, now it is so...) Sure it would be ugly, but that's still encyclopedic in value as it gives a part of the history.
 * I also hate the mailing lists, but IRC is different. You can't have a real time conversation on a wiki. Dori | Talk 21:32, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Paid you 5 wikis for MPs elected in the UK general election, 1974 (October) - sorry it took me a while to notice. Secretlondon 23:15, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I'd hate to see you get banned over something as idiotic as Yellow Pig Day. Please choose your battles, there is always more to do on Wikipedia than any person has time to do. Reverting over and over again is not a discussion, nor an arguement. It looks like you're just trying to get your way by brute force. I notice you've been reverting people like Angela and MyRedDice, who I hope even you will not dismiss as being "trolls" or "vandals". I'm starting to loose my patience with you. -- Infrogmation 00:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I notice you think anyone who reverts Angela or MyRedDice must be wrong automatically. The fact is that I gave my reason repeatedly, and they reverted me without discussion. You may want to tell Angela or MyRedDice to choose their battles, or to stop trying to get their way by brute force. Finally RickK of all people deleted the page. I was perfectly right about the issue. This page would have been deleted long before if it hadn't been deleted from VfD by Anthony, causing the recent edit war over VfD, which derailed the normal processing of that item. --Wik 00:57, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * "I notice you think anyone who reverts Angela or MyRedDice must be wrong automatically." Hunh? You are jumping to an incorrect assumption there, unsupported by the text you have read. Where in the world did you get that conclusion? Or are you stating something you believe is false, intending your comment as sarcasm?  Wondering, -- Infrogmation 01:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Then why did you say "I notice you've been reverting people like Angela and MyRedDice, who I hope even you will not dismiss as being "trolls" or "vandals". I'm starting to loose my patience with you."? Seems like you were condemning the very idea of reverting Angela or MyRedDice. --Wik 01:14, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I said "I notice you've been reverting people like Angela and MyRedDice, who I hope even you will not dismiss as being "trolls" or "vandals" because you have tried to defend your multiple revert practice as necessary agains trolls and vandals, and I hoped you would recognize that not everyone you revert can reasonably be put in that category. Is that any clearer? Sometimes you seem to be struggling to create unstated (and unintended) meanings to add to my comment. The "must be wrong automatically" and "condemning the very idea of reverting Angela or MyRedDice" seems to me like you are pulling in ideas out of thin air. This is one of the things that mistifies me about you Wik: your reading comprehension seems so excellent one minute, and so poor the next. Returning to your question, I said "I'm starting to loose my patience with you." because I have been starting to loose patience with you. -- Infrogmation 05:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, that's brilliant logic, you are losing your patience with me because you're losing my patience with me. Are you suggesting that your last two sentences were not connected? Was I wrong to assume that you're losing your patience with me because I revert Angela and MyRedDice? And, if so, does it not follow that you think it is bad to revert Angela and MyRedDice? (And if not, what other reason causes you to lose your patience with me?) I have never said I revert only trolls and vandals, though that is certainly the bulk of the problem. --Wik 05:25, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * You asked me why I wrote it, I explained that I wrote it because it was true. That last sentence was connected equally to all the other sentence of the paragraph as to reasons for my diminishing patience. My diminishing patience is connected to your continued proclivity to get into edit wars, and to my perception that you are wasting much of your energies in heated conflicts over trivialities. I wish to add that my diminishing patience is also connected to my frustration with myself for spending time trying to give you advice that will improve relations for both you and many other valuable contributors and lessen the likelyhood of your being banned. I may well have been wasting my time. Right now, though, I'm feeling more amused than impatient. I'm amused that you seem to think you know what I mean better than I do. I'm amused that I got an edit conflict when last I tried to post here because you were having an edit war on your own talk page. You and Anthony have both stated that you disagree with the proposition that multiple revert are bad for the Wikipedia. Perhaps we should fork a new project out, the "Revertpedia" or "Wikirevertrevert", where you and others of this opinion could spend all your time reverting each other. As for me, I'm going to find some different trivia for my attention now. Cheers, -- amused Infrogmation 05:41, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "This page would have been deleted long before if it hadn't been deleted from VfD by Anthony, causing the recent edit war over VfD, which derailed the normal processing of that item. " Quite possibly. It might have been deleted sooner without the distraction of your multiple reverts as well. -- Infrogmation 01:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * No, nothing was happening. I asked for its deletion on the Village Pump to no effect. --Wik 01:14, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I notice that you have requested the arbitration of Dark Elf. If you wish to be represented by an advocate in the matter, please see Office of Members' Advocates. -- Emsworth 19:18, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Why did you delete The Dullness of 1729? RickK 04:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Anthony is an obvious troll, I revert him on principle. --Wik 04:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Not an acceptable answer. This cannot stand.  RickK 04:12, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * It stands as long as I'm here. --Wik 04:13, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * And it will be reverted and page protected as long as I'm here. RickK 04:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Unless you get a consensus that this is the proper response to Anthony, blanket reverting another user's edits regardless of content is a fast track to getting blocked again. -- Infrogmation 19:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I unblocked you as I felt you were getting a hard time. However you have to help yourself. Anthony is clearly disruptive to the project, but why waste your time fighting him? Some people will even protect Anthony because he's fighting you. You need to concentrate on writing good articles (which I know you do) and less time fighting trolls and morons. You seem to be your own worse enemy at the moment. Please lay off the reversion wars, you are getting on everyone's nerves (myself included). Secretlondon 19:05, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * And let the trolls loose? Someone has to fight them, I wish someone else would do it. Just consider Alexandros, without my vigilance he would be sysop by now. In any case, RickK's unilateral ban was squarely against the rules, and I appreciate your reversal. I know it's possible that I get officially banned, but I take that risk. If Jimbo or the committee decide that an archtroll like Anthony is valued more than one of the most prolific contributors, that is their choice to make. --Wik 19:23, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

