text:
User talk:Davidstrauss

UT page
Thanks for your work on the UT page. Johntex 23:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello
I can't help but notice your comments on the Talk:Dianetics page. In an effort to understand what you mean to say, I read several of them. They show you are familar with wikipedia, oppose Dianetics and Scientology from being presented to the reader, and criticize any mention of psychology except in an exemplary manner. (you implied it is inappropriate to use IQ as a measure of Dianetics success). But the reason I attempt to get into communication with you is because your recent comments are well back in the discussion, on issues considered by most editors as already having been resolved and, therefore, I was curious what you were attempting to accomplish? Terryeo 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If those issues are old, then they need to be archived. It's not my burden as a visitor to the talk page to personally determine what's still in dispute. I invite you to create the archive, as you seem to understand what's still in dispute better than I do. Your argument about the IQ issue is wholly inaccurate. You just can't measure your success by a method (IQ) and discredit the method at the same time. If Scientology wants its own measurement system of intelligence, it's their freedom to develop one. IQ, however, is already taken. Finally, you are violating Wikipedia policy by assuming my actions are in bad faith ("[you] oppose Dianetics and Scientology from being presented to the reader"). Just because I don't support your viewpoint or edits doesn't mean I oppose presenting information to readers. By your standard, you oppose psychology from being presented to the reader. --Davidstrauss 10:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that replies to selected elements of my message to you without replying to my question, though of course, I do get it about your selectivity :) Terryeo 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't respond to "[...] what you were trying to accomplish?" because it's a rhetorical question that indicts my motives without any reason to back up the challenge. --Davidstrauss 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now. You took my question to be some sort of personal challenge, I get it. :) Terryeo 19:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack?
at Talk:Dianetics you posted: Terryeo: Stop the personal attacks. --Davidstrauss 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC) to my response to my statement: I guess that would make real good sense if you did, Feldspar. You seem to think every other word I say is either a "lie" or some sort of misrepresentation. Why don't you perk on over to [6] and get the straight skinny? Terryeo 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC). Are you willing to discuss what portion of my reply looked to you like a "personal attack?" Terryeo 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accusing him of thinking everything you say is a "lie" is indicting his motives. "Why don't you perk on over to" is patronizing and thus insulting. You'd come across far better by saying, "Please remember to give my statements and changes fair consideration and not judge them based on my background alone." and, "Please visit Dianetics.com to understand my stance and gain a clear idea of how the Church of Scientology presents Dianetics." --Davidstrauss 20:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand what you are saying, David. Terryeo 22:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo
I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration - Terryeo
Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Terryeo
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:RS
Thanks, David. I did not know that the Reliable Source guideline could not be edited like any other article. It was not a policy. I think my presentation was in response to User:SlimVirgin highly defensive reaction to my editing of poor wording and her refusal to provide me with exact citations of policy, which she only alluded to. Her personal attacks did not help either. I appreciate your concern. --Fahrenheit451 17:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you list me as a critic of scientology. A more accurate statement is that I have written some critical edits of the organization, but am a proponent of the subject. I would prefer either being put into both pro and con, or put in neutral. --Fahrenheit451 18:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's organized by POV of the CoS organization, not whether a person wants the information presented well. I'm pretty sure all parties are acting -- within their views -- to present the information well. Don't consider your account's classification as "critical" a bad thing. It's just based on edit history. Like I say in the disclaimer, the classifications are merely to help me contextualize edits and discussion. It means a lot when people from different camps agree on the same thing. It means little when, say, backs up . There are so many users that I needed a bit of organization to keep track of it all. --Davidstrauss 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. Best regards. --Fahrenheit451 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

it's not vandalism
i removed obviously partisan content from the Delgado entry, such as "unfortunately he provided no evidence" when a google search instantly turns up dozens of copies of photos, videos, and taped presentations; the original article was short and factual, the added material was an opinion that is not supported by even the most cursory examination of the issue. Rather than adding more such partisanship on the other side of the issue, I left the article with just the factual material which i think you will agree is the point of an enyclopedia article, rather than just promoting a POV.

as for threatening to "block" me, it just makes you look childish and emotionally involved. very impressive
 * You swagger in and repeatedly remove information from an anonymous IP. You don't comment your changes. You don't sign your posts. You don't seem to understand the WP:NPOV policy on which Wikipedia operates. You don't even capitalize your letters. At least part of the deleted paragraph was sourced and contributed to explaining the context and significance of the topic. Your "contributions" here are not valuable.

 * A cursory Google search revealed that many people have raised questions about the validity (or at least the tone) of the NY Times article that promotes the person in question. Furthermore, there's nothing "partisan" about the issue. --Davidstrauss 06:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup NLP
I believe you are right David. The article is in need of cleanup, and a label is not going to do any harm at all. Presently the refs are in need of care and attention, and if we can manage to attribute things properly without undue distractions it will all be done within a few weeks hopefully. Again, I believe the label will help. ATB Camridge 09:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello DavidStrauss. I am also going to try to clean up the article. We had a ref format change a while back and we're not too used to it. We got so many different requests to do it one way or another and with all the deletes/restores you get with these kind of articles, well, it didn't help. Putting stuff in quotes seems to help a bit though, and with any luck any "believers" will come round to the fact that facts are here to stay. Anyway the cleanup is going to move forward, but to be realistic, its going to be a bit slow what with all the extra repeat questions and pressure to delete from the believers. I'm sure we'll get in better shape before too long though and still manage to shine light on the subject. Bookmain 09:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, but you're the ones doing the real work. It doesn't take much effort to add to an article. The problems that most caught my eye were 1) treating citation superscripts as nouns, 2) having many, many cites for a sentence, and 3) having empty footnotes at the bottom. Good luck with the article. --Davidstrauss 11:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Davidstrauss, you wrote on Camridge's talk page: "I'd like to point out that -- according to Terryeo's recent RFAr -- Terryeo's comment above about introductions is incorrect. The idea of sympathetically introducing a topic and then covering controvercy has been formally rejected. --Davidstrauss 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)". I don't quite understand the implications for this. Could you comment on how this would apply to the introduction of a subject with a mix of detractors and adherants with both supportive and unsupportive research? How would you decide assign relative weight to the various points of view? ---=-C-=- 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I'm referencing this section of Terryeo's RFAr relating to WP:NPOV. I really don't want to restrict quality editing by being too prescriptive, but here's my take. Introductions serve a few purposes: 1) defining the topic, 2) contextualizing the topic, and 3) presenting the topic's significance. I don't think the introduction itself should be a sea of citations. The introduction should be concise. Avoid too many generalities and lists. The current NLP intro reads like it was written to list everything instead of narrow the topic to useful discussion. If the topic's scope truly is vague, find a source that criticizes it as such and boldly mention it.
 * The definition shouldn't be controversial if done properly. Stick to neutral language. This is my main sticking point with Terryeo's instructions; the definition isn't supposed to be sympathetic. It shouldn't be merely how the creator of the topic would define it. My first take on an NLP definition would be "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a psychotherapy intended to promote healing, communication, and personal development. Typical NLP practices include [x]."
 * The context should explain the topic's relationships. In the case of NLP, this would include related therapies, conventional therapies, and what communities promote and criticize NLP.
 * The significance should explain why the user should care. What does NLP purport to treat? Is its practice harmful or ineffective?
 * To more directly answer your question, yes, you should weight points of view according to published support. Remember that Wikipedia isn't about what's "right" but what's verifiable. Also remember that maintaining NPOV isn't a question of equal coverage in the article. I hope this helps. Feel free to ask further questions or ask other editors what they think. Consider putting the article up for peer review if you want lots of outside feedback. --Davidstrauss 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I copy your post to the NLP discussion page? ---=-C-=- 07:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks for the implied compliment. --Davidstrauss 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish constituencies
Hi David, thanks for contributing to the discussion on my proposed renaming of Irish parliamentary constitunecy articles, at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland. I have since posted a long response at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland, and I wondered if you might like to take a look? --BrownHairedGirl 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll read it right now. --Davidstrauss 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Terryeo
This case is closed. Details of the final decision are published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Narconon
Davidstrauss. I notice that you reverted my changes in which I gave verified data about the Narconon nine-step treatment program to return to the incomplete information listing only two steps. May I ask why? dcottle561
 * It was a copyright violation. --Davidstrauss 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Constructive editing question
Hello David. I'm a student from Hong Kong, and am quite a fan of scientific skepticism. I understand that the Dianetics article has need of "maintenance of fact". I have done quite some research on a lot of the pseudoscientific articles of Wikipedia and would like your advice on how I can be most constructive to this and similar articles. I'll be asking like-minded editors the same thing, and perhaps can give you an idea of their replies also. Helen Wu 07:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend staying civil, citing reliable sources for additions and edits to articles, and being persistant. It's hard for editors with any POV to remove well-sourced statements, though some will try. I suggest reading WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V for a good idea of the policies and guidelines which often come into question in controversial articles. --Davidstrauss 09:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for the advice, I have also had helpful advice from Antaeus. I will also discuss with other science minded editors before posting. I see this article has quite a few anon deletions. So I will do the sourcing more thoroughly as you suggest. Sincerely Helen Wu 04:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

