text:
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 3

172
is this acceptable? If not, can something be done? Sam [Spade] 07:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * As 172 isn't on this page, why is this comment here? Ambi 07:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought this was the right place. I take it you disagree? any advice? Sam [Spade] 07:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Shouldn't that go as evidence in the relevant case? This page, methinks, is just for ongoing policing necessary as a result of past arbcom decisions. Ambi 07:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Okey-Doke. Sam [Spade] 18:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * VeryVerily has violated injunction #3 at Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. It says "Enacted 3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this."  Yet he not only editted, but just reverted changes that me and Ce garcon had worked on  pertaining to the very Cold War Gwangju massacre (with the South Korean dictatorship claimed had been instigated by North Korea and so on).  It appears this is breaking the temporary order but the arbs would know best. Ruy Lopez 11:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * VeryVerily has violated the injunction below (#2) by reverting Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision three times in twenty-four hours (actually, only one hour). Please impose the twenty-four-hour ban that the injunction specifies. Shorne 10:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a project talk page, not an article, and it's a stretch to say I reverted it more than once. Very Verily 10:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would someone be able to give this page a bit of a format? It's quite hard to read and there's some outdated decisions there. Ambi 02:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Out of date decisions
The item "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2" appears to be redundant since Irismeister is blocked for one year. I suggest an arbitrator remove it. Also, should this talk page be archived or cleaned up? JesseW 07:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement request re: supporters of Lyndon LaRouche
I am writing to request enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decisions that (1) "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche; and that (2) "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." These decisions can be read here.

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:Weed Harper have created an article on the Tavistock Institute. This is an organization in London, England that was founded in the 1920s to promote the interests of psychology and psychiatry. Over the years, it has offered psychotherapy to British people through its related Tavistock Clinic; has worked with the British government and European Union to develop mental health policies; and has financially supported mental-health related publications through its own publishing house. It is an institution that is highly regarded by psychologists and psychiatrists in the UK. It is arguably the most highly regarded mental health institute in the UK. Its website is here.

In 1974, Lyndon LaRouche published an article accusing the Tavistock of being involved in mind control. That article can be found here (warning: slow download). Since then, the LaRouche view of the Tavistock has developed in countless articles and speeches and is therefore hard to summarize. However, he appears to believe that the Tavistock is involved in mind control in order to exert influence over the British people and, I believe, the American people. The Tavistock, LaRouche maintains, has worked with successive British and American governments to achieve this, and in particularly with the British Army and intelligence services. An example of Tavistock success is the Beatles pop group, he says. They were fashioned by Tavistock-related people and controlled by intelligence agencies. I believe the allegation is that Beatles songs had certain key ideas deliberately inserted into them that governments wanted young people to believe.

In an article I recently created called Death of Jeremiah Duggan, Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper tried to insert some of LaRouche's ideas about the Tavistock, claiming it was relevant. That article is not the subject of this request, as we have settled that dispute as a result of compromise. However, I have now discovered that, in addition to trying to insert these views on the Tavistock into Jeremiah Duggan, the same users have created a page on the Tavistock Institute. The page is in its infancy, but one sentence already mentions mind control and social engineering and "critics" of the Tavistock. I have asked that they provide non-LaRouche attribution for these claims. They have so far only provided the results of a Google search, which produces all the old LaRouche ideas, cited by people on conspiracy websites who are either associated with LaRouche or who believe his ideas.

I ask that the Arbitration Committee find, as a matter of fact, that the sentence in the article Tavistock Institute that mentions mind control and social engineering constitutes "original research" that originated with LaRouche and his movement, and that, by inserting it, users Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper are engaged in activity that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, in contravention of the Committee's rulings. I also ask the Committee to find, as a matter of fact, that these users created the article on the Tavistock for no other reason than to promote the LaRouche ideas on the Tavistock, and that therefore they be asked to refrain from further editing of that article.

The Tavistock Institute is not the only article into which these users are inserting LaRouche-related material. However, I am limiting this request to the Tavistock Institute in the interests of clarity. Slim 23:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the article on Tavistock Institute bears little relationship to the activities of the Tavistock Insitute and seem to be mainly derived from LaRouche conceptions. Any user may remove such material, see Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Should it be re-inserted or an edit war develop, "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision. As of now, no one has removed LaRouche derived material from the article Tavistock Institute nor has anyone tried to re-insert it or engaged in an edit war. Fred Bauder 02:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * As of 11:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC), the offending material has been removed, and no edit war has yet developed. We shall see what the future holds. JesseW 11:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response from Herschel
SlimVirgin has seized upon citations from non-LaRouche publications, and deleted citations from these publications, arguing that since they seem to have information similar to that in the LaRouche publications, they must be indirectly controlled by LaRouche. This is quite a conspiracy theory. Slim's novel interpretation of the ArbCom decision is that henceforth, only a POV contrary to that of LaRouche is admissable. Incidentally, a Google search for articles linking Tavistock to brainwashing or mind control, excluding any reference to LaRouche or EIR, gives you roughly 34,000 entries. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Herschel, enough of this nonsense. I'm asking you to provide trusted third-party attribution for your edits, just as all other Wikipedia editors are frequently asked to do. You neglect to mention that I searched for a trusted third-party source for one of your claims yesterday, and then I inserted it (the Guardian article on Symons' BAP link) into the page you had edited. This shows that it is not true that only POV contrary to LaRouche is acceptable to me. You are misrepresenting my position.
 * The example you gave above illustrates your misuse of sources. It is true that a Google search for Tavistock+mind+control returns 33,900 entries, which is unsurprising as Tavistock psychologists study the mind. But a search for Tavistock+"mind control" returns only 1,630, most of which (and probably all of which) parrot the conspiracy theory that started with LaRouche. Slim

 * Just out of curiosity, how would you define a "trusted" source? --Herschelkrustofsky 17:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * One not published by LaRouchists, I'd imagine. A neutral source. Ambi 00:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Quote begins:

"Dubious sources

"For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.

"Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example: According to the weblog Simply Relative, the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces.

This is similar to how we try to achieve a neutral point of view." Quote ends Slim 00:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily
Regarding the temporary injunction against him, VeryVerily has violated it, making communism related edits and I request he be banned for 24 hours. Ruy Lopez 07:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The injunction pertains to articles relating to communism. Just because this article states that the IMC does not function in communist countries does not make this an "article having to do with communism".  Sheesh, even Mirv wouldn't make this argument.  Would he? Very Verily  07:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You inserted the word communism. You're the one who MADE the article about communism. Ruy Lopez 07:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * If anyone is interested, this conversation continued at Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence, where an admin defended my interpretation. Very Verily 09:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enough is enough
I request that the Arbitration Committee take action against users Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden and 64.30.208.48 in accordance with the committee's ruling that: "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement, or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material, shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision

The three users are inserting claims into Lyndon LaRouche and Frederick Wills, without third-party attribution, which are designed to enhance the image of Lyndon LaRouche, and have reverted deletion of the claims three times in the last 16 hours.

Frederick Wills was a former Guyana government official who later in life became a member of the Schiller Institute, which is part of the LaRouche movement. In 1976, before there is evidence of his involvement with LaRouche, he apparently gave a speech to the U.N. advocating a third world debt moratorium. The above users are inserting that he gave this speech only after coming into contact with LaRouche, and that the speech was designed to promote LaRouche's proposal. They've provided no evidence to support this claim. Wills has died and therefore can't be asked what's true. This is an attempt to claim ownership on behalf of LaRouche of Wills' proposal on debt relief.

Regarding these users' edit histories, C Colden's and 64.30.208.48's  only contributions to Wikipedia, and almost all of Herschelkrustofsky's,  have been to promote LaRouche or his ideas. Slim 18:46, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * This convinces me. Ban them all for a week? Martin 23:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Seconded.
 * James F. (talk) 23:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Slim

 * Thirded. →Raul654 00:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * I concur. --mav 04:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. Fred Bauder 11:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Upon complaint by user: C Colden and response by Jimbo it has been determined that Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision does not apply to her, if it applies to anyone. Fred Bauder 15:11, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * What has Jimbo said on this? To my knowledge, he's never vetoed an ArbCom decision before, so I find it strange that there's no mention of it anywhere on the wiki. Ambi 00:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It was on the mailing list: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/032435.html -- sannse (talk) 01:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It appears that the article, Frederick Wills, in question can be considered related to Lyndon LaRouche, thus the action taken in this matter was not appropriate. Fred Bauder 16:16, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Cantus
According to this, Cantus may not revert any article more than once in a 24-hour period. He just violated this rule on 20 different articles: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Macedonia, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey. Please apply a 24-hour block (or a 20-day block if it's supposed to be cumulative). Gzornenplatz 06:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Wik. Don't you have enough problems with Wikipedia yourself? —Cantus…  ☎   09:12, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * The penalty is up to a week; the multiple violations make it worth a week IMO. Cantus, when we say you're not supposed to do this stuff, we really mean you're not supposed to do this stuff - David Gerard 19:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cantus is evading the block with an obvious sockpuppet User:TimComm, which sprung into activity right after Cantus was blocked and is doing exactly the same reverts Cantus did. Gzornenplatz 04:11, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Now he has a second sockpuppet, User:Lazyfair. I think it is not enough just to block each sockpuppet, or he just creates new ones endlessly. Maybe increase Cantus' main block for each time he tries to evade it? Gzornenplatz 04:39, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Third sockpuppet, User:Ground0. Fourth sockpuppet, User:Tumti. No end in sight. Also engaging in page-move vandalism. How about adding a week to Cantus' block for each sockpuppet. This would make him stop if he ever wants to return to his Cantus account. Gzornenplatz 05:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fifth sockpuppet, User:Xsysl. Gzornenplatz 06:27, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Cantus is now using the IP 80.237.206.93 (anonymizer.ccc.de). Gzornenplatz 05:05, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Alberuni ban
Isn't the Alberuni ban supposed to be for 13 months, 1 month for 3RR violations, and a further 12 months for "numerous personal attacks"? Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Question answered elsewhere, ArbCom can only ban for a maximum 12 months. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz
User:Gzornenplatz was blocked today for violations of the arbitration decision (Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision), which says "2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours."