If you do it again, I will block you again. RickK 19:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's move forward. Anthony is pissing people off. Why don't we propose that the committee consider Anthony's banning? Once he's banned we can all revert his edits Secretlondon 19:39, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Good idea. But the committee doesn't seem to move at the moment. They take only Jimbo's referrals, and it's hard to get Jimbo's ear. I'll try anyway. By the way, if you're getting a hard time for unblocking me, I understand if you don't do it next time. I don't want you to be the next to be banned (or desysopped). --Wik 19:49, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik. You know what I think of your behavior, and I am afraid you are not willing to take the least advice from me. Nevertheless, I would like to tell you that this kind of polarisation that you are trying to propagate ("good" vs. "bad" sysops) will make you even more unpopular, and I shouldn't wonder if you were blocked again and again in violation of protocols, in which case I predict that everybody would be rather relieved to see such drastic measures being applied to you. I suggest you don't let it come to that. You don't gain much by annoying everybody, including those who still defend you. Kosebamse 20:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I am saying what I think, popular or not. And I do happen to think that there are good and bad sysops. As to violation of protocols, tell that to Hephaestos, Ed, and RickK who banned me against the rules. (Yes, those are "bad" sysops.) --Wik 20:10, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * You might wish to waste a thought on the question why such excellent sysops went that far. No, it's not because they are "bad sysops". You are exceptional in your desire to dominate, and if they decided that it would be appropriate to violate procedures in order to stop you from damaging Wikipedia even further, that only demonstrates the quality of their judgement. Kosebamse 20:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * That comment only demonstrates that your mind is set up and you are incapable of even entertaining the thought that maybe they aren't excellent sysops. You are explicitly saying that violating the rules is OK if the right people do it! As to me "damaging Wikipedia", well, that comment is just beyond the pale to be worth of a reply. I guess you also think Anthony is a just fine contributor. And black is white. --Wik 20:25, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * It is my experience that tells me they are excellent sysops and that their judgement is to be trusted. I have been here long before you, and so have Ed and Hephaestos (not sure about Rick). I don't say it's okay what they did, but it's understandable in view of your reckless behavior. Extraordinary challenges, extraordinary measures, sad as it may be. You are damaging Wikipedia by your total disregard of civility and discussion and your inability to avoid silly wars. I won't discuss your cheap polemics. Kosebamse 20:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please grow up and learn to discuss and compromise. These are skills that are beneficial to adults in today's international community. silsor 23:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have discussed. I don't see room for a compromise here. It's a case of blatant self-promotion. If anyone needs to grow up, it's probably one who pretends to have an empire in his living room. --Wik 23:05, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I am unblocking you. But you have to be on good behavior. I'm not going to help you out again. Basically, I'd suggest not reverting pages simply because a user you don't like has modified them. If Anthony posts something bad, by all means change it, but don't do it simply for the purpose of reverting it. I'd also suggest that posting in the talk page as to why you are taking action is a good idea (not to persuade Mr. DiPierro, but to persuade others not to block you). Why don't you work on other stuff, and leave the edit wars alone, at least for a while? john 04:39, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi Wik, RickK has requested mediation between you and him on Requests for mediation. Are you willing to accept this request? If so, please could you express any preferences regarding who should mediate this dispute. The members of Mediation Committee are the recommended choice, but you may ask anyone if you like. Please state whether there are any mediators that are acceptable to you, or any that you would refuse to accept. You may also e-mail me or any of the other mediators if you do not want your concerns publically posted and this communication will kept as private as you like. Our e-mail addresses are listed at Mediation committee. If you choose not to accept mediation, please state this on the page or let one of the mediators know. Thank you. Angela. 12:30, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Jimbo has already made clear that the vigilantism must stop. And otherwise, my issues with Anthony are not Rick's business; besides, I have already asked for arbitration on those. Rick is clearly out to have me banned, and I don't see how any mediation could change his mind on this, so I'm not interested. --Wik 17:36, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for letting me know. Angela. 00:01, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. I forgot to say thanks for spotting that Alexandros was Sennheiser and averting a potential RFA disaster. :)

 * Didn't you support him even after he admitted it? --Wik 17:36, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, but supporting him knowing it was Alexandros, not Sennheiser, is a very different thing in my opinion. He wouldn't have been made one anyway, even with my supporting vote as so many people were against it as a result of your suggestion the two were the same person. It avoided the issues of this being found out later which would have undoubtedly led to a lengthy de-sysopping discussion. Angela. 00:01, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

 * From the Wikien mailing list, "O.k., I officially refer this to the arbitration committee, the matters of User:Wik, User:Hephaestos, and User:Anthony DiPierro"
 * Would those who are involved in those matters set forth BRIEF statements below of the users and issues involved. Please make headings ===NPOV title=== Fred Bauder 16:58, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC) (on the page Requests for arbitration) Fred Bauder 17:02, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help keep an eye on user:OneVoice. He is determined to give articles a pro-Israel/anti-Arab slant wherever he can. Sometimes it is subtle, other times blatant. Thanks. -- Viajero 21:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * But that would mean getting into edit wars with him. Some people don't like that. --The Incorrigible Wik 22:48, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * My point is that if you are going get into edit wars, why waste your time with a silly troll like Anthony? This is target far more worthy of your attention. Glad to see you keep up with the mailing list. ;-) -- Viajero 23:28, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gödel machine
That wasn't a minor edit of Gödel machine. :-) Paul Beardsell 07:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I just moved the "proposed" inside the main text. That seemed out of place. --Wik 07:29, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