DeadJournal
I've reverted your contribution to the article because: In computer terminology there is in fact such a thing as web master servers/slave servers in the same way there are database master/slaves. The master would assign some of the processing power to the slave machines. A request to www.deadjournal.com would (hopefully I'm correct in this) go first to the load balancer, then to one of the slaves. If all of the processing power was assigned to just one machine, there would be delays in service (due to so many requests being queued). Hopefully I'm making sense here, if not, feel free to ask on my talk page and I'll try to explain it better. — Natha  n  (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In computer terminology, the "web master" is the person who manages the web servers. I would avoid using "web master" the way you do for that reason alone. Also note that in a proper load balancer setup, there may be database masters and slaves, as they keep application state and only the "masters" accept changes, but web servers rarely have the same configuration. The web servers have no need to accept changes other than updating application code. Hence, there's no need to distinguish web "masters" from "slaves". If application state is stored in the database and on the web servers -- the only configuration necessitating web "masters" and "slaves" -- it's generally a poorly designed application. --Davidstrauss 21:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I know what "webmaster" is :P. I made myself a little clearer above -- and well, an application that will use lots of requests (ie LiveJournal with millions of users, potentially tons of requests per second) need other webservers to do the work. — Natha  n  (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note: It's difficult for me to explain things sometimes :\ — Natha  n  (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do understand how load balancers work. I'm a computer science major at UT Austin specializing in information systems. I still don't consider servers behind a load balancer "slaves" anymore than I consider drives in a RAID configuration "slaves." It's the same thing; a RAID controller distributes work among the drives (in addition to its other duties). --Davidstrauss 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul Walhus
''You noted on Paul Walhus's AfD that you know the guy. How do you know him?''

 * Only virtually: he used to be a member of WELL (as I still am), where he has acquired, shall we say, a certain reputation. I believe The WELL eventually gave him the boot for swiping content and pasting into his websites, but don't hold me to that. He even has a topic devoted to him in the Flame conference there (all flames, all the time), discussing his, er, shortcomings. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint to administrator ChrisO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChrisO#Olberon Would you mind substantiating your suspicions? What is annoying? Did I do anything that is violating or going against Wiki rules? Is there something found to be wrong about my contributions? There is by the way no relation between user Terryeo and me. No one has contacted me or urged me to post or any other. I just happened to stumble over some of the Scientology related articles. If you have something to say about me, then forward it to me! Don't go behind my back.

Would you also mind realizing the opposition I have been met with since my arrival? There is a whole track of persons opposing and reverting my edits. Strangely enough about all my additions and corrections are widely accepted by now. I've been familiar with Wiki just a couple of weeks. If you intend to accuse me or make me look suspicious, then state exactly what it is about and with all the details.

I don't know who you are and I do not recall having you seen participating in the discussions I have been involved in. --Olberon 09:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's look at a few very recent ones. You clearly edit with an agenda on only a handful of articles, barely staying within the hard Wikipedia policies like WP:3RR. Your edits and reverts against consensus are too numerous to cite, so I'll just cite some recent edits of yours.
 * Not the revert of vandalism as you describe it as. Calling it "vandalism" is a violation of WP:AGF.
 * So, studies by Scientologists are just studies, and critics deserve being singled out? It's also a repeated edit without consensus.
 * Not vandalism, again.
 * In fact, your "revert of vandalism" appears to be vandalism. You didn't just remove xenu.net citations.
 * Look, it's the WP:RS crusader adding an unreliable source that just happens to support his/her viewpoint.
 * It's a call to arms to your known supporters. This violates WP:Sockpuppet.
 * In fact, the version the Church publishes has no special authority. See WP:RS, the document you love to direct others to.
 * --Davidstrauss 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Firstly, you have not approached me in person, you turned to ChrisO. Secondly, why don't you say a single word about Wikipediatrix who attempted to push through her personal consensus based solely on majority vote when in fact violating RS consensus? Who has actually an agenda here? The fact you have to deal with here is that my edits remain in the articles and are being confirmed by various, and don't continue to be reverted.
 * [1] "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."
 * [2] Independent studies, your arguments and your query are missing here!
 * [3] 'Foster Report' versus scan of HCO PL 21 Oct 68, where are your arguments? You don't join!
 * [4] I invited to discussion. The main reason was the reintroduction of the inappropriate xenu.net. Wiki rules say also: Discuss major changes and edits.
 * [5] It's that persons study.
 * [6] I invited a person who is familiar with the subject. I did not call to arms. I came across this person when viewing the Terryeo case.
 * [7] The Widder Bibilography is the only publication that exists, Widder is by the way not even a Scientologist. The publication is official and is loaded with documentation.
 * You are left with nothing. Next time: Join the discussion and approach me in person when you see something! --Olberon 11:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to respond to this POV-pushing tripe. I also don't need to join you on talk pages to point out how your edits violate Wikipedia policy. --Davidstrauss 11:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You bite newcomers. If you see someone doing something that is prohibited per Wiki rules you simply inform the newcomer. How long have I been around here? 5-6 weeks or so? I am sure there is lots left to learn for me around here. You approach me first not some administrator and complain. Support the co-editor. This closes our communication. --Olberon 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Jason Lee listing
(not a complaint) Jason Lee is among the most famous celebrity Scientologists and should be listed on that page. Since, you're appearntly allowed to delete my contribution. I encourage to revise it with his name listed, since it logically should be (if the point of the "Celebrity" section is to list famous Scientology Celebrities). I am not interested to go through the steps to make this change myself, beyond what I've done already. Thank You.
 * Your disinterest is unfortunate, and I justified my removal on the article's talk page. I am not obligated to disambiguate and cite your addition. Official policy (WP:BIO) is that we aggressively remove unsourced claims (especially ones potentially seeming negative) about living persons. --Davidstrauss 07:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality.com
Hi there. I saw you posted on the talk for Stephen Colbert that "significant contributors to this and other Colbert-related articles should consider sending the host (Dreamhost.com) of Wikiality.com and Wikiality.net DMCA Takedown requests." due to hosting a version of the Colbert article which doesn't comply with the GFDL. I'm a significant contributor, but I'm not extremely familiar with GFDL law. Can you give me a better idea how I'd go about doing this? I checked out the link provided and I admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with the layout similarities combined with similar content -- seems potentially confusing to the reader. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm on it. The form I'm found to use is here. I assume from it I should attempt to contact the site owner personally before sending this, which I have no problem with if needs be. The only question I have left is that Wikiality.com seems to be continously redirecting the "Stephen Colbert" to various different places with unique names -- I'm not sure how to list the infringing url in this case. I suppose I can just explain as much in plain english. In any case, thank you for keeping on top of these things. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 23:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm doing my best to comply, but its a pretty hard task with thousands of users. Jimmy himself has emailed me saying that he loves the site and wants to work with me on it, so give me some breathing room.  --Dauno 05:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Logo license removal of Image:Scientologylogo.png
Just an FYI re your message. I did not create two images, merely Image:Scientologylogo.png, which was licensed under GFDL as it was an edit of Image:Scientologylogo.GIF, an image uploaded by another user (User Where100 - claimed to be under GDFL). Accordingly my edit followed the same license. Just wanted to make that clear - Gl e n 09:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I didn't check very carefully. But you should be careful, too, before relicensing something under the GFDL when it's incapable of being GFDL in the first place. --Davidstrauss 13:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology
Hi I made some edits to the Silent Birth section because it was slanted against Scientology and Hubbard in an inappropiate manner. ex. Mentioning that corn syrup was not available to Romans without mentioning that honey was. ex. Using the loaded term concoction in relation to the Barley Formula. ex. Making the unsubstantiated claim that Hubbard had no qualifications to give advice on children. I have children and that gives me some qualification. Hubbard was self-educated in the field of nutrition. ex. Stating that most medical experts discount anything without substantiating that claim is just silly. I could go on. I am an ex-Scientologist and though I am no great supporter of the CoS, I recognize a slant when I see one. I offered balance in the article. I imagine that you are a Scientology critic but please do not let your personal feelings color your responsibilities as a wikipedia editor. Read and evaluate before you revert and if you have contributory changes to make to my edit then do so. The sub-article is clearly heavily critic POV influenced and I brought a balance to it.