As can be seen in the table, Gzornenplatz has been repeatedly removing the country infobox template link, and replacing it with the full text. This has been done carefully at just over 24 hour increments (so as not to break that Arbitration ruling), but he has not discussed these edits on the relevant pages, nor abided by the consensus from many editors that his edits are not wanted, and this effort is creating an extra burden on other users. Rather than being constructive, he continues to push this particular agenda. As such, he is being blocked for one day for each offence listed here, for a total of 56 days. In reality, this only represents a portion of the edits, specifically only those articles he has reverted 2, 3, or 4 times. Many articles have been only reverted once by him in this way. Páll 06:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me just say that I completely agree with this. Gzornenplatz is playing the system by timing his edits outside of the 24 hour limit, yet still is reverting against consensus and without discussion.  The arbCom was specific when it says to discuss "on the relevant talk page", and if that means he has to discuss one article at a time, then that is what he should do.  He cannot just keep reverting, especially under the terms of Arbitration. -- Netoholic @ 06:52, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

 * P.S. Gzornenplatz has tried evading the block at least once as 209.237.231.200.  -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, Gzornenplatz is really a sockpuppet of Wik, which is subject to many arbcom rulings. Hence, Wik is violating arbcom rulings as User:Wik and the arbcom rulings as User: Gzornenplatz. This calls for a indefinite ban. —Adalis 07:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Do not unblock him. This has already been announce to other admins for further discussion, and I will consider reducing the block based on that discussion. Páll 07:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocks are very rarely applied consecutively, rather than concurrently. I urge you to reduce the 56-day block. It should be regarded as one large violation, not 56 small ones - David Gerard 12:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I know nothing of the substance of this particular dispute, I feel it should be pointed out that Gzornenplatz "opponent" in this issue appears to be Cantus, who has used at least 5 sockpuppets and/or anonymous IPs to revert these pages as well. Battling an army of sockpuppets is, in my view, a mitigating circumstance. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * But only if those sockpuppet accusations are real. While both Cantus and Gzornenplatz were revert warring, the origin and action of the "Cantus" sockpuppets can't be confirmed, since they were done via anonymous web proxies - a mechanism Gzornenplatz is well aware himself of how to use. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

CheeseDreams
moved from the main page by sannse (talk) 12:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC):

-Its the 30th of January, shouldn't that be removed?

end of moved text

 * The block was removed, but another is currently in place for edits to a Christianity related article, in violation of the ban in that area -- sannse (talk) 12:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arb clarification decision
Would the ArbCom please clarify on CheeseDreams' sockpuppets? I would assume the ban would be enforced on those articles as well. Also, clarification as to "Christianity"... does this mean all articles relating to, including articles relating to Jesus? -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't the right page for this (although we don't have a page at the moment for clarifications - I suppose WP:RfAr is probably the best for now). But... all rulings apply to the person and not to the account.  So CheeseDreams is banned from the articles in question whatever account (or IP) she uses.  The decision states "all Christianity-related articles".  You might notice on the proposed discussion page that we considered a ban only on "Jesus-related" articles, but rejected that in favour of a wider ban.  That was my reasoning anyway, and that of Delirium who stated "prefer [Christianity-related], which is a superset".  From what I recall of the discussion at the time, and from comments made since, this was also the reasoning of other arbitrators.  As far as I am concerned, all Jesus-related articles are included in the ruling.  If this needs clarifying more formally - then I suggest a request at WP:RfAr -- sannse (talk) 12:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo, NahChyps, Lady Tara, Baffinisland, Nasse
moved from the main page by sannse (talk) 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Done by Snowspinner, who forgot to sign off here (shame!). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:21, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Dammit. I'll get right on requesting arbitration against myself for my failings. Snowspinner 03:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse; have had dealings with this individual in the past which bias me against him. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:32, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Rienzo is currently editing via the IP 67.15.77.158 as of 30th January

end of moved text

 * If Rienzo is evading a block, the place to mention this is the Administrators' noticeboard. Although, as I suspect you may be doing the same, you don't really have the best of cases here -- sannse (talk) 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:JarlaxleArtemis
This notice has been expanded and moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Psychonaut 17:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update?
I suggest (humbly) that an arbitrator update this page (I'd rather not touch it...too much probable trouble would result from that precedent, methinks). Xed, for example, should either be removed or else his ban timer updated. Rienzo should be removed unless the note someone left about restarting his ban timer is valid. I think I saw a few others. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 17:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yep, this needs a good sort out, and also a re-evaluation of its use. I think this should be a central place for all remedies that need admin action, including dates for expiry.  I intend to work on this shortly and give it a real overhaul -- sannse (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Presumably, this page is intended to be a central reference point for arbcomm decisions. In which case I point out an oddity: that the decisions for me, Cortonin and JonGwynne aren't listed. I don't know if others are missing too. William M. Connolley 21:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

William M. Connolley's parole - enforcement
(This debate originally appeared on an incorrect wikipage. It was my fault. Please accept my apologies.)

� (SEWilco 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)) I may have missed some and only looked at the recent 500. � (SEWilco 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC))
 * User William M. Connolley is violating the parole.
 * See e.g. the page on "Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg where he reverted the page without explaining his reasons on the talk page, although he is specifically forbidden to do so. Together with MichaelSirks, we are looking for tools to enforce the parole. Could you please help us? Thanks, --Lumidek 15:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At least one violation of the 1 rv in 24 hours restriction took place.
 * 10:24, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (Peat fires - Change pic to one also showing increase.  Leave text.)  (top)
 * 09:54, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (rv to WMC. Its perfectly clear from the graph that there was no such boost to explain)
 * A lack of Talk updates is also apparent in Special:Contributions&target=William+M.+Connolley.  Some are rvv, but being locked up may mean someone else has to save the grandmother next door from a fire.

This is the tedious old climate wars again with the same old suspects. SEW has stuffed this page with a pile of gross irrelevance.

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=26542081 - this is explained perfectly in the edit comment rm new link - appears to be just a link to a scan of a paper; of questionable use and probably copyvio
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate&diff=prev&oldid=26462307 - don't need heinlein here; doubt he is originator anyway: rv to Andres

I can't be bothered to go through the full list - as SEW himself says (is he mad?) Some are rvv - SEW is just trouble making. If he has a serious complaint, he needs to winnow it down to real cases and remove the dross. William M. Connolley 19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

Oops, missed some more dross: SEW supposed viol of 1RR: ''Peat fires - Change pic to one also showing increase. Leave text.) (top) '' - *its not a revert*. This is just malice/trolling. William M. Connolley 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

Comment by Rd232
Since this is about WMC's parole, let's remind ourselves of the key part of that text: "Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate."
 * which I interpret as 1. no more than 1 revert in 24 hrs, i.e. a return to previous page state; 2. this excludes responses to vandalism; 3. where there is a dispute about sourcing a Talk page explanation is required, unless 3a. adequate explanation can be fitted into an edit summary, and is provided. I interpret 3a as a reasonable extension 3. as it otherwise imposes needless burden on others - to visit Talk page to see every WMC edit summary, instead of seeing in watchlists. If this is way off base from what was intended or what others think, sorry; but I comment below on this basis.

 * 1. WMC came in and supported Orsetto (and Tsavage?) in dipute with MichaelSirks, over major revision of page; it seems difficult to interpret this as a breach of the citation/Talk page requirement.

 * Here WMC was in clear violation of his parole. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole.--MichaelSirks 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 3,4., - the initial edit from Mikkalai wasn't a revert (removed some material only); one revert from SEWilco, with adequate edit summary (not regarding a citation); one edit to change picture, not a revert

Picking some WMC contributions from SEWilco's lengthy list:
 * 5. is removal of 2 of 3 links over 2 edits a reversion?
 * 10. is a straightforward re-addition of an internal link, with explanation;
 * 20. was with edit summary and discussed on Talk by others who agreed
 * 25. - two edits that day, neither reverts, and discussed on Talk;
 * 30. not a revert (only restored deleted statement and fixed link after major addition)
 * 35. not a revert (and a removal of his section after my rewriting of which I didn't object to!);
 * 40. related to a dispute over citation, in which WMC didn't quite revert  but didn't explain properly either. It included WMC changing a link (in the intro) from [URL URL] to [URL], which SEWilco reverted with edit summary "rv WMC's destructive wiki edit", which someone else remarked was "inflammatory and uncalled for".
 * 45. a revert of vandalism
 * 50. not a revert and had clear edit summary
 * 55. reverted removal of link/citation on basis link was dead but citation still useful
 * 59. removal of vandalism.

