text:
Home improvement

The concept of home improvement, home renovation or remodeling is the process of renovating, making improvements or making additions to one's home. Home improvement can consist of projects that upgrade an existing home interior (such as electrical and plumbing), exterior (masonry, concrete, siding, roofing) or other improvements to the property (i.e. garden work or garage maintenance/additions). Home improvement projects can be carried out for a number of different reasons; personal preference and comfort, maintenance or repair work, making a home bigger by adding rooms/spaces, as a means of saving energy, or to improve safety.

Types of home improvement

While "home improvement" often refers to building projects that alter the structure of an existing home, it can also include improvements to lawns, gardens, and outdoor structures, such as gazebos and garages. It also encompasses maintenance, repair, and general servicing tasks. Home improvement projects generally have one or more of the following goals:

Comfort

 * Upgrading heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC).
 * Upgrading rooms with luxuries, such as adding gourmet features to a kitchen or a hot tub spa to a bathroom.
 * Increasing the capacity of plumbing and electrical systems.
 * Waterproofing basements.
 * Soundproofing rooms, especially bedrooms and baths.

Maintenance and repair
Maintenance projects can include:
 * Roof tear-off and replacement.
 * Replacement or new construction windows.
 * Concrete and masonry repairs to the foundation and chimney.
 * Repainting rooms, walls or fences
 * Repairing plumbing and electrical systems
 * Wallpapering
 * Furniture polishing
 * Plumbing, home interior and exterior works
 * Shower maintenance

Additional space
Additional living space may be added by:
 * Turning marginal areas into livable spaces such as turning basements into recrooms, home theaters, or home offices – or attics into spare bedrooms.
 * Extending one's house with rooms added to the side of one's home or, sometimes, extra levels to the original roof. Such a new unit of construction is called an "add-on".

Saving energy
Homeowners may reduce utility costs with:
 * Energy-efficient thermal insulation, replacement windows, and lighting.
 * Renewable energy with biomass pellet stoves, wood-burning stoves, solar panels, wind turbines, programmable thermostats, and geothermal exchange heat pumps (see autonomous building).

Safety, emergency management, security and privacy
The need to be safer or for better privacy or emergency management can be fulfilled with diversified measures which can be improved, maintained or added. Secret compartments and passages can also be conceived for privacy and security.

 * Interventions for fire protection and avoidance. Possible examples are fire sprinkler systems for automatic fire suppression, smoke detectors for fire detection, fire alarm systems, or passive fire protection (including some wildfire management strategies).
 * Technical solutions to increase protection from natural disasters, or geotechnical and structural safety (e.g. hurricane or seismic retrofit).
 * Interventions and additions to increase home safety from other hazards, like falls, electric injuries, gas leaks or home exposure to environmental health concerns.
 * Physical security measures:
 * Access control systems and physical barriers, which can include fences, physical door and window security measures (e.g. grilles, laminated glass, window shutters), locks;
 * Security lighting, security alarms and video surveillance.
 * Safes and vaults.
 * Spaces for emergency evacuation, like emergency exits and rarer escape tunnels.
 * Spaces which provide protection in the event of different emergencies: areas of refuge, storm cellars (as protection from tornadoes and other kinds of severe weather), panic rooms, bunkers and bomb shelters (including fallout shelters), etc.
 * Home renovations or additions used to increase privacy can be as simple as curtains or much more advanced, such as some structural surveillance counter-measures. They may overlap with physical security measures.
 * Public utility outage preparedness, like backup generators for providing power during power outages.

Home improvement industry

Home or residential renovation is an almost $300 billion industry in the United States, and a $48 billion industry in Canada. The average cost per project is $3,000 in the United States and $11,000–15,000 in Canada.

Professional home improvement is ancient and goes back to the beginning of recorded civilization. One example is Sergius Orata, who in the 1st century B.C. is said by the writer Vitruvius (in his famous book De architectura) to have invented the hypocaust. The hypocaust is an underfloor heating system that was used throughout the Roman Empire in villas of the wealthy. He is said to have become wealthy himself by buying villas at a low price, adding spas and his newly invented hypocaust, and reselling them at higher prices.

Renovation contractors
Perhaps the most important or visible professionals in the renovation industry are renovation contractors or skilled trades. These are the builders that have specialized credentials, licensing and experience to perform renovation services in specific municipalities.

While there is a fairly large ‘grey market’ of unlicensed companies, there are those that have membership in a reputable association and/or are accredited by a professional organization. Homeowners are recommended to perform checks such as verifying license and insurance and checking business references prior to hiring a contractor to work on their house.

Because interior renovation will touch the change of the internal structure of the house, ceiling construction, circuit configuration and partition walls, etc., such work related to the structure of the house, of course, also includes renovation of wallpaper posting, furniture settings, lighting, etc. It is worth noting The thing is, the decoration construction team must be approved by the established interior design company to guarantee.