It is this type of misinformation which is much more dangerous than the likes of that of Arthur T Murray on the AI page. But then, in my view, it is the whole of Science that needs to be on its guard. And, in this case, the Swiss tax payer! Paul Beardsell 07:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

evidence
Please add your evidence to Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence and/or Matter of Wik evidence. Specifically please track down specific diffs and add them to that page and explain what the problems are. You may want to work together with other users in order to create a summary of the evidence. The arbitration committee cannot decide an issue based on statements (statements are only a starting point) - we need evidence. --mav 04:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

invitation
Please see Talk:American twenty dollar bill. You get this invitation because your name appears in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). Feel free to ignore if you are disinterested. - Optim 05:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

List of Green Party issues
Hi Wik, the "List of Green Party issues" got started by me with the goal in mind to list all articles concerning green party issues. One problem was that most of the articles can be found also by at least one redirect; sometimes seemingly equal articles (Green party vs. Green Party vs. Green parties) weren't redirects (they are now), but entirely different articles. The same with some of the parties listed by native name. To avoid confusion and to ease the work of editors concerned with green party issues, I decided to include a list of the "also known as" for each entry, so it is easy to see if something isn't correct yet. I don't think it is a problem for readers to have some lists attached, and it helps editors. If you don't think this is true, I would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on Talk:List of Green Party issues instead of deciding and starting what easily could become an edit war. Maybe there are good reasons for not listing the redirects and aliases -- but at the moment, I don't see them (and even if one wants to do this, one should find a coherent way to list the parties -- by english name or by native name, etc.). till we *) 12:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You need to go to the page and vote regarding the changes some are trying to make there.

Hey Wik, I very much like the 1920 in Germany, 1921 in France, and so forth pages. What's the source you're using for those, though? The style seems rather antiquated, so I assume it's a near contemporary source of some sort? john 19:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's mainly adapted from the Annual Register of the time. --Wik 23:35, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

RfC
Hey WiK - When you have a moment, could you leave a comment at Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia? I noticed that you reverted Levzur's removal of a paragraph - he deleted it again (after reverts by others as well). --mav 05:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Wiki - seconded. :-) I was about to ask for your views when I noticed that Mav had beaten me to the punch... Anyway, your thoughts would be most welcome. -- ChrisO 08:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Danzig
Wik, do you really think Danzig ought to be a disambiguation page? It seems to me that nearly all references to Danzig will be to the city, rather than to the band, which is not especially well known. What's wrong with a redirect with a disambiguation notice at the top? john 05:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I see your point, but I don't like disambiguation notices that don't correspond to the actual title of a page. And the existing links to Danzig could be changed to go directly to Gdansk. --Wik 05:50, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

That's true. I suppose this is a better solution, but we should work to change all the Danzig links to Gdansk. john 05:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've made a start on changing the links, but there's a ton of them. john 06:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Finished. --Wik 06:14, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I left a question for you on Talk:One thousand seven hundred twenty-nine. -- Toby Bartels 04:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe that you have previously requested arbitration against RickK, and possibly others. If you wish to make a statement on the matter at Matter of Wik, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Martin 21:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Since this is treated simply as the "Matter of Wik", which probably means that any judgement can only go against me, I don't think it would be worthwhile to make a case against others. I requested arbitration against Anthony, but this matter has not been accepted. --Wik 22:36, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

The arbitrators currently have the freedom to Decree anything they like. Further, "Matter of Wik" naturally includes both your actions, and the actions of others towards you. No man is an island. However, if you do not feel that commenting would be an efficient use of your time, that is not a problem.

You may wish to answer any allegations against yourself that you feel are inaccurate or dated, or else accept criticism where you feel it is accurate. Again, if you feel this would be a waste of your time, we will manage without. Martin 22:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jumping in... it seems that you're being heard first, and anthony's case will either get accepted or rejected by the committee after that. You weren't expecting the arbitration committee to say that one of the two of you is right and the other is wrong were you? Both your actions and his impact on the whole community, a great many other users are involved. You might choose to make a statement in defence of your actions without lodging complaints against other users – there's an empty section at Matter of Wik waiting for your input. :) Have you seen Association of Members' Advocates?  fabiform | talk 22:59, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Friendly warning
Removing entire sections full of facts that don't sertve your political agenda is not the way to improve encyclopedia. You will be stopped from vandalizing either easy way or hard way. Your choice. Consider yourself warned. --Humus sapiens 22:08, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wik/Archive February 2004


text:
Dale Gardner

Dale Allan Gardner (November 8, 1948 – February 19, 2014) was a NASA astronaut, and naval flight officer who flew two Space Shuttle missions during the mid 1980s.

Personal information
Born on November 8, 1948, in Fairmont, Minnesota, Gardner grew up in Sherburn, Minnesota, and Savanna, Illinois. He considered his hometown to be Clinton, Iowa, where his mother, Alice Gardner, resides. He lived with his second wife Sherry in Golden, Colorado and later in Divide, Colorado until his death. An avid sports enthusiast, he enjoyed snow skiing, golfing, tennis, woodworking and photography.

Education
Gardner graduated as valedictorian of his class from Savanna Community High School, in Savanna, Illinois, in 1966. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1970.