Of which only this comes close:
 * [15] explained on Talk; ; WMC tried to justify second revert in 24h by reference to vandalism  which a dubious interpretation. But since WMC didn't revert the subequent readdition, it not's much to hang a man by. I would suggest that after four months of a six months parole a minor slip is grounds for gentle reminder, no more; Wikipedia is not a police state. If there are more serious/demonstrable violations in SEWilco's list, it's entirely his fault for padding it with irrelevancies and trivialities.

All in all this looks like renewed animosity on the part of a number of people, sparked by the recent return of a contributor ('return' as he made only 4 edits between 20 July and 14 October) involved or at least affected by the case. This is now four months into WMC's parole and in that time I haven't seen any disputes on this (not that I've been looking for them). So it looks a bit like a settling of old scores, given that SEWilco's trawl of WMC's edits (imagine how time-consuming that must have been!) reveals so little.

Finally, I have concerns about this remark on my talk, a reply to a request by WMC to check out this enforcement request and comment if appropriate: ''Hi. Let me mention that WMC has brutally violated the rules of Wikipedia, and if you follow his order, you will be a violator, too. --Lumidek 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)'' Which further supports my concern that this enforcement issue is being raised as a vendetta. Finally-finally, I've spent an hour+ seeing whether there was a basis for the accusations; time that could have been spent more productively. Let's get back to actually working on Wikipedia. Rd232 talk 22:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I find your "defense" of WMC bizarre. It's like someone who is accused of 50 murders and someone else proving that the killer is innocent because 20 of the victims were actually just children. There are well-defined rules here on Wikipedia and they have to be obeyed unless we want to support the tendencies that damage the Wikicommunity and its goals. --Lumidek 00:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking over, the diffs, it appears that Rd232 is correct in his assessment. I don't think WMC has done anything wrong. On the other hand, Lumidek's and SEWilco's actions have the appearances of a vendetta. Like Rd232, I received the same threats from Lumidek. His comments on this page are bizarre and, IMO, constitute personal attacks. Guettarda 02:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * So you think WMC has met the requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references)." Where are those corresponding talk page comments?  And shouldn't one trust that an editor carrying on a vendetta is able to pursue one better than once in 4 months?  The issue here is whether WMC has followed the rules.  After 4 months, this is a "minor slip" which has the requirements and penalties defined.  (SEWilco 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

SEWilco comment on Rd232
I'd thought some of WMC's edits looked odd, but hadn't looked at the situation until this complaint popped up. Anybody monitoring? No parole officer? There are still a number of oddities; without reexamining the last 500 edits there are still 8 items listed below, from Rd232's list.
 * I had interpreted "(vandalism excepted)" as imposing the penalty upon vandalism by parolees, but it being an rvv exception fits the phrasing better.
 * "unless 3a. adequate explanation can be fitted into an edit summary, and is provided." is an exception which is not in the Remedy. You might not recall that Talk descriptions were required due to a history of problematical edit summaries.
 * I provided the link to WMC's Contributions because it is easy to see oddities there.

Some remaining items in Rd232's partial list:
 * 1. WMC came in and supported Orsetto (and Tsavage?)... I see no group rv exception in the ruling.  I didn't try to judge whether this was a group revert war because a war is not a requirement either.
 * 3,4.  - ...revert from SEWilco, with adequate edit summary... Actually, there was an unsigned Talk entry with a graph-reading explanation to counter the removed sourced statement.  Is trying to interpret a graph the required "reputable source"?
 * 5. is removal of 2 of 3 links over 2 edits a reversion? It is an rv, labeled rm, of the link created during the preceding 2 edits. Required Talk missing.
 * 10. is a straightforward re-addition of an internal link, with explanation; Required Talk missing.
 * 20. was with edit summary and discussed on Talk by others who agreed Required Talk missing.''' (nearest Talk edit over 11 hours later)
 * 40. ...WMC didn't quite revert... ... but didn't explain properly either. Comparison with WMC's previous version shows it was a revert with a destructive citation conversion added. Required Talk missing. (nearest Talk edit 5 hours later)  This conversion replaced
 * with only the less descriptive URL:
 *
 * 50. not a revert and had clear edit summary Comparison with 3rd preceding version shows it was revert with two phrases also changed.  Required Talk missing.
 * 55. reverted removal of link/citation on basis link was dead but citation still useful A good and necessary edit which violates parole.  Required Talk missing.
 * 55. reverted removal of link/citation on basis link was dead but citation still useful A good and necessary edit which violates parole.  Required Talk missing.

� (SEWilco 05:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC))

comment MichaelSirks

 * Here WMC was in clear violation of his parole. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole. If you let WMC get away with this wikipedia will degenerate into a reverting encyclopedia. Where the one who can shout the longest wins. --MichaelSirks 19:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco comment on WMC
- (SEWilco 05:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Connolley points out the injunction link is to a temporary injunction. That is correct.
 * Connolley neglected to point out there is a revert parole elsewhere in the document.

 * Well, weirdly enough, I'm *not* required to sort out your complaints for you. If you're going to whinge, at least do it competently. Spamming a vast list of irrelevant edits is a waste of everyones time, including yours. William M. Connolley 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC).
 * I did indeed sort out someone else's complaint about your edits. I don't suppose you'll save everyone time by providing a list of your improper edits.  (SEWilco 05:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Sure. Here it is: [ ]. William M. Connolley 09:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC).
 * Would you (WMC) try to defend your revert in the Lomborg article.--MichaelSirks 18:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Table of reversions
Contributions by WMC which are labeled as reversions for which no Talk edit was apparent. A few items are listed for relevant context. A Note "No Talk" indicates no associated Talk page edit was apparent: "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references)." (SEWilco 05:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Among other issues, SEWilco is not paying enough attention to the meaning of the subclause "where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". The parole terms again:
 * Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see ). ... Determining ... what is a 'reputable source' is left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator (who should follow the guidance at ).  Rd232 talk 15:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Meaning of this sentence seems to me to mean; That WMC must backup every revert on the talk page. There he must cite or ask for a reputable source. But he doesn't do anything of the kind he just reverts the text with comments like; "rv to orzetto" or "Rv to WMC, just like before". Explain to me what you think that it means. Who are the persons who made up the verdict surely they can tell us what they mean.--MichaelSirks 22:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the details of the meaning. But rather than nitpick what the authors might have meant, if you're serious about pursuing this, you could ask them - Requests for arbitration#Requests for Clarification. Rd232 talk 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

WMC ignores parole
"'… I discuss on the talk pages where this is useful, and use edit summaries where that suffices. Anything more would be unreasonably burdensome.… William M. Connolley 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC).'"

It is OK to ignore a ruling due to one finding it is "burdensome"? (SEWilco 17:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

 * The arbcomm, obviously, intends to be reasonable. Unlike you. William M. Connolley 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

 * The arbcomm already decided it is reasonable that explanations must be given, so administrators don't have to debate whether "(Rv POV gossip)" or "(rv edits by banned user JonGwynne, including mistaken "correction" of link)" (enforcement of decision upon other while ignoring own parole!) is sufficient. (SEWilco 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

 * Actually, what is expected is that he "adequately address the concerns raised by the other editors" . Guettarda 19:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * For the third time WMC try to defend your revert on the Lomborg article. You can't. Let me summerize it for you;
 * Here WMC was in clear violation of his parole. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole. If you let WMC get away with this wikipedia will degenerate into a reverting encyclopedia. Where the one who can shout the longest wins.
 * You(Guettarda) don't find it nescesary that WMC adresses the specific issues here raised. I find this unbelieveble. This won't go away.--MichaelSirks 20:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "(Rv POV gossip)" nor "re-rm gossip" (not in above table because "rv" not present) doesn't seem to have been particularly adequate. (SEWilco 20:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

 * 1) (cur) (last)  02:50, 7 July 2005 William M. Connolley (Re-rm gossip, and now POV-pushing too: there is no justification for that.)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 17:54, 6 July 2005 213.122.5.133 (bring position and action together)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 17:48, 6 July 2005 213.122.5.133 (and still more)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 13:18, 5 July 2005 William M. Connolley (re-rm gossip)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 17:14, 3 July 2005 213.122.111.221 (Another issue)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 13:47, 3 July 2005 William M. Connolley (re-rm gossip)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 16:21, 2 July 2005 81.131.132.154 (see talk for another possible addition)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 04:31, 2 July 2005 William M. Connolley (re-rm gossip)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 15:19, 1 July 2005 213.122.98.244 (Still informative and referenced)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 02:45, 1 July 2005 William M. Connolley (Re-rm gossip)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 18:10, 29 June 2005 213.122.217.150 (rv - not gossip but direct quotes from proper sources)
 * 12) (cur) (last) 11:13, 29 June 2005 William M. Connolley (Rv POV gossip)
 * 13) (cur) (last) 17:10, 28 June 2005 81.131.97.80 (rv - you seem to be trying to hide something)
 * 14) (cur) (last) 05:48, 28 June 2005 William M. Connolley (rv, as before)
 * 15) (cur) (last) 16:22, 25 June 2005 213.122.64.47 (Rv as per talk)
 * 16) (cur) (last) 15:40, 25 June 2005 William M. Connolley (Rv as per talk)