Vertebral Subluxation
I spent some time and gathered just a smattering of the scientific research that is of there in non-chiropractic journals which supports vertebral subluxation and thus chiropractic's effectiveness. I invite you back to the Vertebral Subluxation talk page to review and discuss. Thanks for your continued interest in this subject. Levine2112 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikicite
Hi- assuming you are the same Davidstrauss as on Meta. In any case, please take a look at my response to your comments on Wikicat; there actually are Wikicite/WikiTextrose project proposals that address a lot of the functionality you describe from your proposal at Wikimania; would value your input on these. Jleybov 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Farm Sanctuary
Hey, Davidstrauss. Thanks for your interest in Farm Sanctuary. I've never seen that article before today, but the place is well-known and well-regarded within the animal rights, veganism, and vegetarianism communities, and should have an article. I can see why the article has had problems: many of those people are young and/or have more enthusiasm than Wikipedia experience. :-) I'll take a look at the article and add it to my watchlist. I also posted a note to the page's Talk that I hope will help "remind" future editors to stay within Wikipedia policies. Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand 16:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, I see that the Brooklyn5 account is apparently no longer active. This could mean that Brooklyn5 is no longer interested in Wikipedia, or that he/she intends to edit in the future without a user account, or under a different username. -- Writtenonsand 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert by centrx
Hi

Just curious why a 3rd party would delete by reversion a communication to you on your talk page by someone (kappa)? Is there some bit of wikipolicy or wikietiquette I am missing here?? Oh, and thanks for the scorecard on Scn editors.--Justanother 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll answer my own question; I see that the user is accused of canvassing.--Justanother 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality.com, part two
Hi again. Just wanted to alert you to the fact that although Wikiality.com now appears to be at least trying to comply with the terms of the GFDL, they're also as part of their design for each page. I've dropped them a note (again) mentioning this and the fact they only link to the full text of the GFDL offsite rather than hosting in locally; however the I'm not sure I'm the right person to deal with issues concerning the logo. I thought I'd bring it to your attention and if you believe it's worth dealing with, you can pass it on the right person. Let me know if I can help. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 08:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of the modification to the logo and the nature of the site, the logo may be protected by parody and fair use. --Davidstrauss 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm surprised to hear that would qualify as parody. I've heard that exceptions in copyright law for parody are rather liberal, but I would have presumed that since the original image file is clearly used in its entirety, the use would be unacceptable -- the only 'modification' they've really done is superimposing another photo over it. But I don't really know much about that area of the law -- regardless, thanks for checking it out. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The site is a parody of Wikipedia. Thus, it has certain privileges to lampoon Wikipedia-related materials. I'm not saying it legally qualifies as fair-use parody, I'm just suggesting that it's a possibility. --Davidstrauss 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As the owner, administrator and whatever other title may be bestowed upon me, I've talked mutliple times with Jimmy as well as the CEO and various other company members about the site. All of them are excited about it.  As the previous poster said, it definitely should be safe under parody. --Dauno 05:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikia is not the Wikimedia Foundation. So, the support of Wikia's people doesn't grant you special privileges to use materials owned by the foundation. As I said before, I think the logo modification qualifies as parody (though I'm not a lawyer). But I'm well justified in asking the question; the GFDL was grossy violated on the original Wikiality site. People pointing that out were labeled "vandals" and reverted. I'm glad to see Wikiality moving in a more responsible direction, but don't mistake Wikia for Wikimedia, even if they grew from similar roots. --Davidstrauss 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fundraising Translation for Yiddish
Hi, David, i see you are involved in translation please note we have translated this into Yiddish,   Please put it up there so we can link to it from the site notice. Also if you can copy the money graphic for us it should appear in our Yiddish site notice, as well, it would be great means to encourage the Yiddish readership community to give and donate resources. Thanks so much and enjoy the Holidays--yidi 15:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help, but I have no idea how to place right-to-left languages into the Foundation wiki. --Davidstrauss 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just figured it out. --Davidstrauss 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! --Davidstrauss 02:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fundraising page
I've left you question on foundationwiki about making such page on Wikimedia Polska chapter wiki. Could you help me? --WarX 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Reply was on the Foundation wiki. --Davidstrauss 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

C.O.R.E.
I've finished the translation of the Drupal messages to Serbian. Now, can you include it in the software? The page is here. Thanks. -- Filip  ( § ) 21:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please mark the translation finished if it's ready to copy over. Thanks. --Davidstrauss 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject updates

 * I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status.  You could give input on the project's talk page...  Smee 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Also, a Userbox for project members, User Scientology project   Smee 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * In response to your question about whether I do Texas based wikiprojects, I just update whatever. I don't have much skills to take on a project.  Thank you though.Pumapayam 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Coverage
Call for Photographers, Writers, and Cameramen

If you are attending Wikimania, we need you to help cover it. Please post all your Wikimania 2007 articles, videos, and pictures here http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event_Coverage, so that other Wikimedians have a way to virtually participate in our annual conference.

To help coordinate coverage, we are asking that individuals sign up to cover a specific event here: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_Coverage. This will ensure that all events are being covered.

Thanks!

Cleanup Essentials of Fire Fighting
Hi David! I would welcome any suggestions you may have in regards to cleaning up the article on Essentials of Fire Fighting so that it appears to be more descriptive of the manual and less of an advertisement. Please post your recommendations in the Discussion page at that site. I will check in from time to time to ensure that I correct this in a timely manner. JMF 24 18:23 UTC September 2007.

Golden Age of Knowledge
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Golden Age of Knowledge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Golden Age of Knowledge. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard Tech
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Standard Tech, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Standard Tech. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Golden Age of Knowledge
I have nominated Golden Age of Knowledge, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Golden Age of Knowledge. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Please check out: Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Standard Tech for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Standard Tech, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Standard Tech until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?

I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job.

Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.

Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Christ myth theory
I am contacting you because you are a member of WikiProject Skepticism/Participants. Could you help us to modify a WP page to bring it to a more fair and balanced state? The "Christ myth theory" article has been hopelessly controlled by Christians who seem desperate to bring skepticism about the historicity of Jesus down to the level of a childish cult or something - they have even tagged the article with categories. " I made a number of copy edits, and added some authors to the Books section, and user User:TMDrew reverted every last one under the excuse "The authors mentioned are not respected scholars in this field" - clearly a violation of WP guidelines. I reverted, then user User:Bill the Cat 7 reverted my edit. I reverted his, he reverted with rationale "Then put them back in without that part. Also, it is a FACT that there is almost universal consensus." Anyway, your help would be greatly appreciated in combatting obstinate contributors like that who do not follow guidelines - please help.14:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Article you have created has no references
Please add references, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_climatology prokaryotes (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Davidstrauss


text:
Olof Salmén

Olof Salmén (1927–28 May 2011) was a politician in Åland, an autonomous and Swedish-speaking territory of Finland.

 * Member of the Lagting (Åland parliament) 2001-2003
 * Vice Lantråd (deputy premier) and Minister for finance 1999-2001
 * Member of the Lagting (Åland parliament)1988-1999
 * President of the Nordic Council 1996-1997
 * Member of government 1980-1987
 * Member of the Lagting (Åland parliament) 1979, 1971–1975

Salmén was president of the Nordic Council 1996–1997.