Military experience
Upon graduation from the University of Illinois in 1970, Gardner entered into active duty with the United States Navy and was assigned to the Aviation Officer Candidate School at Pensacola, Florida. He was commissioned an Ensign and was selected as the most promising naval officer from his class. In October 1970 he began Basic Naval Flight Officer training with the VT-10 squadron at Pensacola, graduating with the highest academic average ever achieved in the history of the squadron. He proceeded to the Naval Air Technical Training Center at NAS Glynco, Georgia, for Advanced Naval Flight Officer training and was selected a Distinguished Naval Graduate and awarded his Naval Flight Officer wings on May 5, 1971. At the Naval Air Test Center at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, from May 1971 to July 1973, he was assigned to the Weapons Systems Test Division and involved in initial F-14 Tomcat developmental test and evaluation as Project Officer for Inertial Navigation and Avionics Systems. Gardner's next assignment was with the first operational F-14 squadron (VF-1) at Naval Air Station Miramar, California, from where he flew in the Tomcat and participated in two Western Pacific and Indian Ocean cruises while deployed aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. From December 1976 until July 1978, he was assigned to Test and Evaluation Squadron 4 (VX-4) aboard NAS Point Mugu, California, involved in the operational test and evaluation of Navy fighter aircraft.

NASA experience
Gardner was selected as an astronaut candidate by NASA in January 1978, reporting to the Johnson Space Center in July 1978. In August 1979 he completed a one-year training and evaluation period, making him eligible for assignment as a Mission Specialist Astronaut. He subsequently served as the Astronaut Project Manager for the flight software in the Space Shuttle onboard computers leading up to the first flight in April 1981. He then served as a Support Crew Astronaut for the fourth flight (STS-4). He flew as a mission specialist on STS-8 (August 30 to September 5, 1983) and STS-51-A (November 8–16, 1984). Gardner logged a total of 337 hours in space and 225 orbits of the Earth on these two flights.

He logged more than 2,300 hours flying time in over 20 different types of aircraft and spacecraft. Prior to the Challenger accident, Gardner was chosen to be a member of the first Shuttle mission to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. That flight and the Vandenberg launch capability itself were canceled after the accident.

In October 1986, following 8½ years with NASA, Gardner returned to his Navy duties and was assigned to the U.S. Space Command, Colorado Springs, Colorado. He served over two years as the Deputy Chief, Space Control Operations Division in Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station and, after promotion to the rank of captain in June 1989, became the Command's Deputy Director for Space Control at Peterson Air Force Base. His space control responsibilities included the surveillance and tracking of all man-made objects in Earth orbit and the protection of U.S. and allied space systems. Gardner retired from the U.S. Navy in October 1990 and accepted a position with TRW Inc. in Colorado Springs, being placed as a program manager in the Colorado Springs Engineering Operations of TRW's Space and Defense Sector. In that capacity, he was involved in the development of both civilian and military space and defense high technology programs. After TRW, he became the manager of Northrup Grumman's operations in Colorado Springs. Gardner became the Associate Director for Renewable Fuels Science and Technology at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2003, and retired in January 2013.

Space flight experience
STS-8 launched from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida on August 30, 1983. The crew aboard Space Shuttle Challenger included Richard Truly (Spacecraft Commander), Daniel Brandenstein (Pilot), and fellow Mission Specialists Guion Bluford and William Thornton. This was the third flight of the Orbiter Challenger and the first night launch and landing mission of the Shuttle program. During the flight, the crew of STS-8 deployed the Indian National Satellite (INSAT-1B), operated and tested the Canadian-built Remote Manipulator System (RMS) robot arm, and performed numerous earth resources and space science experiments. STS-8 completed 98 Earth orbits in 145 hours before landing at Edwards Air Force Base, California on September 5, 1983.

STS-51-A, the fourteenth flight of the Shuttle program, launched on November 8, 1984 (his birthday). The crew aboard Space Shuttle Discovery included Frederick Hauck (Spacecraft Commander), David Walker (Pilot), and fellow Mission Specialists Joseph Allen and Anna Fisher. This was the second flight of Discovery. During this mission the crew deployed two satellites, Canada's Anik D-2 (TELESAT-H) and the Hughes' LEASAT-1 (Syncom IV-1), now in service with the U.S. Navy. In a dramatic salvage effort, they also rendezvoused with and returned from space two satellites previously launched into improper orbits, the Indonesian Palapa B-2 and the Western Union Westar VI communication satellites. Gardner and Allen completed two spacewalks totaling 12 hours and flew the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) backpack during the salvage operation. STS-51-A completed 127 orbits of the Earth before landing at the Kennedy Space Center on November 16, 1984.

Organizations
Gardner was a Member of Phi Eta Sigma, Sigma Tau, and Tau Beta Pi, and a fellow of the American Astronautical Society.

Special honors
Gardner was awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal (1984, 1989, 1990); the Distinguished Flying Cross (1989); the Meritorious Unit Commendation (1976); the Humanitarian Service Medal (1979) and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (1984). His other honors included the NASA Space Flight Medal (1983 and 1984); the Master Space Badge (1989); and the Lloyd's of London Meritorious Service Medal (1984).

A bridge connecting Savanna, Illinois & Sabula, Iowa over the Mississippi River was built through interstate collaboration in dedication to Dale Gardner and US Veterans in November 2017 as the Dale Gardner Veterans Memorial Bridge. This new $80.6 million bridge was constructed as a replacement to the 86 year old Savanna-Sabula Bridge.

Death
Gardner died on February 19, 2014, after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke at his home. He was 65.

title: Dale Gardner


text:
Pistis

In Greek mythology, Pistis (Ancient Greek: Πίστις) was the personification of good faith, trust and reliability. In Christianity and in the New Testament, pistis is typically translated as "faith". The word is mentioned together with such other personifications as Elpis (Hope), sophrosyne (Prudence), and the Charites, who were all associated with honesty and harmony among people.