 * The issue was addressed adequately in the talk page. What's you point?  Guettarda 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Which part of must confuses you? Just on those two examples, on the day of the "(Rv POV gossip)" edit  he didn't address anything in Talk until 14 hours later; whether that Talk met your qualifications it still left the edit unexplained and slowed resolution of the discussion.  Just a few days after going on parole.  The "(rv edits by banned user JonGwynne, including mistaken "correction" of link)" edit  had no edits of the article's Talk page by WMC until nearly 2 days later.  (SEWilco 04:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

 * In the Lomborg article WMC didn't bother to adress anything in the talk page. You could have known that if you looked at them instead of taking WMC's word for it. The specific revert (cur) (last) 21:22, 23 October 2005 William M. Connolley (rv to Orzetto). No talkpage entries of WMC. If you want to defend him at least be specific. This won't go away.--MichaelSirks 21:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Climate change dispute/Admin enforcement requested
Arbitrators: I do not see information from Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute in Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. Is something from the former supposed to be in the latter page? (SEWilco 04:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Xed parole enforcement
According to Requests for arbitration/Xed, Xed is currently on standard personal attack parole for one year, until 9 March, 2006. For the record, I would like to document Xed's recent campaign against Jayjg and myself. Xed persists in attacking Jayjg on Talk:Norman Finkelstein, calls Jayjg a "propagandist" and a weasel, and claims that I've been "caught lying" on Divine Intervention (film). Diffs follow. --Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Norman Finkelstein
 * 20:31, 3 November 2005 I would be happy discussing article content. But it seems you are not
 * 20:45, 3 November 2005 Thanks for providing documentary evidence of Jayjg's shocking behaviour. I had not realised the situation had degenerated to such a degree.
 * Divine Intervention (film)
 * 19:20, 3 November 2005 remove weasel-like wording from propagandist
 * 09:10, 4 November 2005 rv weasel
 * 10:37, 4 November 2005 rv weasel tag-team
 * 11:31, 4 November 2005 you've been caught lying. you can't review all those pages in 3 minutes!
 * 12:05, 4 November 2005 Weasel tag-team in effect

 * Has he found the parole to be "unreasonably burdensome" so it does not apply? (SEWilco 17:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC))

 * Can you explain what you mean? Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Only Arbitration Committee members can add new items to this page."
Obviously this should be updated to take account the role of clerks. Anyone have a view on whether this be done conservatively (i.e., that only duly appointed clerks may do so), or liberally (i.e. that anyone may do say, provided they're doing so directly on the basis of an actual arbcom decision, and doing so neutrally and accurately, etc)? I note that at least one case seems to have slipped through, even since the start of the clerking system. Alai 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This isn't meant to complain or anything, but most of the cases (including that of KDRGibby) I've seen fall through the cracks in some way since clerking began are those closed by an arbitrator. (This is just anecdotal, and is not meant to be taken as strong proof that the arbs are losing it or something. :p) Johnleemk | Talk 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Angel

 * User:203.213.77.138 has been blocked as being related to this decision, while not being listed as a party to it. Warning and blocking were simultaneous. Clyde did not follow the Arbcom decision by blocking this editor for one month, rather than up to one week []. While Clyde might be excused for not knowing the facts, user:FeloniousMonk is fully aware, being a party to the RfA, of the decision.  However, he unblocked, then reblocked for the same amount of time, posting notice on the Talk page of the article.  This is yet another example of admin abuse, that I tried to have addressed in the RfA, that still continues. agapetos_angel 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * As I noted at WP:AE at the time,  is one of the enjoined parties precluded from editing Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in Genesis. He was specifically identified here: Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Workshop, and thus by his POV editing falls under "et al." After editing both articles tendentiously,, , , , though it's not required, 203.213.77.138 was warned and notified of the ruling on his talk page, and yet he chose to continue editing these articles, justifying the longer block. His block has since been reduced by Cyde to 1 week, but I predict it will be back to 1 month not long after his week is up, based on the refractory habits of this editor behind the various IPs. FeloniousMonk 16:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Since blocking is supposed to be preventive rather than punitive, a block of one month based on a prediction would be out of line. If a month is later necessary due to the actions of that editor, it is a different matter.  However, my complaint against enjoined administrators is still valid.  Involved in the disputes, FeloniousMonk has no business blocking editors with whom he is conflicting. agapetos_angel 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think your frustration here is being caused by not understanding some central points. 1) 203.213.77.138's block for 1 month was not because it was "predicted" he would be a chronic offender (something his past history supports), but because he was warned and continued to edit the articles (as well as made a personal attack). 2) I'm not in a content conflict with 203.213.77.138, I was attempting to enforce the arbcomm ruling. 3) Admins enforcing arbcomm rulings are not subject to the same restrictions regarding blocking banned editors as those who are in conflicts over content. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive?
AER is getting a bit huge in terms of number of sections. Shouldn't there be an archive? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh most definitely. J- ſtan TalkContribs 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary
This page is huge, and frankly it seems unreasonable to expect administrators to keep all this in mind as they interact with users. My biggest concern is that the only admins likely to be familiar with the remedies in a specific area are the ones that are already most involved, which is undesirable. Maybe we could have a summary of a summary. It seems to me that there are three main groups: banned users; users under some restriction (e.g. civility, topic ban), and topic areas under some restriction (e.g. article probabtion). Three brief (alphabetical) lists with links would suffice. So long as the lists are maintained, we don't need to see the case status or expiration date. The shorter the summary, the more likely admins would be to refer to it. Bovlb (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! I found General sanctions and Editing restrictions which cover most of what I wanted.  Maybe the page header should send people there.  Bovlb (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 3


text:
Talk:Eurydome (moon)

Comments
English pronunciation likely to be [yuh-RID-uh-mee].
 * Confirmed with UCSB classics dept. Partial Greek spelling (no Greek stress). kwami 02:58, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eurydome (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709055841/http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08100/08177.html to http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08100/08177.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Eurydome (moon)


text:
Talk:Iocaste (moon)

Untitled
English pronunciation [EYE-o-CASS-tee] per the Dictionary of Classical Mythology (JE Zimmerman, Harper & Row, 1964).

Traditional English form of the name is Jocasta, so Jocastan would be an acceptable adjectival form. kwami 2005 June 30 00:33 (UTC)
 * What's the source for the listed Ionian in the infobox, then? Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * None. It's a copy-paste error from whoever added the info box. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Some new information...
Hello everybody! I found some new info about Iocaste here: http://ksiezyce.republika.pl/jupiter/iocaste_en.html

Regards, Maxim (maksimovmaxim@gmail.com)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Iocaste (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813235622/http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/papers/JSATS/SJ2003.pdf to http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/papers/JSATS/SJ2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iocaste (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614045102/http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/papers/JUPITER/JSP.2003.pdf to http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/papers/JUPITER/JSP.2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Iocaste (moon)


text:
Talk:Scion (automobile)

scion
sci·on n. 1. A descendant or heir. 2. also ci·on (sn) A detached shoot or twig containing buds from a woody plant, used in grafting.

[Middle English, from Old French cion, possibly of Germanic origin.]

0.43 cents per mile.....
I was blown away when I first read that the xB costs ".43 cents per mile" to operate...

then after rereading I noticed that, while there is a $ there in front of .43 it was also followed with "cents".

I don't know what the answer is, but I bet it's 43 cents per mile ($.43) and not .43 cents per mile............

small issue, but it had me mislead at first..... "$.43 cents per mile" can be read two different ways --- so it's worth correcting IMO.

Project Genesis Failure and Gen Y
Scion grew out of Project Genesis and its failure, however in this article that is not really expanded on, nor is it in the article about Project Genesis.

There are theories that abound about why Genesis failed and Scion succeeded, should Wikipedia include those, mainly the plausible and notable ones over the conspiracy theories, in order to maintain a better history section in this Article on Scion?

Oh uh, that was Scryer360 above who posed that. Yah, uh, you know, me.

Advertising on Gaia Online
If you have an account with 'em, go out and check their newest feature : Gaia Cars, sponsored by none other than Scion :D. I figure this should be added to the article, but I don't have the expertise to do so.

Scion Guy here. Did you know Scion had a "Selfie of the Week"?
Scion had a Facebook account where they have had a page for owners to post their Scion vehicles, Scion has made "ScionSelfieoftheWeek", also creating a website specifically for this. Selfie Rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scionnn (talk • contribs)

 * Some points about conventions:
 * New sections go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top.
 * A leading space creates that weird box effect. Do not use a leading space.
 * Sign your name and the date by putting  at the end.
 * Links to websites that no longer exist are pointless. Links to archived pages are better in that case.
 * Being reverted multiple times by an experienced editor probably means you are doing something wrong. Ask on the talk page why they are reverting you?
 * Hoping that we can work together to make this page better.  Stepho  talk 20:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scion (automobile)


text:
Talk:Euanthe (moon)

Untitled
The orchid Euanthe is pronounced [you-AN-thee] ([you-WAN-thee] in much of the US).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Euanthe (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120327153049/http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/08100/08177.html to http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/08100/08177.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Euanthe (moon)


text:
Tom Roberts

Thomas William Roberts (8 March 1856 – 14 September 1931) was an English-born Australian artist and a key member of the Heidelberg School art movement, also known as Australian impressionism.