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

title: Olof Salmén


text: Category:The Bronx

title: Category:The Bronx


text:
Category talk:Precision sports

Snooker a precision sport? Sure, you need to pot a ball in a pocket, but you don't get more points whether you hit the pocket dead on, or via one of the jaws. If snooker is a precision sport, shouldn't soccer be one as well? After all, that requires the players to put the ball in a "pocket" as well. Abigail 09:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought of that, and I can't really say I have an answer. Perhaps soccer should be categorized as a precision sport (but then indirectly, via something like "sports with goals"). The difference is that as far as I see it, precision is the only physical feat measured by snooker (much like shooting). I might be wrong. (Am I?) (Of course the most interesting feat measured by snooker is tactics, but it's dubious whether that is part of what makes it a sport - then we get to the questions of such games as chess or bridge being sports or not..) -- Jao 09:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Tactics is important in snooker in the same way it is with soccer. In fact, with soccer, the only thing that is measured is the number of goals - that is, the ability to put the ball in the goal. And while it helps in soccer to be a good runner, if you don't put the ball in the goal, you won't win. I know what you are getting at, and it might be a good idea to subdivide sports into different categories. But "precision sports" isn't a category I'd expect snooker in. Curling, bowls, darts, shooting, petangue (sp?), yes. Now, a category that combines snooker, pool, and the various forms of billiards, that might be a better idea. Abigail 09:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. There's a whole family of such sports, and they are quite special. By all means, go ahead and create it. -- Jao 10:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Precision sports


text:
Council of Jerusalem

The Council of Jerusalem or Apostolic Council is a council described in chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles, held in Jerusalem around c. 48–50 AD.

The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the rules prescribed to the Jews by the Mosaic Law, such as Jewish dietary laws and other specific rituals, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The council did, however, retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals that were strangled, and on fornication and idolatry, sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Decree. The purpose and origin of these four prohibitions is debated.

Accounts of the council are found in Acts of the Apostles (chapter 15 in two different forms, the Alexandrian and Western versions) and also possibly in Paul's letter to the Galatians (chapter 2). Some scholars dispute that Galatians 2 is about the Council of Jerusalem, while others have defended this identification.

Historical background
Jerusalem was the first center of the Christian Church according to the Book of Acts, and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the location of "the first Christian church". The apostles lived and taught there for some time after Pentecost. James the Just, brother of Jesus was leader of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, and his other kinsmen likely held leadership positions in the surrounding area after the destruction of the city until its rebuilding as Aelia Capitolina in c. 130 AD, when all Jews were banished from Jerusalem.

The apostles Barnabas and Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with the "Pillars of the Church": James the Just, Peter, and John. The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to c. 48–50 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus (between 26 and 36 AD). Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate the legitimacy of the evangelizing mission of Barnabas and Paul to the Gentiles and the Gentile converts' freedom from most of the Mosaic Law, especially from the circumcision of males, a practice that was considered execrable and repulsive in the Greco-Roman world during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean,   and was especially disdained in Classical civilization both from ancient Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.

At the time, most followers of Jesus (which historians refer to as Jewish Christians) were Jewish by birth and even converts would have considered the early Christians as a part of Judaism. According to scholars, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of the then contemporary Second Temple Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

Issues and outcome
The purpose of the meeting, according to Acts, was to resolve a disagreement in Antioch, which had wider implications than just circumcision, since circumcision is considered the "everlasting" sign of the Abrahamic covenant in Judaism. The Acts say that "certain men which came down from Judaea" were preaching that you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved"; the Acts also states that furthermore some of the Pharisees who had become believers stated that it was "needful to circumcise [the Gentiles,] and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses" (KJV).

The primary issue which was addressed related to the requirement of circumcision, as the author of Acts relates, but other important matters arose as well, as the Apostolic Decree indicates. The dispute was between those, such as the followers of the "Pillars of the Church", led by James, who believed, following his interpretation of the Great Commission, that the church must observe the Torah, i.e. the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul the Apostle, who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles", who believed there was no such necessity. The main concern for the Apostle Paul, which he subsequently expressed in greater detail with his letters directed to the early Christian communities in Asia Minor, was the inclusion of Gentiles into God's New Covenant, sending the message that faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation.

At the council, following advice offered by Simon Peter ( and ), Barnabas and Paul gave an account of their ministry among the gentiles, and the apostle James quoted from the words of the prophet Amos (, quoting ). James added his own words to the quotation: "Known to God from eternity are all His works" and then submitted a proposal, which was accepted by the Church and became known as the Apostolic Decree:

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

sets out the content of the letter written in accordance with James' proposal. The Western version of Acts (see Acts of the Apostles: Manuscripts) adds the negative form of the Golden Rule ("and whatever things ye would not have done to yourselves, do not do to another").

This determined questions wider than that of circumcision, particularly dietary questions, but also fornication and idolatry and blood, and also the application of Biblical law to non-Jews. It was stated by the Apostles and Elders in the council: "the Holy Spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper." (Acts 15:27–28) And this Apostolic Decree was considered binding on all the other local Christian congregations in other regions.

The author of Acts gives an account of a restatement by James and the elders in Jerusalem of the contents of the letter on the occasion of Paul's final Jerusalem visit, immediately prior to Paul's arrest at the temple, recounting: "When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present." (Acts 21:17–18, ESV) The elders then proceed to notify Paul of what seems to have been a common concern among Jewish believers, that he was teaching Diaspora Jewish converts to Christianity "to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs." They remind the assembly that, "as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality". In the view of some scholars, the reminder of James and the elders here is an expression of concern that Paul was not fully teaching the decision of the Jerusalem Council's letter to Gentiles, particularly in regard to non-strangled kosher meat, which contrasts with Paul's advice to Gentiles in Corinth, to "eat whatever is sold in the meat markets" (1 Corinthians 10:25).

Historicity
The description of the Apostolic Council in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2, is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account. The historicity of Luke's account has been challenged,  and was rejected by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century. However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event, though this is sometimes expressed with caution. Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament includes a summary of current research on the topic as of about 1994: "In conclusion, therefore, it appears that the least unsatisfactory solution of the complicated textual and exegetical problems of the Apostolic Decree is to regard the fourfold decree as original (foods offered to idols, strangled meat, eating blood, and unchastity—whether ritual or moral), and to explain the two forms of the threefold decree in some such way as those suggested above. An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis of the Apostolic Decree. ... According to Jacques Dupont, 'Present day scholarship is practically unanimous in considering the 'Eastern' text of the decree as the only authentic text (in four items) and in interpreting its prescriptions in a sense not ethical but ritual' [Les problèmes du Livre des Actes d'après les travaux récents (Louvain, 1950), p.70]."

Interpreting the Council's decision
The Council of Jerusalem retained the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals that were strangled, and on fornication and idolatry. The resulting Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 may simply parallel the seven Noahide laws found in the Old Testament, and thus be a commonality rather than a differential. However, modern scholars dispute the connection between Acts 15 and the seven Noahide laws. The Apostolic Decree may have been a major act of differentiation of the early Church from its Jewish roots.

The Jewish Encyclopedia states:

"For great as was the success of Barnabas and Paul in the heathen world, the authorities in Jerusalem insisted upon circumcision as the condition of admission of members into the church, until, on the initiative of Peter, and of James, the head of the Jerusalem church, it was agreed that acceptance of the Noachian Laws—namely, regarding avoidance of idolatry, fornication, and the eating of flesh cut from a living animal—should be demanded of the heathen desirous of entering the Church."

The Jewish Encyclopedia also states:

"R. Emden [...] gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath."

The decision was interpreted by the Council of Florence and the Papal encyclical Ex Quo Primum. The latter affirms: "So the Decree for the Jacobites of the Council of Florence reads: "The holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that every creature of God is good and not to be rejected if it is taken with thanks. According to the Lord's word, a man is not defiled by what enters his mouth. The Church affirms that the distinction made by the Mosaic Law between clean and unclean foods belongs to the ceremonial laws which have passed away with the coming of the Gospel…. So it declares that no kind of food is to be condemned which human society regards as food, and no distinction is to be made between animals on the basis of gender or the manner of their death. However many things which are not forbidden may and should be given up for the health of the body, the practice of virtue, and regular Church discipline. As the Apostle says: 'All things are permitted, but not all are expedient."