Her Roman equivalent was Fides, a personified concept significant in Roman culture.

Additionally, a close linkage between pistis and persuasion developed through the discussion of faith (belief) and was further morphed by an understanding of pistis as a rhetorical technique.

In rhetoric
Pistis in rhetoric can mean "proof" and is the element to induce true judgment through enthymemes, hence to give "proof" of a statement. There are three modes by which this is employed. The first mode is the "subject matter capable of inducing a state of mind within the audience." The second pistis is the "subject itself considered under an appeal to the intellect or in its logical aspects." The third pistis is the "logical, rational, and intellectual aspect of the issue under discussion." All three modes of pistis occur in logos as it appeals to logical persuasion.

Greek rhetoric and Christianity
New Testament translators favor the English word "faith" when translating pistis. Some have argued that the Christian concept of faith (pistis) was borrowed from Greek rhetorical notions of pistis, perhaps making "argument" a better translation than "faith." Christian pistis deems its persuasion in a positive light as the New Testament concepts of pistis require that a listener be knowledgeable of the subject matter at issue and thus able to fully assent. Whereas, the Greeks took the notion of pistis as persuasive discourse that was elliptical and concentrated on the "affect and effect rather than on the representation of the truth." The evolution of pistis in Christianity as a persuasive rhetorical technique starkly contrasts with its meaning used by the Greeks. More recent scholarship has argued for a more robust understanding of pistis that moved beyond a concept of "belief." Teresa Morgan has argued for the concept of "trust." Matthew Bates argues for "allegiance."

title: Pistis


text:
Lake Brienz

Lake Brienz (Brienzersee) is a lake just north of the Alps, in the canton of Bern in Switzerland. It has a length of about 14 km, a width of 2.8 km and a maximum depth of 260 m. Its area is 29.8 km2; the surface is 564 m above the sea-level. It is fed, among others, by the upper reaches of the Aare at its eastern end, the Giessbach at its southern shore from steep, forested and rocky hills of the high Faulhorn and Schwarzhoren more than 2000 m above the lake, as well as by both headwaters of the Lütschine, the Schwarze Lütschine (Black Lütschine) flowing from Grindelwald, and the Weisse Lütschine (White Lütschine) from the Lauterbrunnen Valley, at its southwestern corner. Not far north from Lütschine's inflow, the lake drains into a further stretch of the Aare at its western end. The culminating point of the lake's drainage basin is the Finsteraarhorn at 4,274 metres above sea level.

The village of Brienz, from which the lake takes its name, lies on the northern shore to its eastern end. In the west, the lake is terminated by the Bödeli, a tongue of land that separates it from neighbouring Lake Thun. The village of Bönigen occupies the lake frontage of the Bödeli, whilst the larger resort town of Interlaken lies on the reach of the Aare between the two lakes. The village of Iseltwald lies on the south shore, whilst the villages of Ringgenberg, Niederried and Oberried are on the north shore.

The lake is poor in nutrients, and thus fishing is not very important. Nevertheless, in 2001 10,000 kg of fish were caught.

There have been passenger ships on the lake since 1839, and currently there are five passenger ships on the lake. The ships are operated by BLS AG, the local railway company, and link Interlaken Ost railway station, which they access using a 1.3 km long navigable stretch of the Aare, with Brienz and other lakeside settlements. The ships also connect to the Giessbachbahn, a funicular which climbs up to the famous Giessbach Falls.

The Brünig railway line follows the northern shore of the lake, along with a local road, whilst the A8 motorway adopts an alternative and mostly tunnelled route above the southern shore.

title: Lake Brienz


text:
Talk:Object–verb–agent

The passive voice is still SVO
The article says that the passive voice in English is OVS, but it is not. The article sites the example "The oranges were eaten by Sam" as the passive voice form of "Sam eats the oranges, which is correct. However, if one uses pronouns for "Sam" and "oranges", we see that "He eats them" becomes "They are eaten by him"; if the passive voice were truely OVS, then the sentance would be "Them is eaten by he", or more correctly "them is eaten by him", since "Sam" is the object of a past-tense participial phrase with "eaten by". Please correct me if I am somehow mistaken. Phsyron 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, roughly. I've rewritten the passage to reflect the actual definitions of grammatical terms like subject, object, and agent. Craig Butz 06:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In German OVS is possible
In order to respond to the Oranges Example: The only reason why hapless Sam isn't devoured by that decidedly unfriendly bunch of oranges is the knack of the English language to use a minimum of flection, hence a maximum of context. For a German speaker the sentence would sound strange only because it conveys a certain insistance that it was oranges he ate and nothing else - but would be comprehensible and grammatically perfectly unconspicuous by the conjugation of the verb, something that only huge-*** inflecting languages are able to deliver:

Orangen asz Sam. (the sz is of course the ligature unbeknownst to American browsers, asz is the 3. Pers. Sg. of "essen" = to eat)

The rather funny version would be

Orangen aszen Sam. (where aszen is the 3. Pers. Pl. (!) of "essen")

But OVS is often used in German, even apart from poetry, when the object must be stressed:

"Dieses Wetter mag der Elefant nicht." (with the stress on "dieses" = this)

which translates word-by-word to

"This weather doesn't like the elephant."

but means:

"The elephant doesn't like this particular weather (but others)."

and this meaning is denoted by the use of "der Elefant" (nominative, ["subjective" if you like] case) instead of "den Elefanten" (accusative, [one of the "objective"] cases. So, had the sentence been

"Dieses Wetter mag den Elefanten nicht."

then indeed the sense would be:

"This weather doesn't like the elephant."