Aggregators
Aggregators are companies that bundle home improvement service offers and act as intermediary agency between service providers and customers.

In popular culture
Home improvement was popularized on television in 1979 with the premiere of This Old House starring Bob Vila on PBS. American cable channel HGTV features many do-it-yourself shows, as does sister channel DIY Network. Danny Lipford hosts and produces the nationally syndicated Today's Homeowner with Danny Lipford. Tom Kraeutler and Leslie Segrete co-host the nationally syndicated The Money Pit Home Improvement Radio Show.

Movies that poked fun at the difficulties involved include: Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948), starring Cary Grant and Myrna Loy; George Washington Slept Here (1942), featuring Jack Benny and Ann Sheridan; and The Money Pit (1986), with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. The sitcom Home Improvement used the home improvement theme for comedic purposes.

title: Home improvement


text:
Lasker versus Bauer, Amsterdam, 1889

The chess game between Emanuel Lasker and Johann Bauer played in Amsterdam in 1889 is one of the most famous on account of Lasker's sacrifice of both bishops to eliminate the pawn cover around his opponent's king, winning material and the game.

The same sacrificial pattern was echoed in a number of later games, notably Nimzowitsch–Tarrasch, St Petersburg 1914; Miles–Browne, Lucerne 1982; and Polgar–Karpov, Seventh Essent 2003.

The game against Bauer was played at the beginning of Lasker's career in the first round of the 1889 Amsterdam tournament, Lasker's first high-level closed event. Lasker finished second with a 6/8 score, a point behind the winner Amos Burn, and ahead of James Mason and Isidor Gunsberg, among others. Bauer finished sixth of the nine participants with a score of 3½/8.

A similar sacrifice occurred earlier in Burn–Owen, 1884, but in this case the sacrifice by John Owen was not correct and he lost the game. Nevertheless, it may have been an inspiration for Lasker.

The game
White: Emanuel Lasker Black: Johann Bauer  Opening: Bird's Opening (ECO A03)

'''1. f4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. b3 e6 4. Bb2 Be7 5. Bd3 b6 6. Nc3 Bb7 7. Nf3 Nbd7 8. 0-0 0-0 9. Ne2 c5 10. Ng3 Qc7 11. Ne5 Nxe5 12. Bxe5 Qc6 13. Qe2 a6 14. Nh5 Nxh5''' (diagram)

 * 13...a6 is a fatal error. 13...g6 would give Black solid . Instead, this blunder hands Lasker his double-bishop sacrifice, which eventually wins and the game by force.

'''15. Bxh7+ Kxh7 16. Qxh5+ Kg8 17. Bxg7 Kxg7'''
 * Refusing the second bishop does not save Black: 17...f5 loses to 18.Be5 Rf6 19.Rf3 with Rg3 to follow, and 17...f6 loses to 18.Bh6.

'''18. Qg4+ Kh7 19. Rf3'''
 * Black must give up his queen to avoid mate.

'''19... e5 20. Rh3+ Qh6 21. Rxh6+ Kxh6 22. Qd7'''
 * Were it not for this move, forking the two bishops, Black would have adequate compensation for his queen, but now Lasker has a decisive material advantage. Now Lasker converts this advantage into the win.

'''22... Bf6 23. Qxb7 Kg7 24. Rf1 Rab8 25. Qd7 Rfd8 26. Qg4+ Kf8 27. fxe5 Bg7 28. e6 Rb7 29. Qg6 f6 30. Rxf6+ Bxf6 31. Qxf6+ Ke8 32. Qh8+ Ke7 33. Qg7+ Kxe6 34. Qxb7 Rd6 35. Qxa6 d4 36. exd4 cxd4 37. h4 d3 38. Qxd3 '''
 * Black resigned.

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

title: Lasker versus Bauer, Amsterdam, 1889


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality

I believe that the word "neutrality" is inappropriate for use as a user name. However, an existing user currently has precisely this user name — Neutrality. I feel that this is very problematic and that Neutrality should change his user name. (I'm randomly assuming here that Neutrality is male.)

I have contacted Neutrality about this on his Talk page quite some time ago — see User_talk:Neutrality

(Neutrality has announced that he may archive his Talk page, so that link may change. In case the link changes, here is a copy of the discussion as of 14 Aug '04.)

To also briefly explain my concerns right here:

Similar to what is said by item (3) on this page, I believe everyone (or at least every non-malicious Wikipedia user) is striving for neutrality. For any user to label him/herself "Neutrality" can too easily be seen to imply that the so-named user was working harder for neutrality and others were not doing that.

Imagine you got into an argument with somebody, where you'd disagree about what's the NPOV, say, in a political article: Wouldn't it drive you nuts if the other guy (who's point of view you totally disagree with and personally consider biased) had a user name of "Neutrality"? (NB: I have so far never gotten into any such discussion with Neutrality.)