- Ex Quo Primum, n. 62

According to the 19th-century German Catholic bishop Karl Josef von Hefele, the Apostolic Decree "has been obsolete for centuries in the West", though it is still recognized and observed by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

The 20th-century American Catholic priest and biblical scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer disputes the claim that the Apostolic Decree is based on the seven Noahide laws, and instead proposes  as the basis for it. (See also: Leviticus 18).

title: Council of Jerusalem


text:
Monk Bretton Priory

Monk Bretton Priory is a ruined medieval priory located in the village of Lundwood, and close to Monk Bretton, South Yorkshire, England.

History
Originally a monastery under the Cluniac order, Monk Bretton Priory is located in the village of Lundwood, in the borough of Barnsley, England. It was founded in 1154 as the Priory of St. Mary Magdelene of Lund by Adam Fitswane, sited on the Lund, from Old Norse. In the course of time, the priory took the name of the nearby village of Bretton to be commonly known as Monk Bretton Priory.

The Notton bequest
John de Birthwaite was Prior of Monk Bretton in 1350. In that year Sir William de Notton, a powerful local landowner, who was later Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and his wife Isabel, conveyed to him lands at Fishlake, Monk Bretton, Moseley and Woolley. The purpose of the grant was to build a chantry chapel at Woolley Church. Notton directed that prayers were to be said for the souls of himself, Isabel, their children, and also King Edward III, Queen Philippa of Hainault and their children. The date suggests that Notton made the grant as his way of giving thanks for England's deliverance from the first outbreak of the Black Death.

Dissolution
The monastery closed on 30 November 1538 during the dissolution, and the site passed into the ownership of the Blithman family. In 1580 the land was again sold to George Talbot, 6th Earl of Shrewsbury who gave the estate to his fourth son Henry on his marriage to Elizabeth Rayner. The site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and is now in the care of English Heritage.

Excavations concentrating on the church and cloister took place on the site in the 1920s which were published by the Yorkshire Archaeological Society and other largely unrecorded diggings by the Ministry of Works took place during the 1950s. More recently the site has been the focus of a survey and excavation project run by Dr Hugh Willmott from the University of Sheffield.

title: Monk Bretton Priory


text:
List of two-tier counties of England

This is a list of two-tier counties of England by population.

It includes those non-metropolitan counties (also known as shire counties) with a two-tier county council structure and does not include metropolitan counties or unitary authorities.

Where a unitary authority has separated from a shire county the population of the unitary authority is counted elsewhere. For example, the population of Blackpool is not included in Lancashire in this table.

The figures are mid-year estimates for from the Office for National Statistics.

Densities are calculated from population and area values.

title: List of two-tier counties of England


text: Category:British scientists

title: Category:British scientists


text:
OBD

OBD may refer to:

 * On-board diagnostics, an electronics self diagnostic system, typically used in automotive applications
 * Optimal biological dose, the quantity of a radiological or pharmacological treatment that will produce the desired effect with acceptable toxicity

title: OBD


text:
This Sceptred Isle (radio series)

This Sceptred Isle is a BBC radio series, written by historian Christopher Lee, about the story of the lands and peoples of Britain. It was produced by Pete Atkin and broadcast in 1995 twice each day – in the morning and late at night – on Radio 4. The series comprised 216 episodes, each 12–14 minutes long, and had a total duration of 46 hours. A 29-hour-long abridged version of the programmes has been issued on CD as part of the BBC Radio Collection.

Title
The programme's title is a quotation from Act 2, Scene 1 of William Shakespeare's play, King Richard II, attributed to John of Gaunt:

"This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars ... This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England"

Episodes
Beginning in 55 BC with the arrival of Julius Caesar and initially concluding in 1901 with the death of Queen Victoria, the series was read by Anna Massey and included extracts from the book A History of the English-Speaking Peoples written by Sir Winston Churchill, interwoven into Christopher Lee's main account of the history. The extracts were read by Paul Eddington, who died during the production and his role was taken by Peter Jeffrey. In total the series contained 216 episodes, ran 46 hours, and was first broadcast in daily episodes between June 1995 and June 1996.

Extensions and spin-offs
In 1999 the BBC and Christopher Lee extended the programme to cover the 20th century: from 1901, where the original series had ended, to the end of the millennium. This extension, 15.25 hours long, was broadcast from 30 August to 31 December 1999. The narrator was retained from the original series but quotations were read by Robert Powell.

In 2001 another shorter series entitled This Sceptred Isle: Dynasties was produced. This told the stories of the powerful and influential families of Britain and Ireland, including the Godwines, the Despensers and the Churchills. These are the tales of the powerful families who were there before the monarch was, and who were still there long after his or her reign - or even royal dynasty - had come to an end. The series consisted of 10 episodes and was again written by Christopher Lee and narrated by Anna Massey.

Over the course of several months in 2005 and 2006 Christopher Lee's This Sceptred Isle: Empire, a 90-part history of the British Empire was broadcast on Radio 4. Each part was 15 minutes long. The narrator was Juliet Stevenson and the cast of readers of various historical documents–such as poems, songs, personal letters, and first-hand accounts–included Jack Davenport, Joss Ackland, Christopher Eccleston, and Anna Massey among others.

title: This Sceptred Isle (radio series)


text:
Talk:San Diego Zoo

Pictures
If someone has a good photograph of the zoo itself (view from above for example), it could be a good replacement for the polar bear picture -- sdalu 09:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * What polar bear picture? Cburnett 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem...
This article is a little fawning, don't you think? Sounds like it's been written by SDZ's manager.

Info about how good/bad the zoo is, is not relevant to Wikipedia.

Whether or not the monorail ride is 'pleasant' doesn't belong here, along with quite a few other things.

-cheshirec (3rd August, 05)

 * I've tweaked it so it doesn't read so much like a love letter now. Just for the record, it's not a monorail, it's more like a gondola lift.  -- Norvy (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * hard not to fawn if you've been there. It really is one of the best zoos- maybe *the* best, and lots of people grew up going there. And the tram is pleasant, as much as that can be objective and not subjective- it's roomy and comfortable, moves at a smooth mellow pace, great temperature. Nicer than most peoples' homes, I'd guess. 204.69.139.16 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 * This is getting off topic, but I prefer the Henry Doorly Zoo and Milwaukee County Zoo over the SDZ. :)  Cburnett (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Zoo si the best zoo in the world. What is not to like? The animals are all happy, entertaining and content with their habitats. The keepers obviously do an outstanding job. The food and drinks even taste better there! The San Diego Zoo always make sure every animal in the zoo is happy. That is why this should be only one article. Oh, and please could somebody please change the number of species as they are nearing 1,000 with about 975 and will have 1,000 as soon as they get their new elephant exhibit fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.31.202 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

When do you add info on new exhibits?
Hello editors. I am one of the major contributing editors for an article on the Good Zoo at Oglebay Park in Wheeling, WV. I would like to know when you usually add information about new exhibits to your article. The Good Zoo is scheduled to open a new exhibit very soon, but as far as I know they haven't announced the date or specifics to the general public. In the interest of preventing a conflict between myself and official representatives of the Good Zoo, I am asking your opinion on this matter. Do you generally wait until after the members/VIP opening night or until after the exhibit is opened to the general public? I have never been publicly approached by representatives of the zoo in regards to my contributions to the article, but "representatives" have said in the past (through the article's talk page), "Many people on staff have read this article and applauded his work." My concerns are based on this comment,"...please make sure to be careful on here. We certainly don't want any of our volunteers getting into a bad situation," which was made on Wikipedia before the first comment I mentioned. I have a firm belief that, while they know I volunteer at the zoo, they do not know exactly who I am. I wish to remain anonymous in this endeavor, so I would like to keep all conflicts to a minimum. That is why I am requesting your assistance. Thanks for all your help! (I ask that you leave any suggestions on my talk page)Morganismysheltie (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Zoological Society of San Diego
I don't think they should be merged. the Zoological Society is an almost 100-year old organization, and is the largest zoological association in the world (at least according to their website). The San Diego Zoo, which is one entity that they operate, is clearly the most well-known component of the larger Society, but they are not one and the same. And the Society also operates the San Diego Wild Animal Park, so it really wouldn't make sense to merge the Society article with this Zoo article, since it is associated to the Animal Park to the same extent. The Society article is a stub, but it was just created today. Let's give it a chance to grow! --Anietor (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * But they seem to all be way way interlinked. Stick them together. and the park.