 * I think the sentence is possible, but realatively uncommon. Actually, the more inflected, (and less analytic,) a language is, the more possibilities there are to use a creative word order...
 * BTW, isn't the "Eszet" almost discarded from the german language, except for a few particular words?

 * Yes and "ate" is one of the words that retained it :P -- KittySaturn 09:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the ß is still in common use, the spelling has just been regularised so the rules for when to use it and when not to are consistent.

Latin also has the genitive case:

The wine Marci (Marcus' wine) is fine.

and finally the ablative case:

She is cleverer Marco. (than Marco, abl. comparationis, it's hard to find a reasonable example for this elusive case)

Maybe you should add those two to the entry!

Greetings Max

 * German is an incredibly complicated and unusual case. Essentially, under Transformational grammar German is underlyingly SOV (you can see this in phrases such as Ich habe gedacht, dass der Mann den Jungen sah - I thought that the man saw the boy, where the second clause is SOV).  However, in most sentences, the verb moves to the place which would be occupied by a complementizer such as dass or weil. Following this, a word (usually the subject of the sentence, but not always, it can be an object, or even an adverb - for example, you can have Gestern sah der Mann den Jungen -Yesterday the man saw the boy) moves to the specifier of this position, creating the phenomenon you describe above. BovineBeast 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Idea to add a Klingon text as an example
I already wrote the text that would accompany it, but I'm afraid for the moment I'm not gonna write it yet.

"==Long Example== To give you an impression how weird this sounds, here is an excerpt of Klingon spoken in an episode of Star Trek translated to English but with the words left in the Klingon word order.

'Notice: I'm sorry I'm going to take a break, this will have to wait after my break. I'd really appreciate it if you could leave a note on the talk page where I could find such an excerpt. (The Star Trek Wiki maybe????)'

It really sounds far-out as you see. (Double meaning intended!)"

Inuktitut language as OVS
Reading Inuktitut language, I found Inuktitut a good example for OVS, but hestating to put it because I'm not good at linguistics and not sure strictly whether Inuktitut is OVS. --Puzzlet Chung 14:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I can see your point, but--glancing at Inuktitut morphology and syntax--I don't think it's accurate to describe it as consistently OVS. First, the extremely extensive polysyntheticity makes it hard (and perhaps impossible) to apply any such labels to it (more or less proving, I guess, the flaws in this kind of typology).

 * Second, although some of the examples on Inuktitut morphology and syntax appear to place the object before the subject (Nanuq qukiqtara: I just shot the polar bear), others (such as Piitaup takujaatit: Peter sees you) put the subject first. The pattern I can see here is that pronouns (whether subject or object) are suffixed to the verb, and nouns are placed first. There aren't many examples in the Wikipedia articles where both subject and object are nouns, but the one I could find makes me none the wiser as to which word order is preferred: Piitaup paliisi takupauk? Aakka, paliisinik Piita takujuq. Does Peter see the policeman? No, Peter sees some policemen.

 * I think it's safe to conclude that we should just avoid trying to classify Inuktitut by word order. I'm curious now, though, as to what hidden rules decide the word order. EldKatt (Talk) 13:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the examples you give show Inuktitut as being definitely verb-final. It's probably underlyingly SOV with topicalisation. BovineBeast 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia
Yakov Smirnov's "In Soviet Russia" jokes seem to be an example of OVS. For example, "We watch television" becomes "Television watches you," or more appropriately, "In Soviet Russia, television watches you." Scott Gall 12:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * In "Television watches you", television becomes the subject and you the object. It's still SVO. EldKatt (Talk) 13:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Esperanto
I believe Esperanto is one of the most flexible languages regarding word order. Therefore it is possible to have all the combinations for "Vi estas bela" (which is the most common order anyway): "Vi estas bela" "Bela estas vi" "Vi bela estas" "Bela vi estas" "Estas bela vi" "Estas vi bela"

It's easier when the verb is not "esti" or there is no preposition in-between, as there is an accusative in the object: "Mi manĝas la kukon" "La kukon mi manĝas" "Manĝas mi la kukon" "Manĝas la kukon mi"

But as for me, being a Spanish-speaker, the most common order in Esperanto would be SVO, rather than OVS, yet I wouldn't fix Esperanto in any particular order.

 * SVO being the most common word order in Esperanto, and the other words orders used for special emphasis, it makes sense to describe it as a SVO language. The flexibility is less when you have a copular sentence with two nouns rather than a noun and adjective, or an active sentence with subject and object being two partitive noun phrases with "da" -- the fact that you pretty much have to use SVO in those sentences to be understood is further evidence that SVO is Esperanto's main order. --Jim Henry 14:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Jim is right. Esperanto is mainly SVO, but since this is a possible word order, it belongs here more than the faulty passive tense referance and the French example. I would suggest a simpler sentance, even using the "Sam eats oranges" example used throught the article, giving you "Samo manĝas oranĝojn," and "Oranĝojn manĝas Samo." Phsyron 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I agree with the proposed merge. --Jim Henry 14:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Object–verb–agent


text:
The Chieftains

The Chieftains are a traditional Irish folk band formed in Dublin in 1962, by Paddy Moloney, Seán Potts and Michael Tubridy. Their sound, which is almost entirely instrumental and largely built around uilleann pipes, has become synonymous with traditional Irish music. They are regarded as having helped popularise Irish music around the world. They have won six Grammy Awards during their career and they were given a Lifetime Achievement Award at the 2002 BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards. Some music experts have credited The Chieftains with bringing traditional Irish music to a worldwide audience, so much so that the Irish government awarded them the honorary title of 'Ireland's Musical Ambassadors' in 1989.