After studying in Melbourne, he travelled to Europe in 1881 to further his training, and returned home in 1885, "primed with whatever was the latest in art". That year, he joined Frederick McCubbin in founding the Box Hill artists' camp, the first of several plein air camps frequented by members of the Heidelberg School. Together with Arthur Streeton and Charles Conder, they staged the 1889 9 by 5 Impression Exhibition, Australia's first self-consciously avant-garde art exhibition.

Nicknamed "Bulldog" due to his tenacity and drive, Roberts was considered the primary force behind the Heidelberg School movement. He encouraged other artists to capture the national life of Australia, and while he is best known today for his "national narratives"—among them Shearing the Rams (1890), A break away! (1891) and Bailed Up (1895)—he earned a living as a society portraitist, and was the first person to push for Australia to have its own National Portrait Gallery. In 1903, he completed the commissioned work The Big Picture, the most famous visual representation of the first Australian Parliament.

Family and early life
Roberts was born in Dorchester, Dorset, England, although some mystery surrounds his actual birthdate: his birth certificate says 8 March 1856, whereas his tombstone is inscribed 9 March.

Roberts migrated with his family to Australia in 1869 to live with relatives. Settling in Collingwood, a suburb of Melbourne, Victoria, he worked as a photographer's assistant through the 1870s, while studying art at night under Swiss-born landscape painter Louis Buvelot and befriending others who were to become prominent artists, notably Frederick McCubbin.

Travels and studies in Europe
During this period, his mother had remarried to a man whom Roberts did not get along with. He decided to further his art studies, and returned to England for three years of full-time art study at the Royal Academy Schools from 1881 to 1884. He traveled in Spain in 1883 with Australian artist John Russell and future politician William Maloney, where he met Spanish artists Laureano Barrau and Ramon Casas, who introduced him to the principles of impressionism and plein air painting. While in London and Paris, he took in the progressing influence of painters Jules Bastien-Lepage and James Abbott McNeill Whistler.

Leader of the Heidelberg School movement
From 1884 and through to February 1892, Roberts worked again in Victoria, and became a prominent member of the bohemian artists' society the Buonarotti Club, adopting its habit of dress with a red satin lined opera cape and a 'crush topper,' though also advocating that professional artists be put in charge of the Club's exhibition activities; so instituted a selection panel of Frederick McCubbin, Louis Abrahams, John Mather, Jane Sutherland and himself, who would select and hang the works and provide exhibitors with constructive feedback.

In the summer of 1885–86, Roberts began establishing "artists' camps" on the outskirts of Melbourne for the purpose of capturing en plein air the rural life and native bushland of Australia, as well as its light, heat, space and distance. At the first of these camps, the Box Hill artists' camp (now in suburban Box Hill) he initially worked alongside McCubbin and Abrahams before they were joined by other artists. The Box Hill railway station had been completed only a few years earlier, allowing for convenient access to the Australian bush. The following summer, the trio established a second camp at bayside Mentone, a popular holiday spot. On Mentone Beach, they met and befriended the young Arthur Streeton, who was then painting en plein air. Streeton became a frequent visitor to the artists' camps and a protege of Roberts, who taught him impressionistic techniques. From 1888, Roberts rented a studio in Grosvenor Chambers, at 9 Collins Street, Melbourne's first purpose-built complex of art studios. The architects consulted Roberts on the design of the building, to ensure ideal lighting. At Grosvenor Chambers, Roberts became one of Melbourne's most fashionable portraitists.

Another meeting of importance was with Charles Conder, who Roberts befriended during a visit to Sydney in 1888. They painted en plein air together, creating companion views of Coogee Beach, and discussed impressionist techniques, which Conder had also picked up from expatriate artist G. P. Nerli. In October 1888, Conder followed Roberts to Melbourne, at first staying at his studio at Grosvenor Chambers.

During the summer of 1888–89, Roberts and Conder joined Streeton at his Heidelberg artists' camp, and began organising an exhibition of "impressions" they painted upon wooden cigar box lids, supplied by Abrahams, manager of the cigar business Sniders & Abrahams. In doing so, the artists sought to capture the fleeting effects of nature in a spontaneous manner, and were intent on officially establishing themselves as "impressionists" and thus the vanguard of Australian art. The exhibition, named the 9 by 5 Impression Exhibition (in reference to the 9 x 5 inch dimensions of the lids), was held in August and September of 1889, at Buxton's Rooms. Roberts was the main exhibitor with 63 "impressions", followed by Conder and Streeton. McCubbin and Charles Douglas Richardson also accepted invitations to join the exhibition. It proved to be a succès de scandale, attracting scorn from a number of art critics, who dismissed impressionism as a fad. Today it is considered a landmark event in Australian art history, and the first independent exhibition of the Heidelberg School movement, named after the location of the aforementioned artists' camp. Due to his age, tenacity and influence, Roberts was considered the movement's de facto leader. Upon moving to Europe in 1890, Conder wrote to Roberts, saying, "If there is any distinct school in Melbourne, ... it's entirely due to you."

When a severe economic depression hit Melbourne in 1890, Roberts and Streeton relocated to Sydney, where they continued to paint en plein air at artists' camps, including Curlew Camp and other camps around Sydney Harbour. From Sydney, both artists travelled into the rural districts of New South Wales, where they painted most of their iconic "national" pictures. For Roberts, these themes were reinforced by his association with members of the Bulletin School in Sydney, centered around the nationalist periodical The Bulletin.

Final years
In 1896, he married 36-year-old Elizabeth (Lillie) Williamson and they had a son, Caleb. Lillie Roberts was an expert maker of picture frames, and during the period 1903–1914, when Roberts painted relatively little, much of the family's income apparently came from Lillie's work. Roberts spent World War I in England assisting at a hospital. Back in Australia, he built a house at Kallista, near Melbourne. Elizabeth died in January 1928, and Roberts remarried, to Jean Boyes, in August 1928. He died in 1931 of cancer in Kallista. His ashes are buried in the churchyard at Illawarra near Longford, Tasmania, one of his favourite painting spots.

Work
Roberts painted a considerable number of fine oil landscapes and portraits, some painted at artist camps with his friend McCubbin. Perhaps the most famous in his time were two large paintings, Shearing the Rams, now displayed in the National Gallery of Victoria and The Big Picture, displayed in Parliament House, Canberra. The Big Picture, commissioned for a fee of one thousand guineas plus expenses was a depiction of the first sitting of the Parliament of Australia in the Melbourne Exhibition Building and was an enormous work, notable for the event depicted as well as the quality of Roberts' work.

Shearing the Rams was based on a visit to a sheep station at Brocklesby in southern New South Wales, depicted the wool industry that had been Australia's first export industry and a staple of rural life. When it was first exhibited, there were immediately calls for the painting to enter a public gallery, with a Melbourne correspondent for the Sydney press stating, "if our national gallery trustees were in the least patriotic, they would purchase it." Some critics did not feel that it fitted the definition of 'high art'. However, since the wool industry was Australia's greatest export industry at the time, it was a theme with which many Australian people could identify. In this painting, as one modern reviewer has said, Roberts put his formal art training to work, translating "the classical statuary into the brawny workers of the shearing shed".

Roberts made many other paintings showing country people working, with a similar image of the shearing sheds in The Golden Fleece (1894), a drover racing after sheep breaking away from the flock in A break away!, and with men chopping trees in Wood splitters (1886). Many of Roberts' paintings were landscapes or ideas done on small canvases that he did very quickly, such as his show at the famous 9 by 5 Impression Exhibition in Melbourne, "9 by 5" referring to the size in inches of the cigar box lids on which most of the paintings were done. Roberts had more works on display in this exhibition than anyone else.

In 1888 Roberts met Conder in Sydney and they painted together at Coogee beach. The younger Conder found these painting expeditions influential and decided to follow Roberts to Melbourne later that year to join him and Streeton at their artists' camp at Heidelberg. While Conder painted Coogee Bay emphasising on the decorative qualities of form and colour, Roberts' Holiday sketch at Coogee(1888) embodies his primary focus on the landscape's natural effects. It is an early testament to Roberts' plein-air 'impressionist' technique, which brought out the sun's glare on the bright blue sea, bleached white sand, dry grass and spindly seaside vegetation.

Legacy
Roberts' life was dramatised in the 1985 Australian mini series One Summer Again.

A "lost" painting titled Rejected was featured in a 2017 episode of the BBC series Fake or Fortune?. It was determined by experts to be a genuine Roberts, dating from his student years in London. Roberts' granddaughter considered it a self-portrait. If so, it would make it his oldest surviving self-portrait.