 * I think they need to be kept separate. The zoological society is an entity that has been around for some time, and happens to run San Diego Zoo. I think instead maybe expand the Zoological society page if possible? I can understand both sides of the argument but it seems a waste to just merge the two unless it proves impossible to expand on the zoological society one? Any thoughts? -Scottcabal not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.57.12 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * As a San Diegan myself and a longtime supporter of the Zoo, I say merge them. The "Zoological Society of San Diego" page is only one sentence long. Put that sentence into the San Diego Zoo article and the San Diego Wild Animal Park article. There's no need for a separate article about the Society. They don't "happen" to run the San Diego Zoo, they are virtually one and the same. Their only claim to fame, their only reason for existence, is the Zoo and the Wild Animal Park.MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

How about doing a redirect from Zoological Society to SD Zoo? They're not the same entity, but the distinction could certainly be clarified in the SD Zoo article. --anietor (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! (doing a redirect to San Diego Zoo) So who can actually do this? The discussion has been going on here for a year with no resolution. MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

The problem with a redirect is that the information needs to be duplicated then in multiple places. I mean if the reader is looking for Zoological Society of San Diego and gets redirected to San Diego Zoo, it needs to be made very clear early on in the article that the society operates not only the Zoo but also the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the CRES. The same information then really needs to be duplicated in the wild animal park article, at which point we have multiple redundancy of information. Is it really doing any harm having a stub article on the society if it makes it obvious to the reader that multiple entities are under their umbrella? It can easily be redirected sure, but is it making the facts less rather than more clear to the reader for the sake of saving one click? Expanding the Society article would be preferable, and although that hasn't happened to date, it doesn't seem like a very tricky proposition. Mfield (Oi!) 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On that note, I am going to flesh out the society article right now with what I can readily find. Mfield (Oi!) 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll help. And I'll withdraw my suggestion that the page be deleted or merged - now that it contains data about the Society which is not a duplication of information found elsewhere. MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

 * Have we reached consensus that the separate article on the Zoological Society of San Diego can now stand on its own and should NOT be merged with the "San Diego Zoo" page? I have removed its designation as a stub. MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

 * I believe we have consensus. The merge proposal can go as well.  --anietor (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done the merge. Don Lammers (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the merge you did was not the one discussed in this section - which involved Zoological Society of San Diego. You did the merge discussd in a section below, involving the San Diego Zoo Corps. You did a very nice job on that merge, thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh darn, you are correct. I will copy the note down below. Don Lammers (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest?
How can this zoo claim to be one of the largest at 100 acres, when Whipsnade Zoo in the UK (for example) covers 600 acres? There are plenty of other examples of larger zoos as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisEmerson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is mainly because it is one of the more world famous zoos - including London, San Diego, Australia and Singapore. Compared to San Diego Whipsnade has a lot of open land it's more like Port Lympne or a Safari Park. San Diego, while smaller in acre size, is one of the bigger world famous zoos, and one of the bigger tradional zoos (enclosures rather than huge open fields) - Scottcabal not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.57.12 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have modified this claim (which someone keeps deleting) to state that the zoo is large not in terms of its acreage, but rather in the size and diversity of its animal collection. Hopefully that will resolve the editing battle that has apparently been going on over this claim.

--MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * I have warned the IPs that trace back to San Diego Zoo and  about Conflict of Interest. Mfield (Oi!) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New Guinea Singing Dog
In this article, the sentence stating San Diego Zoo has the largest number of NGSD in one place is not a true statement. I can provide the editors with the name and etc of a couple who have conserved NGSD for over 20 years, have held a collection of 22 adult specimens and currently holds 15 adults. Additionally, in the SInger world, the record of number of Singers in a single collection was set by Oakwold Kennel, Hickory Corners, MI with an amazing 38 adults. The record was set in 2006. They also had the distinction of exercising all 38 together everyday. Truly an amazing feat!! If you wish particulars I will provide. Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no action has been taken on this inaccurate statement for more than a year, I'm going to delete it. It is not true plus there is no citation to back it up anyway. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong zoo?
Why was the information about Dunda and the elephant capture removed? The edits claimed "wrong zoo" as a reason, but how many San Diego Zoos are there? Molotov Kitten (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Molotov Kitten
 * Please read the source carefully see that the elephants are being kept at another zoo.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the Dunda incident and the elephant capture both refer to the San Diego Wild Animal Park, not the San Diego Zoo. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that so? Everything I've read about the event talks about the San Diego Zoo. Thank you very much for the clarification. I should add information about the Dunda incident to that page, then. Molotov Kitten (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Molotov Kitten
 * Perhaps you should review wikipedia policies on reliable sources and WP:NPOV before you get too far on those additions. It may help you in the future.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Everything you have read about the event"? Apparently you didn't read your own sources, both of which are very clear in saying San Diego Wild Animal Park. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war over whether to include "USA" or not
About the recent several-times-repeated insertion of "USA" into the article and removal of it from the article: Folks, please let's not get into an edit war over the inclusion of "USA" or not. Let's discuss it here, and if possible cite Wikipedia policy about when to include "USA" and when not to. And I'd request, no more additions/removals until consensus is reached or definite Wikipedia policy is identified. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Animal List
I was discussing this with User:MelanieN and I was wondering whether or not we should just nix the entire animal section. My reasonings are three fold:
 * 1. None of it cited nor is it verified anywhere. Per WP:V
 * 2. Lately a vandal(s) have attempted to insert erroneous animals into the section. I personally reverted Wooly Mammoth. Per WP:Vandal.
 * 3. It is hardly written in an encyclopedic manner and looks more like a long list of indiscriminate animals rather than an encyclopedic entry in an encyclopedia. per WP:List.