Name
The band's name came from the book Death of a Chieftain by Irish author John Montague. Assisted early on by Garech Browne, they signed with his company Claddagh Records. They needed financial success abroad, and succeeded in this.

Origins
Paddy Moloney was a member of Ceoltóirí Chualann, a group of musicians who specialised in instrumentals, and sought to form a new band. Their first rehearsals were held at Moloney's house, with David Fallon and Martin Fay joining the original three. The group remained only semi-professional until the 1970s. By then, they had achieved great success in Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Rise to international fame
In 1973, their popularity began to spread to the United States when their previous albums were released there by Island Records. They received further acclaim when they worked on the Academy Award–winning soundtrack to Stanley Kubrick's 1975 film Barry Lyndon, which triggered their transition to the mainstream in the US.

Successful career
The group continued to release successful records throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and their work with Van Morrison in 1988 resulted in the critically acclaimed album Irish Heartbeat. They went on to collaborate with many other well-known musicians and singers; among them Luciano Pavarotti, the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Sinéad O'Connor, Roger Daltrey, and Van Morrison.

50th anniversary
In 2012, they celebrated their 50th anniversary with an ambitious album and tour. The album, Voice of Ages, was produced by T Bone Burnett and featured the Chieftains collaborating with many musicians including Bon Iver, Paolo Nutini and The Decemberists. It also included a collaboration with NASA astronaut Catherine Coleman playing the flute aboard the International Space Station as it orbited the Earth. The Chieftains performed at Carnegie Hall on March 17, 2012.

The Irish Goodbye Tour
In February 2019, The Chieftains embarked on an extensive farewell tour entitled the "Irish Goodbye Tour", including a 2019 European leg, a 2020 Canadian leg and two 2019 and 2020 US legs. On 13 March 2020, the band announced that a few tour dates of their "Irish Goodbye Tour" had been postponed (until further notice) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

2021: Paddy Moloney's death
The Chieftains' co-founder and leader Paddy Moloney died suddenly on 12 October 2021,   leaving the band's future uncertain.

2022: Live in San Francisco 1973 & 1976
On 23 July 2022, in celebration of the band's 60 years, it was announced the forthcoming release on 2 September 2022 on vinyl, CD, and digital downloads of Bear's Sonic Journals: The Foxhunt, The Chieftains Live in San Francisco 1973 & 1976 featuring the Chieftains performing live in San Francisco in 1973 and 1976. The 2CD & Digital editions of the album feature the recordings of two entire shows in San Francisco: on October 1, 1973 at The Boarding House during their first tour in the U.S. (an unscheduled gig which occurred at Jerry Garcia's invitation to open for his bluegrass band, Old & In the Way) and on May 5, 1976 at The Great American Music Hall, while the vinyl release features 2 sides containing (only) the performance from October 1, 1973.

Collaborations

The band has become known for their vast work of collaborations with popular musicians of many genres, including country music, Galician traditional music, Newfoundland music, and rock and roll. Their widespread work as collaborators resulted in the Irish Government awarding the group the honorary title of Ireland's Musical Ambassadors in 1989.

They have performed with (in alphabetical order):

• Moya Brennan

• Jackson Browne

• Rosanne Cash

• The Civil Wars

• Ry Cooder

• The Corrs

• Elvis Costello

• Roger Daltrey

• The Decemberists

• The Dubliners

• Elio e le Storie Tese

• John Entwistle

• Marianne Faithfull

• Bela Fleck

• James Galway

• Art Garfunkel

• Glass Tiger

• Mike Gordon

• Great Big Sea

• Nanci Griffith

• Emmylou Harris

• Mick Jagger

• Colin James

• Tom Jones

• Sissel Kyrkjebø

• Kepa Junkera

• Mark Knopfler

• Diana Krall

• Alison Krauss

• Nolwenn Leroy

• Los Cenzontles

• Lyle Lovett

• The Low Anthem

• Ashley MacIsaac

• Natalie MacMaster

• Madonna

• Ziggy Marley

• Loreena McKennitt

• Sarah McLachlan

• Natalie Merchant

• Milladoiro

• Gary Moore

• Van Morrison

• Willie Nelson

• Nickel Creek

• Carlos Núñez

• Paolo Nutini

• Siobhán O'Brien

• Sinéad O'Connor

• Mike Oldfield

• Luciano Pavarotti

• Pink Martini

• The Pogues

• Punch Brothers

• Eros Ramazzotti

• The Rolling Stones

• Earl Scruggs

• Ricky Skaggs

• Sting

• Ultravox

• Jim White

• John Williams

In May 1986, they performed at Self Aid, a benefit concert held in Dublin that focused on the problem of chronic unemployment which was widespread in Ireland at that time. In 1994, they appeared in Roger Daltrey's production, album and video of A Celebration: The Music of Pete Townshend and The Who. They performed with Canadian astronaut Cmdr. Chris Hadfield in Houston, Texas, on 15 February 2013. Hadfield sang and played guitar on "Moondance" from aboard the International Space Station.

Success and legacy
The band has won six Grammy Awards and been nominated eighteen times. They have won an Emmy and a Genie and contributed tracks, including their highly praised version of the song Women of Ireland, to Leonard Rosenman's Oscar-winning score for Stanley Kubrick's 1975 film Barry Lyndon. In 2002 they were given a Lifetime Achievement Award by the UK's BBC Radio 2. Two of their singles have been minor hits in the UK Singles Chart. "Have I Told You Lately" (credited to The Chieftains with Van Morrison) reached No. 71 in 1995. "I Know My Love" (credited to The Chieftains featuring The Corrs) reached No. 37 in 1999.