Retrospectives
A retrospective toured Australia in 1996–97 and another was shown at the National Gallery of Australia from December 2015 – March 2016. Roberts was one of four Australian artists whose paintings featured in the Australia’s Impressionists exhibition at the National Gallery, London, which ran from December 2016 to March 2017; it was described as 'the first UK exhibition of its kind'.

title: Tom Roberts


text:
Talk:Ijiraq (moon)

Untitled
Two dialectical variants of the Inuit Ijiraq, with the J pronounced either as in Danish or as in English. Anglicized with the accent on the first syllable: [EE-yuh-ruck] or [IDGE-uh-ruck].

follow up
Heard back from Michael Kusugak, who proposed the name. NASA had given the pronunciation as "ee-gee-RAK" in a press release, with the accent messed up (which happens surprisingly often). Michael said,

"You are right about the accents. Kiviuq is pronounced Ki' vi uq (kee' vee oq, the q is gutteral, pronounced in the back of the tongue). Paw' lee ahq, See' ar nahq and Ee' ye rahq."

I'd imagine that for many English speakers, "EE yuh rahk" might be an easier pronunciation. kwami 06:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Having heard inuits speak, I cannot imagine how this could be pronounced with anything else than a true J (e.g. "Ee-djee-rack"). I'm 99% sure the "yuh" is dead wrong.

 * Urhixidur 04:29, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the language myself, but evidently this is a matter of dialectical variation. I'll take Michael's word for it that he at least pronounces Inuit J something like an English Y. Ijiraq is also an Inuit family name, and as such, it is often given the more Anglicized spelling "Iyerak". Of course, given the variation, an English J "spelling pronunciation" wouldn't be wrong, and would be more accessible to Anglophones. kwami 10:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia recording
I've just uploaded an audio recording of the article. Please let me know if I've mispronounced anything. :-) --Mangst (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ijiraq (moon)


text:
Pasteur Institute

The Pasteur Institute (Institut Pasteur, ) is a French non-profit private foundation dedicated to the study of biology, micro-organisms, diseases, and vaccines. It is named after Louis Pasteur, who invented pasteurization and vaccines for anthrax and rabies. The institute was founded on 4 June 1887 and inaugurated on 14 November 1888.

For over a century, the Institut Pasteur has researched infectious diseases. This worldwide biomedical research organization based in Paris was the first to isolate HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, in 1983. It has also been responsible for discoveries that have enabled medical science to control diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, influenza, yellow fever, and plague.

Since 1908, ten Institut Pasteur scientists have been awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine and physiology—the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was shared between two Pasteur scientists.

History
The Institut Pasteur was founded in 1887 by Louis Pasteur, the French chemist and microbiologist. He was committed both to basic research and its practical applications. From the start, Pasteur brought together scientists with various specialties. The first five departments were directed by two normaliens (graduates of the École Normale Supérieure), Émile Duclaux (general microbiology research) and Charles Chamberland (microbes research applied to hygiene), a biologist, Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov (morphological microbe research), and two physicians, Jacques-Joseph Grancher (rabies) and Emile Roux (technical microbe research). One year after the inauguration of the Institut Pasteur, Roux set up the first course of microbiology ever taught in the world, Cours de Microbie Technique (Course of microbe research techniques).

Pasteur's successors have sustained this tradition, which is reflected in the Institut Pasteur's unique history of accomplishment:
 * Emile Roux and Alexandre Yersin discovered the mechanism of action of Corynebacterium diphtheriae  and how to treat diphtheria with antitoxins
 * Alexandre Yersin discovered in 1894 the pathogen of bubonic plague, Yersinia pestis
 * Paul-Louis Simond discovered in 1898 the role of the flea in the transmission of plague
 * Albert Calmette and Camille Guérin discovered how to culture the tuberculosis bacillus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis (so-called BCG or Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) at Institut Pasteur de Lille, and developed in 1921 the first effective anti-tuberculosis vaccine
 * Alphonse Laveran received the 1907 Nobel Prize for his research on the role of protozoans as disease agents (notably, his discovery of the malaria hematozoon)
 * Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov received the Nobel Prize in 1908 for contributions to the scientific understanding of the immune system
 * Constantin Levaditi and Karl Landsteiner demonstrated in 1910 that poliomyelitis is due to a filterable virus
 * Félix d'Herelle discovered in 1917 the bacteriophage, a virus that spread only inside bacteria
 * Jules Bordet received the Nobel prize in 1919 for his discoveries on immunity, especially the implication of antibodies and the complement system′s mechanisms of action
 * Charles Nicolle received the Nobel prize in 1928 for explaining how typhus is transmitted, especially the role of the louse
 * Jean Laigret developed in 1932 the first vaccine for yellow fever
 * André Lwoff established in 1951 the existence of proviruses, a work honored by the 1965 Nobel Prize
 * Jacques Monod and Francois Jacob discovered the mechanism of genes' transcription regulation, a work honored by the 1965 Nobel Prize
 * Pierre Lépine developed in 1955 one of the first anti-polio vaccines
 * Jean-Pierre Changeux isolated in 1970 the first receptor to a neurotransmitter, the acetylcholine receptor.
 * Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and colleagues discovered the two HIV viruses that cause AIDS in 1983 and 1985; Montagnier and Barré-Sinoussi were honored by the 2008 Nobel Prize

A new age of preventive medicine in France was made possible by the Institut Pasteur's (early 20th century) development of vaccines for tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, yellow fever and poliomyelitis. The discovery and use of sulfonamides in treating infections were another of its earlier breakthroughs. Some researchers discovered antitoxins, while Daniel Bovet received the 1957 Nobel Prize for his discoveries on synthetic anti-histamines and curarizing compounds.

Since World War II, Pasteur researchers have focused on molecular biology. Their achievements were recognized in 1965, when the Nobel Prize was shared by François Jacob, Jacques Monod and André Lwoff for their work on the regulation of viruses. In 1985, the first human vaccine obtained by genetic engineering from animal cells, the vaccine against hepatitis B, was developed by Pierre Tiollais and collaborators.

Opening
The center against rabies, directed by Jacques-Joseph Grancher and Émile Roux, had become so overcrowded that it became necessary to build a structure that Pasteur had been calling with the name "Institute Pasteur" long before it was even built. Pasteur delegated the task of the project and of creating the new building, situated on rue Dutot, to two of his colleagues, Grancher and Emile Duclaux.

From the beginning, the Institute experienced economical difficulties for which it needed the help of the government, some foreign rulers, and Madame Boucicaut, but this aid did not affect its independence.

The statutes drawn by Pasteur and later approved by Duclaux and Grancher define, besides its absolute freedom and independence, the institute's internal structure: a rabies division controlled by Grancher, anthrax one in Chamberland's hands, who also supervised the department of microbiology, while Emile Roux dealt with microbial methods applied to medicine.

World War I and World War II
During the First World War, the Pasteur institute prioritized vaccinating troops against the easily contractable typhoid fever. By September 1914, the institute was able to provide 670,000 doses of the vaccine and continued to produce it throughout the conflict.

Gabriel Bertrand, with Roux's authorization, crafted a grenade based on chloropicrin and Fourneau discovered the chemical reaction that led to the formation of methylarsine chloride.

In 1921, Albert Simard edited the La réaction de fixation de l'alexine: son application au diagnostic sérologique de la peste,  "work of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, plague laboratory."

In 1938 the institute, despite its relative poverty, built a biochemical division and another one dedicated to cellular pathology, whose direction was entrusted to the hands of Boivin (who went on to discover endotoxins that are contained in the germ's body and are freed after its death). During the same period, Andre Lwoff assumed the direction of a new microbial physiology branch built on rue Dutot. The general mobilization after France's declaration of war against Germany, in September 1939, emptied the Institute and significantly reduced its activities, as members of appropriate age and condition were recruited into the army, but the almost total absence of battles during the first months of the conflict helped maintain the sanitary situation on the front. After the occupation of France, the Germans never tried to gather information from the institute's research; their confidence in Germany's advantage in this field decreased their curiosity, and their only interest was in the serums and vaccines that it could provide to their troops or the European auxiliaries they recruited. This relative freedom allowed the institute to become, during the two years after the occupation, a pharmacy for the Resistance thanks to the initiative of Vallery-Radot, Pasteur's nephew. The Germans became suspicious of the institute's staff only after an outbreak of typhoid in a Wehrmacht division that was stationed near Paris before being sent to the Russian front. The cause of the epidemic was later found to be due to a member of the Institute stealing a culture of the germ responsible for the disease and, with the collaboration of an accomplice, infecting a large quantity of butter used to feed German troops. The fact that the epidemic spread after the Germans sold some of the butter to civilians was proof that the illness's breakout was not caused by local water quality. Afterward, the German authorities ordered that the institute's stores containing microbial cultures could be opened only by authorized members; similar security problems also induced them to demand complete lists of the staff's names and functions; missing names caused the Germans to send two biologists, Dr. Wolmann and his wife, as well as other three lab assistants, to a concentration camp. The institute was not a location for German entrenchment even during the battles for Paris's liberation because of the honor and respect it commanded, as well as out of fear that involving it in any type of conflict might "free the ghosts of long defeated diseases".