What say you all?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 * When Jojhutton mentioned this (in connection with my own revert of "Liger" as a listed animal), I thought it was worth keeping the animals, but that was an offhand reaction, mostly reflecting personal preference rather than any Wikipedia policy. I concede that nothing in the lists of animals is sourced, also that it is almost impossible to keep the list current due to acquisition, disposal, and death of animals. Vandalism is actually not a huge problem IMO and can be handled by a few vigilant article-watchers. I note that other world-class zoos such as the Bronx Zoo, National Zoo, Philadelphia Zoo and Berlin Zoological Garden do not maintain such lists. I am open to persuasion on this issue and would like to see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you might be the first to chime in on this, hopefully we won't be the only two, but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps we can shorten it to a more encyclopedic paragraph naming some of the more notable animals. I'm assuming you've been there, as have I, so when you think about the SD Zoo, you usually have some animals that automatically come to mind. For me its the Gorillas, The Tigers, and the Elephants. As long as we cite what we write, we should probably be okay.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the approach taken by most of the other major zoos: a prose paragraph about each of the theme areas, mentioning the most notable animals displayed in that area. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, what animals do you think should be included? With me, the Gorillas, Tigers, Elephants, Pandas, and the hippos are probably no brainers. A case could be made for the Koalas, Orangutans, and the Polar Bears as they are pretty popular as well. I never even thought about the major areas idea. Thats a great suggestion.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the only two at least... I prefer the prose approach, and have been pursuing it in most zoo articles I work on. As has been pointed out, the lists are almost impossible to source and maintain. In addition, particularly on smaller articles, they have a habit of taking over the article, visually if not actually. I have not actually removed lists in larger articles, but have used expanding lists to hide them. Still, I think in an encyclopedic article, the prose approach is the best. As MelanieN points out, that lets you list the more notable animals without having to be completely comprehensive. Donlammers (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the animal list now, but we don't have replacement paragraph for it yet. Should we just remove it and begin a starter paragraph with additions coming a few notable animals, then we could add to it as consensus suggests?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would merge "Exhibits" and "Animals." Then you already have descriptions for some of the major exhibits to add animals to, and you just need to create the missing exhibits. What I've generally done when organizing smaller articles is to first create an "Exhibits" section which lists the major exhibits or theme areas (depending on how the zoo is laid out) and include animal lists (in prose form). The lists can be fairly comprehensive but don't need to be complete ("Animals in this area include..."). I don't usually create an "Animals" section unless the zoo has some particularly notable animals (as in famous), or there is some other need for such a section. One way to transition while not losing the current list is to make it collapsible and put it at the end of the Exhibits section. Then once everything has been updated in the exhibits section you can eliminate the list as redundant. You can see Perth Zoo for a collapsible animal list at the end of the Exhibits section. Donlammers (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea.Thanks for tye suggestion.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has come through and totally recreated the animal lists. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the animal list without undoing any of the other recent edits by 71.107.84.163. Donlammers (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) in San Diego Zoo? There are only about 7 000 in the wild. Conservation of that great ape is crucial! I didn't find from the article, but that can also be a language problem. Nelisormimangusti (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks as if they have both Sumatran and Bornean orangutans, although they don't specify. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Follow up: They do have Sumatran orangs. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nelisormimangusti (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"In popular culture"
Someone recently deleted the entire "In popular culture" section, saying that it "contains nothing but disjointed, unsourced, and unencylopedia trivia." I restored it because I think there should be discussion/consensus before making such a major deletion. Personally I favor keeping the section. Many Wikipedia articles have an "in popular culture" section, and it is often the most popular section of the article (most read, most edited). If the problem is lack of sourcing, then let's provide some sources. If the section is "unencyclopedic", that's a matter of opinion; let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I have provided three sources. I don't have any more time right now. In these three cases I was able to find sources by going to the other article on Wikipedia and seeing what they reference. Others may or may not be as easy, but we really do need to source this section better. Donlammers (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see some additional sources added thanks to Melanie N. I think the Xanadu ref suffers from the same problem that all I found did. It does not specifically mention the zoo -- only the park. I'm going to leave it as the best we have, but I think we need a bit more to support the statement fully. Donlammers (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The article San Diego Zoo Corps has been unreferenced since 2008, and I can't find any references for it. In any case it seems non-notable on its own, being simply a education program of the San Diego Zoo, using high school age volunteers. I think the information would be better incorporated into this article, and a redirect left behind. What do the rest of you think? --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no objection. Should I go ahead and merge the information? Don Lammers (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: For basically the same reasons that MelanieN gives. If, in the future, someone comes up with a whole pile of information and citations, the article can always be re-created. Until then, I think it does not warrant its own article. I also just took a look through Zoo stub class articles, and the only stub article I spotted in the list that is a "sub-article" to the zoo like this one is Wildlife Warriors (and I have, in the past, debated proposing this for a merge), and it at least has a couple of citations. Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun is accessible through the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, but it's really a separate attraction and not part of the zoo. Don Lammers (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: The sub-article looks like it has little chance for expansion, and a brief mention within this article should be sufficient. A redirect should be left behind in case there ever is a significant expansion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been open for discussion long enough, with no opposition to the merge. As for myself, I have no opinion either way, whether the article stays or is merged. Life will go on.-- JOJ Hutton  14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up on this. I think it's time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have done the merge. Don Lammers (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Logo
Anyone think we should use the new logo on this page? Glman99 ☲☳☶    (talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
 * You mean this one ? Do we have a free or licensed copy of it that we can legally use? I don't find one at Wikemedia Commons. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need a free or licensed copy of logos. You can use them under fair use if you upload them to WikiPedia rather than to WikiMedia (where they need to be free or licensed). The image is tied to a specific article when you do this. Don Lammers (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I think adding the San Diego Zoo logo and the San Diego Zoo Safari Park logo  to the appropriate articles would be a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The logos on the web site are different from the ones that you point to. The San Diego Zoo logo is horizontal, and the park logo is orange on the background, not white letters on orange. Do we know definitively what would be considered "the" logo by the zoo and safari park? I have screen captures from the Web sites that I can upload. Don Lammers (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be kosher for me to write to the SD Zoo's PR people and ask them? --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you've exceeded my knowledge. I think the process here would be to email them for permission, get an email back (hopefully with graphics), and then you post both emails and declare it fair use. I've never done this though. So far my batting average when I have asked a zoo anything has been zero. In other words, I think it can be made kosher, but I don't really know how to do it. Don Lammers (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a little sucess there; when I emailed them to ask about that new umbrella organization "San Diego Zoo Global" I got a prompt reply. So maybe I will ask them what their preferred logo is. But after that I am lost, I don't know anything about WP's rather arcane systems for use of images. But I can probably find someone who does, once I establish which version to use. (can't sign, using iPhone)
 * On a visit to the Zoo yesterday I saw the more compact version (link #2 above) everywhere. I think that must be their preferred log for most purposes, while the horizontal one is used in just a few places like the website. If someone wants to go ahead and add that one to this page I think it would be appropriate. Still can't speak for what is done at the Safari Park. --MelanieN (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Elephant rides
Are there still elephant rides at the San Diego Zoo? I rode an elephant here many years ago. 12.239.145.114 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there are no elephant or other animal rides at the zoo. Haven't been for quite a long time. But if it's been that long since you visited you should come see it again - you'll hardly recognize the place, lots of big naturalistic enclosures where the animals can behave like animals. The hippo exhibit is amazing, because you can see how they move underwater - who knew they were so graceful? --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issue/close paraphrasing
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=San_Diego_Zoo&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 lovkal (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

List of animals needs sourcing
Most, if not all, of the animal lists are unsourced. I am not sure of a wp:reliable source for such a list. I don't believe the Zoo has such a list. Should the animal lists be removed? Jim1138 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Couple who had an animal show in early 70s at San Diego zoo
This couple had an animal show and always closed with a song. Who were they? 2600:1003:B861:2F4C:C845:3238:6451:7BE5 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:San Diego Zoo


text:
Complicated (Avril Lavigne song)

"Complicated" is the debut single by Canadian singer-songwriter Avril Lavigne from her debut album, Let Go (2002). It was released on 11 March 2002 by Arista Records. Lavigne and production team the Matrix (Lauren Christy, Scott Spock, and Graham Edwards) are credited as writers. Production on the song was helmed by the Matrix. According to Lavigne, the song is about being honest with oneself rather than "putting on a face".

"Complicated" received positive reviews from music critics, who praised the song as infectious pop rock. "Complicated" peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100, ultimately selling 1.1 million copies in the US. The song also spent a consecutive sixteen weeks at number one on the Billboard Adult Top 40 chart, breaking a previous record held by Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn". Internationally, "Complicated" topped the charts in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and Norway, with the song peaking in the top five in over twenty countries. "Complicated" was nominated for two Grammy Awards for Song of the Year and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance.

Background and release
After being signed to Arista Records, Lavigne moved to New York and began working on her debut album, Let Go, collaborating with a host of prime songwriters and producers. For a year, nothing was working for Lavigne and was on the verge of getting dropped off Arista. The management pitched her songs written by other songwriters, but she declined, insisting she wanted to write songs herself. Lavigne relocated to Los Angeles, where she collaborated with songwriter-producer Clif Magness, who gave her ample creative control in the writing process. Lavigne and Magness wrote "Losing Grip" and "Unwanted", songs that she deemed reflective of her vision for the entire album. However, Arista was not thrilled with the heavy-guitar laden songs that Lavigne was writing, prompting the label to look for other producers to match their demands.

Lavigne came to the attention of the three-piece production team the Matrix. Arista could not find the right direction for Lavigne, so the team's manager, Sandy Roberton, suggested that they work together. According to member Lauren Christy, they had been listening to Lavigne's early songs and felt they contained "a Faith Hill kind of vibe". As soon as they saw Lavigne coming into their studio, the Matrix felt that her musical direction was incongruous to her image and attitude. After talking to Lavigne for an hour, the singer said she wanted songs with punk rock inclinations. They told her to come back the following day, and in the afternoon during that day, they wrote a song that evolved into "Complicated" and another song called "Falling Down". They played it to Lavigne, inspiring her musical path.

When Josh Sarubin, the A&R executive who signed Lavigne to the imprint, heard the song, he knew it was right for her. Lavigne presented the song to Reid, who agreed the musical direction Lavigne and the Matrix were taking, and set "Complicated" as the album's lead single.

Composition
Composed in the key of F major, "Complicated" is a pop rock song about how people can feign or pretend in front of others. Lavigne said about the song: "People sometimes bother me how they're not real and how they're just, like, putting on a face and being two-faced". Lavigne stated that she experienced this with both boyfriends and female friends.