Dr. Gearóid Ó hAllmhuráin said the success of The Chieftains helped place Irish traditional music on a par with other musical genres in the world of popular entertainment. By collaborating with pop and rock musicians, they have taken Irish music to a much wider audience. They have become, in effect, musical ambassadors for Ireland. This de facto role was officially recognised by the Irish government in 1989 when it awarded the group the honorary title of Ireland's Musical Ambassadors.

Notable performances
They played in a concert for Pope John Paul II, before an audience of more than one million people in 1979 in Phoenix Park in Dublin, to mark the Papal visit to Ireland.

In 1983, they were invited by the Chinese Government to perform with the Chinese Broadcasting Art Group in a concert on the Great Wall of China, becoming the first western musical group to do so. They were the first group to perform in the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., invited by Senator Edward Kennedy and the former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill.

In 2011, they performed at a concert in Dublin attended by President Mary McAleese and Queen Elizabeth II of Britain during her first ever official trip to the Republic of Ireland.

On 14 April 2023, they reunited for one last time to play for president Joe Biden who was visiting his ancestral home of Ballina, County Mayo in a historical tour of the Island.

Personnel

 * Current members
 * Kevin Conneff – bodhrán, vocals (1976–present)
 * Matt Molloy – flute, tin whistle (1979–present)

 * Former members
 * Paddy Moloney – uilleann pipes, tin whistle, button accordion, bodhrán (1962–2021; died 2021)
 * Seán Potts – tin whistle, bones, bodhrán (1962–1979; died 2014)
 * Michael Tubridy – flute, concertina, tin whistle (1962–1979)
 * David Fallon – bodhrán (1962–1966)
 * Martin Fay – fiddle, bones (1962–2002; died 2012)
 * Peadar Mercier – bodhrán, bones (1966–1976; died 1991)
 * Seán Keane – fiddle, tin whistle (1968–2002; occasional performances thereafter; died 2023)
 * Derek Bell – Irish harp, keyboard instruments, oboe (1975–2002; died 2002)
 * Ronnie McShane – bones, bodhrán (1975–1976; died 2017)

 * Touring musicians
 * Tim Edey – guitars, melodeon/button accordion, piano, backing vocals
 * Seamie O'Dowd – guitars, accordion (replacing Tim Edey when he is not touring?)
 * Triona Marshall – keyboards, harp
 * Tara Breen – fiddle, saxophone, step dancing
 * Alyth McCormack – vocals, step dancing
 * Jon Pilatzke – fiddle, step dancing
 * Nathan Pilatzke – step dancing
 * Cara Butler – step dancing

Discography

 * 1) The Chieftains (1964)
 * 2) The Chieftains 2 (1969)
 * 3) The Chieftains 3 (1971)
 * 4) The Chieftains 4 (1973)
 * 5) The Chieftains 5 (1975)
 * 6) The Chieftains 6: Bonaparte's Retreat (1976)
 * 7) The Chieftains 7 (1977)
 * 8) The Chieftains Live!  (1977, live)
 * 9) The Chieftains 8 (1978)
 * 10) The Chieftains 9: Boil the Breakfast Early (1979)
 * 11) The Chieftains 10: Cotton-Eyed Joe (1980)
 * 12) The Grey Fox (1982) (soundtrack to The Grey Fox)
 * 13) The Year of the French (1983, with the RTÉ Concert Orchestra)
 * 14) The Chieftains in China (1985)
 * 15) Ballad of the Irish Horse (1986)
 * 16) Celtic Wedding (1987)
 * 17) In Ireland (1987) (with James Galway)
 * 18) Irish Heartbeat (1988) (with Van Morrison)
 * 19) The Tailor of Gloucester (1988) (with Meryl Streep)
 * 20) A Chieftains Celebration (1989)
 * 21) Over the Sea To Skye: The Celtic Connection (1990) (with James Galway)
 * 22) The Bells of Dublin (1991)
 * 23) Reel Music (1991)
 * 24) Another Country (1992)
 * 25) An Irish Evening (1992, live)
 * 26) The Best of the Chieftains (1992, compilation)
 * 27) Far and Away original motion picture soundtrack (with John Williams) (1992)
 * 28) The Celtic Harp: A Tribute to Edward Bunting (1993) (with The Belfast Harp Orchestra)
 * 29) The Long Black Veil (1995)
 * 30) Film Cuts (1996)
 * 31) Santiago (1996)
 * 32) Long Journey Home (1998, with the Irish Film Orchestra and Elvis Costello)
 * 33) Fire in the Kitchen (1998, compilation)
 * 34) Silent Night: A Christmas in Rome (1998, live)
 * 35) Tears of Stone (1999)
 * 36) Water From the Well (2000)
 * 37) The Wide World Over (2002, compilation)
 * 38) Down the Old Plank Road: The Nashville Sessions (2002)
 * 39) Further Down the Old Plank Road (2003)
 * 40) Live from Dublin: A Tribute to Derek Bell (2005, live)
 * 41) The Essential Chieftains (2006, compilation)
 * 42) San Patricio (2010) (with Ry Cooder)
 * 43) Voice of Ages (2012)
 * 44) Chronicles: 60 Years of The Chieftains (2021, compilation)
 * 45) A Celtic Landscape (2021, compilation)
 * 46) Bear’s Sonic Journals: The Foxhunt, The Chieftains Live in San Francisco 1973 & 1976 (2022)

title: The Chieftains