Economical difficulties during the 1970s
At the end of 1973, the institute's economic status was so worrisome that its troubles aroused the public's interest: no one could believe that an institution that was to provide vaccines and serums for more than fifty million people could be undergoing such big financial problems, an institution that furthermore was believed to be under government protection and therefore shielded from bankruptcy. The causes of the decadence that brought the institute to financial ruin were numerous, but most of them were associated with its commercial and industrial activities and its management. This affected both the research and production branch: the research branch didn't receive enough funds and the production branch, which was losing market ground to the new private labs, was immobilized by the antiquated mechanical equipment.

In 1968 rabies reappeared in France after being previously eradicated in 1924. Despite the fact that it owed its original celebrity to the discovery of the rabies vaccine, the Pasteur institute was ultimately replaced by other pharmaceutical industries in the production of the vaccines. Despite the Pasteur institute's financial troubles, its members were able to produce over 400,000 doses of vaccine against the Hong Kong influenza later that year.

In 1971 Jacques Monod announced a new era of modernization and development: this was symbolized by the construction of a new factory where all the production departments were to be reunited. Its construction cost forty-five million francs and the Government granted the institute a sum of twenty million francs to bridge the deficit, followed by the people's initiative to also accept a role in the division of the financial responsibilities.

COVID-19 pandemic
Pasteur was the first institute in Europe to culture and sequence the genome of what was later named the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which caused the COVID-19 pandemic, on 29 January 2020. The institute deposited the complete sequences of the virus samples taken from two of the first French cases on the GISAID database platform. The institute has also been involved in research and development of testing and epidemiological modelling, including in Africa via its network institutions.

In 2020, Pasteur were involved in the development of a COVID-19 vaccine in partnership with Merck & Co., but this was abandoned in January 2021 after unsuccessful clinical trials.

Institute Pasteur in Cambodia was a key institution involved in the public health response during the COVID-19 pandemic in Cambodia, as well as conducting research into SARS-CoV-2. Pasteur Institute of Dakar were also involved in Senegal's health response.

Roux's cure of diphtheria and studies on syphilis
Not long after the institute's inauguration, Roux, now less occupied in the fight against rabies, resumed in a new lab and with the help of a new colleague, Yersin, his experiments on diphtheria. This disease used to kill thousands of children every year: an associated condition was commonly called croup, which created fake membranes in the patients' throats, therefore killing them by suffocation. It was called "Horrible monster, sparrowhawk of the shadows" by Victor Hugo in his Art of being a grandfather. The painter Albert Gustaf Aristides Edelfelt made a painting portraying Pasteur in his laboratory while he was trying to cure this illness.

Roux and Yersin grew the bacillus that causes it and studied, thanks to various experiments they did on rabbits, its pathogenic power and symptoms, like the paralysis of the respiratory muscles. It is this last consequence of diphtheria that provided the two researchers with a clue to the nature of the disease since it is caused by an intoxication due to a toxin introduced into the organism by the bacillus, that while secreting this particular venom is able to multiply itself: they were therefore inclined to think that the bacillus owed its virulence to the toxin. After filtrating the microbial culture of the Corynebacterium diphtheriae and injecting it into the lab animals, they were able to observe all the typical signs of the sickness. Roux and Yersin established that they were dealing with a new type of bacillus, not only able to proliferate and abundantly reproduce itself, but also capable of spreading at the same time a powerful venom, and they deduced that it can play the role of antigen, that is if they could overcome the delicate moment of its injection, made especially dangerous by the toxin.

Some German researchers had also discovered the diphtheria toxin and were trying to immunize some guinea pigs through the use of a vaccine: one of them, Von Behring, Robert Koch's student, stated that he was able to weaken small doses of the toxin. Nonetheless, Roux was not convinced by this result, since no one knew the collateral effects of the procedure, and preferred to use serotherapy since more than one lab study – like the one accomplished by Charles Richet – demonstrated that the serum of an animal vaccinated against the disease included the antibodies needed to defeat it. The anti-diphtheria serum which was able to agglutinate the bacteria and neutralize the toxin was supplied by a horse inoculated with the viral germs, and it was separated from the blood drawn from the horses' jugular vein.

Roux needed to test the effectiveness of the product he elaborated on To test the serum, two groups of children were chosen from two different hospitals: in the first one, which received the serum, 338 out of 449 children survived, in the latter one, treated with the customary therapies, only 204 out of 520 survived. Once the results were made public by Le Figaro newspaper, a subscription fund was opened to raise the money needed to provide the Institute with the number of horses necessary to produce enough serum to satisfy the national demand.

After Duclaux's death, Roux took his place as head of the institute, and the last research he carried out was the one on syphilis, a dangerous disease because of its immediate effects and the hereditary repercussions that result from it. Despite Fournier's considerable work, van Swieten's liquid mercury was still the only known cure, although its results were doubtful and uncertain. The search for a stronger remedy against this disease was made more difficult because most animals are immune to it: it was thus not possible to experiment with possible cures and study their likely side effects. The sexually transmittable Treponema pallidum (the syphilis germ), detected by two German biologists, Schaudinn and Hoffmann, affects only the human race – where it resides in sperm, ulceration, and cancers that it is able to cause – and, as it would later be discovered, some anthropoid apes, especially chimpanzees. Both Roux and Metchnikoff, following the discovery that this type of ape can be contaminated with the illness, contributed with their research in creating a vaccine, while Bordet and Wassermann elaborated a solution that was able to expose the germ's presence in human blood. Even though it was not yet a completely reliable solution, it represented progress compared to the previous medicines used against syphilis.

Metchnikoff's phagocytosis theory
Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov had already published the "principle of immunization" during his voluntary exile in Italy, where he went to undertake some studies, the results of which he had promptly communicated to Pasteur. The phagocytosis theory is based on the notion that phagocytes are cells that have the power to englobe foreign bodies – and above all bacteria – introduced inside an organism. German biologists opposed to his doctrine the humoral theory: they claimed to have found in Roux's serum some substances able to reveal the presence of microbes, and to ensure their destruction if properly stimulated. The German scientist Eduard Buchner referred to these substances as "alexine" and two other biologists, Von Behring and Kitasato demonstrated their lytic power towards bacteria. In 1894 one of these scientists published the result of an experiment that appeared to refute Metchnikoff's ideas: using the cholera vibrio, discovered ten years before by Robert Koch, as an antigen, Richard F. J. Pfeiffer introduced it in the abdomen of a guinea pig already vaccinated against this disease, and was able to observe the destruction of the vibrio in the local blood plasma, without the participation of the phagocytes. Not even this study was able to shake Metchnikoff's belief and faith in his theory, and his ideas, as well as Pfeiffer's and Buchner's, would all contribute to the elaboration of the current theory of the immune system.

Yersin's studies on the plague
Yersin, after his research with Roux, abruptly left the Institute for personal reasons. The news of a violent plague outburst in Yunman enabled Yersin to show his potential as he was summoned, as Pasteur's scholar, to conduct microbiological research of the disease. The plague he had to deal with was the bubonic plague, which is recognizable most of the time through the abscesses, known as buboes, it provokes in its victims. Yersin looked for the germ responsible for the infection specifically in these plague spots, tumors caused by the inflammation of the lymphatic glands which become black because of the necrosis of the tissue. After many microscopic exams he was able to state that in most of the cases the bubonic plague bacterium was located in these buboes; but in the meanwhile, the Japanese scientist Kitasato also declared that he had isolated the bacterium, even though the description he provided differed from the one given by Yersin. Therefore, although at first named "Kitasato-Yersin bacillus" by the scientific community, the microbe would later be called by the latter's name because the one identified by Kitasato, a type of streptococcus, cannot be found in the lymphatic glands.

However it was Paul-Louis Simond who was the first to understand and describe the etiology of the plague and its modality of contamination: he observed small flea-bites on the bodies of the people affected by it, which he also found on the bodies of the dead rats that were linked to the plague, and then deduced that the fleas which carried the bacteria were its true vector or source, and that they transmitted the illness by jumping from the dead rats' bodies to the human ones and biting them.

Calmette's and Guerin's anti-tuberculosis vaccine
By the beginning of the 20th century, improvement of living conditions and development of a more extensive conception of hygiene produced a slight regression in tuberculosis cases in France: nonetheless the institute's labs, like many other ones, kept trying to find among the Koch's bacillus many singularities the one that would allow them to find an antidote. Right after he had discovered the bacillus, Koch had tried in vain to create a vaccine against it, however, the injection of the filtrate he had prepared, later called tuberculin, had the effect of revealing who was phthisic from who was not by causing in the latter—and not in the former—fever and light trembling.

The institute's newspaper was filled at the time with articles regarding tuberculosis, some of which were written by Albert Calmette, who extended his research to a socio-professional category which was extremely affected by it, that is the miners in whom this disease is often anticipated or accompanied by silicosis and anchylostomiasis (caused by a small intestinal worm that creates a state of anemia propitious to tuberculosis). After finding a better solution to anchylostomiasis, he focused on creating a vaccine using the bacillus responsible for bovine tuberculosis, very similar to the human one, as it caused almost the same symptoms. Having observed that most actinomycetales are saprophytes, that are able to survive outside of living organisms, with the help of a veterinarian, Camille Guerin, he attempted to create an environment for the bacillus that, in time, altered its features by eliminating the virulence and leaving only the antigenic power.