Critical reception
The song received generally positive reviews from critics. In 2009, Rolling Stone readers voted "Complicated" as the eighth top single of the decade. "Complicated" also ranked at number 197 in Blender magazine's "The 500 Greatest Songs Since You Were Born". In an AOL Radio listener's poll, "Complicated" was voted Lavigne's sixth best song. As of 2023, "Complicated" ranks as Lavigne's most popular song on several platforms, including Spotify and several other pop rock music list sites.

David Browne of Entertainment Weekly gave the song a B− and said "Avril Lavigne's not kidding about that title, she's the epitome of the blossoming anti-Britney movement". Christina Saraceno of AllMusic described "Complicated" as "a gem of a pop/rock tune with a killer chorus" and noted similarities between it and Pink's song "Don't Let Me Get Me". Saraceno highlighted the song as a "track pick" in a review of the album, Let Go.

On a more negative note, Sal Cinquemani of Slant magazine described 'Complicated' as "infectious" and "more poser than punk". In a review of Lavigne's second album, Under My Skin, David Browne of Entertainment Weekly noted that "'Complicated' felt like strung-together bits of Morissette songs".

Commercial performance
"Complicated" peaked at number two on the US Billboard Hot 100, right behind "Hot in Herre" and "Dilemma" by Nelly, and stayed for 31 weeks on the chart. It was Lavigne's longest charting song on the chart. "Complicated" peaked at number one on the US Billboard Adult Top 40 Airplay and Mainstream Top 40 Airplay charts, number 13 on the US Adult Contemporary chart, and number 30 on the US Rhythmic chart. The single was certified 3× platinum in the United States with 3 million copies sold, making it the best selling debut single by a female Canadian singer. Billboard ranked it at number 83 of the 'Top 100 Singles of the Decade'.

In the United Kingdom, "Complicated" peaked at number three on the UK Singles Chart and was certified 2× platinum with more than 1,200,000 copies sold and streamed. In Canada, the single peaked at number 21 on the Canadian Singles Chart and was the fourth-most-played song on Canadian radio in 2002, as well as the most-played song of the year by a native artist. In New Zealand, the single peaked at number one for 9 consecutive weeks on the RIANZ Singles Chart and was certified platinum with 10,000 copies sold. "Complicated" also peaked and debuted at number one in Australia, Ireland, and Norway; number two in Austria, Denmark, Europe, Hungary, Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland; and number three in Belgium, Germany, and Poland. It was certified 2× platinum in Australia with 140,000 copies sold, and gold in Denmark with 45,000 copies sold. "Complicated" was certified gold in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland, and platinum in Brazil and Norway.

Music video
The video, directed by the Malloys, starts with Lavigne asking her bandmates if they want to "crash" the mall. They respond with enthusiasm and skateboard there. The video features Lavigne and the band harassing shoppers and employees, generally causing havoc around the mall; for example, Lavigne watches her bandmates try on humorous clothing, shown as Lavigne sings the line "You come over unannounced, dressed up like you're something else".

This is intercut with footage of Lavigne performing the song at a skatepark while playing the guitar, with her band performing with her. People can be seen skateboarding around Lavigne as she and her band perform the song. As the line "You fall and you crawl..." is sung, a skateboarder can be seen falling over.

The video was shot at Eagle Rock Plaza, Los Angeles, in two days. During the shooting, the mall remained open. The video for "Complicated" was shot 4–5 March 2002 in L.A. The music video was released in April 2002.

As of June 2023, the video has over 600 million views on YouTube.

The music video was ranked at number 41 on Billboard's 100 Greatest Music Videos of the 21st Century.

Accolades
Lavigne won Best New Artist in a Video at the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards for "Complicated". "Complicated" won in the Single of the Year category at the 2003 Juno Awards. In the United States, the song was nominated at the 2003 Grammy Awards for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance and Song of the Year; it lost both awards to Norah Jones's "Don't Know Why". In Brazil, it was nominated in the category of best international video at the 2003 MTV Video Music Brazil. In April 2020, Billboard ranked the track at number two on their list of "The 50 Greatest Minivan Rock Songs".

Track listings and formats

 * US CD single and 7-inch vinyl
 * 1) "Complicated" (Tom Lord-Alge mix) – 3:58
 * 2) "Complicated" (the Matrix mix) – 4:02

 * European CD single
 * 1) "Complicated" (Tom Lord-Alge mix) – 3:58
 * 2) "I Don't Give"  – 3:39

 * Italian and Japanese CD single
 * 1) "Complicated" (The Matrix mix) – 4:03
 * 2) "I Don't Give"  – 3:39

 * UK cassette and European maxi-single 1
 * 1) "Complicated" (Tom Lord-Alge mix) – 3:58
 * 2) "I Don't Give"  – 3:39
 * 3) "Why"  – 3:59
 * 4) "Complicated" (video)

 * Australian maxi-single and European maxi-single 2
 * 1) "Complicated" (The Matrix mix) – 4:03
 * 2) "I Don't Give"  – 3:39
 * 3) "Why"  – 3:59
 * 4) "Complicated" (video)

Credits and personnel
Credits and personnel are adapted from the "Complicated" CD single-liner notes.
 * Avril Lavigne – writer, lead vocals
 * The Matrix – writer, producer, arrangement, recording, background vocals
 * Tom Lord-Alge – mixing at South Beach Studios (Miami)
 * Corky James – guitar
 * Victor Indrizzo – drums

Cover versions
Olivia O'Brien released a cover of "Complicated" in 2015. She performed the song during the Olivia O'Brien Show tour in 2021. In 2023, it was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI).

"Weird Al" Yankovic parodied the song as "A Complicated Song" on his 2003 album Poodle Hat.

In the anime Scott Pilgrim Takes Off, the episode Scott 2 Pilgrim features Kieran Culkin (who voiced Wallace Wells) randomly and abruptly covering the song to a news reporter. Vulture called the moment "a perfect Canadian '00s pop-rock reference."

title: Complicated (Avril Lavigne song)


text:
David Conner (bishop)

David John Conner,  (born 6 April 1947) is a British Anglican bishop. He served as Dean of Windsor from 1998 to 2023, and was additionally the Bishop to the Forces between 2001 and 2009. He previously served as Bishop of Lynn, a suffragan bishop of the Diocese of Norwich, from 1994 to 1998, and in school chaplaincy. Conner retired effective 31 July 2023.

Biography
Conner is the son of William Ernest Conner and Joan Millington Conner. He was educated at Erith Grammar School, then Exeter College, Oxford and St Stephen's House, Oxford. He was ordained as deacon on 29 June 1971 by Christopher Pepys, Bishop of Buckingham at St Martin's, Fenny Stratford. Having also spent a year at the Oxford Department of Education, soon after ordination he moved into chaplaincy at St Edward's School, Oxford (where he was ordained priest in 1972 by Kenneth Woollcombe, Bishop of Oxford, in the School Chapel) from 1971 to 1980, and later at Winchester. For a while, he was an examining chaplain to the Bishop of Winchester. From 1987 to 1994 he was Vicar of Great St Mary's the University Church, Cambridge. He served as Bishop of Lynn from 1994 to 1998, in which year he was appointed Dean of Windsor; in this role, Conner also held the post of Register of the Order of the Garter and was a domestic chaplain to Elizabeth II. From 2001 to 2009 he was also Bishop to the Forces. He was consecrated as bishop on 2 February 1994 at St Paul's Cathedral, by George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury. His installation at Windsor on 7 December 1998 was attended by Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; he later presided over both of their interments in the King George VI Memorial Chapel on 19 September 2022, after the Queen's committal ceremony.

For many years Conner has been closely involved with the selection of candidates for ordination and with the inspection of theological colleges, courses and schemes. He has been governor of a number of schools and colleges. He is an honorary fellow of Girton College, Cambridge.

Honours
Conner was appointed Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (KCVO) in the 2010 New Year Honours. He was promoted to Knight Grand Cross (GCVO) on 19 July 2023 ahead of relinquishing the post of Dean of Windsor.

He took part in the Royal Procession at the 2023 Coronation, not long before his 31 July 2023 retirement.

Personal life
In 1969, Conner married Jayne Maria Evans; they have two sons.

title: David Conner (bishop)