The environment deemed appropriate for the denaturation of the Mycobacterium bovis was a compost of potatoes cooked in the bile of an ox treated with glycerine, and Calmette re-inseminated it every three weeks for thirteen years while checking for an enfeeblement of the pathogenic power of the bacillus. Having finally lost completely its virulence, the bovine tuberculosis germ grown with their method was the principal prophylactic weapon against human tuberculosis, and it helped to reduce considerably the frequency of this disease.

While experimenting on chimpanzees in Kindia, Calmette also discovered that it can notably weaken some leprosy manifestations – its bacillus presents some similarities with Koch's.

Calmette's work in Saigon
In Saigon Albert Calmette also created the first overseas branch of the institute, where he produced an amount of smallpox and rabies vaccines sufficient to satisfy the needs of the population and started a study on venomous snakes, particularly cobras. During these studies, Calmette discovered that the power of the venom, as well as that of tetanus, could be countered by the use of alkaline hypochlorites, and was able therefore to create a serum, effective if injected right after the cobra's bite. Back in France, he acquired enough snakes to continue his work and create a serum for the local population.

Nicolle's work on epidemic typhus
The scientist and writer Charles Nicolle while in Tunis studied how epidemic typhus – known for the red spots it left on sick people that disappeared before their death – was transmitted. His insight into the mode of transmission occurred while he was visiting the hospital: patients were washed and given clean clothes on admission, and no new cases occurred within the hospital. This made him realise that the vector of the disease were lice that were discarded with the patient's own clothes. Nicolle managed to attract Hélène Sparrow to be Laboratory Chief in Tunis. She had worked with Rudolf Weigl who had developed a vaccine, and she was able to introduce this to Tunisia as the start of a public health programme to control the disease. Nevertheless, three other scientists also identified the bacterium responsible for the disease: Ricketts, Russell Morse Wilder (1885–1959), and Prowazek, who called it Rickettsia prowazekii.

Chantemesse's typhoid vaccine
During the summer of 1900, the extremely hot weather and scarcity of the water supply in Paris, usually ensured by the Ourcq channel and by the de la Dhuis aqueduct, forced the authorities to pump water directly from the Seine, which, despite filtering, led to a sudden and alarming outbreak of typhoid cases in Paris. The cause of the disease, a bacillus that was discovered almost twenty years before by the German bacteriologist Karl Joseph Eberth and that looks like a bodiless spider, was constantly present in this river and not even pouring extensive quantities of ozone and of lime permanganate into its water was enough to exterminate the bacteria. The difficulty in creating a vaccine is caused by the nature of the germ's endotoxins. Unlike diphtheria, which releases toxins via exocytotic secretion, typhoid pathogens encapsulate endotoxins that survive even after the death of the bacillus.

After working in the rabies division of Rue Vaquelin and studying the microbe that causes dysentery, André Chantemesse collaborated with a younger bacteriologist, Georges-Fernand Widal. Together they were able to immunize guinea pigs by inoculating them with heat-treated dead bacteria, calling into question the notion that only weakened, not dead, bacteria can be used to immunize. They concluded that a series of three or four early injections of such heat-inactivated bacteria can effectively inoculate against the development of the disease, as the endotoxins alone are sufficient to trigger the production of antibodies.

Fourneau and the Laboratory of Medicinal Chemistry
Regarding curative medicine, it was in 1911 that it took off at the Institut Pasteur, when Ernest Fourneau created the Laboratory of Medicinal Chemistry, which he directed until 1944, and from which emerged numerous drugs, among which one can mention the first pentavalent arsenical treatment (Stovarsol), the first synthetic alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonist (Prosympal), the first antihistamine (Piperoxan), the first active drug on heart rate (Dacorene) or the first synthetic no-depolarising muscle relaxant (Flaxedil). The discovery of the therapeutic properties of sulfanilamide by Tréfouël, Nitti and Bovet, in the laboratory of Fourneau, paved the way for the sulfamidotherapy.

The Hospital Pasteur
The Hospital Pasteur was built during the first years of the 20th century in front of the institute and was employed for a long time by the members as a field for clinical observation and experimentations of therapeutical processes elaborated by themselves. Since in the beginning it was provided with only 120 beds, every patient was so well isolated in his private room that each room could be almost considered a small pest house, ideal for quarantine. The construction of the hospital was enabled by the gift of a benefactor, Madame Lebaudy, while money offered by the baroness Hirsch was used to build a large pavilion that accommodated the Department of Chemical Biology of the institute.

Duclaux work in the chemical biology department
The work done in the new pavilion by Duclaux clarified how the human body accomplished some of its vital functions and discovered the role of a diastase. It was critical in resolving a controversy aroused between Pasteur and Berthelot after the publication of Claude Bernard's posthumous essay regarding the nature of the agents implicated in some transformations that happen inside plants, like fermentation. While Pasteur believed that the only substance implied in the process of fermentation was yeast, Bernard – and Berthelot in his own way – believed that some other soluble ferment was involved: the German chemist Eduard Buchner later demonstrated the existence of this "ferment", an intracellular diastase which he called "zymase," what we know now as enzymes. Duclaux's study on the metabolism of nutrients did not have immediate practical applications, but later revealed how extensive is the field of enzymes and opened new roads that would lead biology to extend the knowledge on life's mechanisms on a molecular level.

Pasteur's museum and tomb
The Musée Pasteur (Pasteur Museum) is located in the south wing of the first building occupied by the Institut Pasteur, which was inaugurated on 14 November 1888. Established in 1936, this museum preserves the memory of Louis Pasteur's life and work in the vast apartment where he lived during the last seven years of his life, from 1888 to 1895. This museum also includes the collection of scientific objects illustrating the scientist's work, as well as the Neo-Byzantine funeral chapel where Pasteur is buried.

List of international locations
Today, the Institut Pasteur houses 100 research units and close to 2,700 people, including 500 permanent scientists and another 600 scientists visiting from 70 countries annually. The Institut Pasteur is also a global network of 33 foreign institutes devoted to medical problems in developing countries; a graduate study center and an epidemiological screening unit. The international network is present in the following cities and countries:

Research centers
As of 2008, the Institut Pasteur has eleven major research departments:
 * Cell Biology and Infection,
 * Developmental Biology,
 * Genomes and Genetics,
 * Immunology,
 * Infection and Epidemiology,
 * Microbiology,
 * Neuroscience,
 * Parasitology and Mycology,
 * Structural Biology and Chemistry,
 * Virology,
 * Computational Biology

There are also non-research departments devoted to records and archives maintenance, maintenance of historical micro-organism cultures, publications, and the library.

In addition to the isolation of HIV-1 and HIV-2, in the recent past researchers at the Institut Pasteur have developed a test for the early detection of colon cancer, produced a genetically engineered vaccine against hepatitis B and a rapid diagnostic test for the detection of the Helicobacter pylori bacterium which is implicated in the formation of stomach ulcers. Other research in progress includes the study of cancer and specifically the investigation of the role of oncogenes, the identification of tumor markers for diagnostic tests, and the development of new treatments. One area of particular interest is the study of human papilloma viruses (HPV) and their role in cervical cancers. Researchers are currently focusing on the development of various vaccines against many diseases including AIDS, malaria, dengue fever and the Shigella bacterium.

Currently, an extensive line of research aims at determining the complete genome sequences of several organisms of medical importance, in the hope of finding new therapeutic approaches. The institute has contributed to genome-sequencing projects of the common yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, an organism which was so important for Louis Pasteur's history), completed in 1996, Bacillus subtilis completed in 1997, Mycobacterium tuberculosis completed in 1998.

Teaching center
Since its founding, the Institute Pasteur has brought together scientists from many different disciplines for postgraduate study. Today, approximately 300 graduate students and 500 postdoctoral trainees from close to 40 different countries participate in postgraduate study programs at the institute. They include pharmacists and veterinarians, as well as doctors, chemists, and other scientists.

Epidemiological reference center
Strains of bacteria and viruses from many different countries are sent to the institute's reference center for identification. In addition to maintaining this vital epidemiological resource, the Institute serves as an advisor to the French government and the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations. Pasteur scientists also help to monitor epidemics and control outbreaks of infectious diseases throughout the world. These activities have created a close collaboration between the Institute and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Vaccines and diagnostic products
Production and marketing of diagnostic tests developed in the Institute laboratories are the responsibility of Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur, a subsidiary of the French pharmaceutical firm Sanofi, while production and marketing of vaccines are the responsibility of Pasteur Mérieux, Sérums et Vaccins.

Structure and support
As a private, non-profit organization, the Institut Pasteur is governed by an independent board of directors, currently chaired by François Ailleret. The director-general is Stewart Cole.

By drawing financial support from many different sources, the institute protects its autonomy and guarantees the independence of its scientists. The institute's funding includes French government subsidies, consulting fees, licensing royalties, contract revenue, and private contributions.

In popular culture
The book The Paris Option by Robert Ludlum and Gayle Lynds begins with four men blowing up the Institut Pasteur, as a cover for stealing a molecular computer project being done there.

title: Pasteur Institute