Such an imbalance isn't just bad for the side not carrying such a user name. — It's bad for Neutrality as well, because it will just be like a red cape to a bull — it will attract unnecessarily strong opposition (and thus probably raise tempers on both sides).

For these reasons, I believe Neutrality should change his user name.

Ropers 13:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second Ropers' complaint
As it is a fact that Neutrality is moving to higher levels of authority on this Wiki, his name clearly has the potential to add a mistaken level of official imprimature to his edits and/or other actions. I agree that he must change his name.

Additionally, I also agree with Ropers' logic and can personally attest to having had editorial difficulties with Neutrality.

Rex071404 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

hmmm... while i think this discussion would be a bit excessive for an ordinary user, in my opinion, it's a bad idea for a member of the Association of Members' Advocates and the Mediation Committee to go under this alias. however, i don't think it's within our rights to force Neutrality to change his(?) user name for that reason. i do think the community should take this consideration into account in its decision as to whether Neutrality should be on these and other committees. an optimal solution, of course, would be for Neutrality to simply change his alias voluntarily. as for Neutrality removing his own name from the Rfc, that was, in my opinion, quite inappropriate regardless of the circumstances. –Floorsheim 10:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other cases
The username policy may not be clear on this point, but someone who started editing as Administrator, including posting signed comments, was told off. Granted, Neutrality is not in the same league as this. The same user also created User:Vfd, which was objected to as well. V V 02:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response
This RfC is invalid for the following reasons:
 * The RfC guidelines currently state that at least two people must contact the subject of the RfC prior to listing; so far, no one else has complained.
 * The username policy disallows usernames that “are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task.” The policy lists as examples names which promote racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred, are slurs, are the names of sexual acts or genitalia or violent real world actions, or that are scatological or pornographic. My username violates none of these rules.
 * I have already explained my username on my user page. I appreciate the concern.
 * A precedent was set by the Arbitration Committee in the matter of JRR Trollkien, where they ruled that his username did not violate policy. Surely if someone with the word "troll" in their username does not violate policy, my name must not.

Again, I appreciate the concern, but this listing is inappropriate. I am archiving. Neutrality 04:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * In response to the points Neutrality made:

 * 1. The way I understand the rules at RfC, the "two individual users" threshold applies for cases of user conduct (as per section 2.1, not concerns over a user name.
 * Even if the two user threshold were to apply for user name issues as well, would we not say that that's satisfied by Rex071404 and Floorsheim's comments above?

 * 2. I believe that a user name of "Neutrality" can, in some circumstances (see my previously explained reasoning) be "needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task.”
 * I obviously agree that "Neutrality" is not a slur of any kind, but I don't understand the said definition to be necessarily exclusively limited to slurs.

 * 3. There is indeed a brief explanation on Neutrality's choice of username on User:Neutrality. As far as I can see from the history, Neutrality added that explanation earlier today, long after I had contacted him on his Talk page and after I filed this RfC yesterday. It's probably a good idea to have such a comment there as long as the user name is still in use. I do however think that while the comment may put the user name "Neutrality" slightly into perspective to the attentive reader, it doesn't really make such a user name substantially less controversial (again, with reference to what I said above).

 * 4. I am not currently certain how I feel about a user name of "JRR Trollkien". I would probably consider it harmless myself but could probably understand that it might offend some users (who may feel particularly besieged by trolls, in the non-fantasy sense). If I had that user name myself, I would probably consider changing it voluntarily. I don't however feel that what I said about a user name of "Neutrality" would apply to a user name of "JRR Trollkien". Totally different line of reasoning.

 * 5. I can see from the history that Mirv reverted Neutraliy's delisting of this RfC, noting that "delisting one's own entry is bad form". I would agree that it is.
 * Neutrality has also archived the pertaining discussion on it's user page (which is ok; he announced that he would do so). The archived version is here and a copied version is linked above.

 * I believe this RfC should be seen through in the usual way — and if the outcome of this RfC, in a by-the-book way, gets to be that Neutrality doesn't need to change his user name, then I will accept that. At this stage however, seeing that there are two further users who share my concerns, I would again appeal to Neutrality to change it voluntarily.
 * Ropers 17:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Name Police
This is just silly. It's not like Neutrality has given himself a deceptive name like Administrator. Or a politically offensive name like Rex (King). Or a sexually offensive name like Roper (Rope Her). Now, I suppose I should have to change my name too, lest some poor rube think I will actually morph into a Wolf and disembowel him mid-argument.Wolfman 23:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Few people here anticipate they will be rv'd for failing to meet a standard of "Wolfmanism", but many expect they may be edited or rv'd for failing to meet a standard on "Neutrality".

 * This of it this way; what if my user name was "Admin" or "Sysop"?

 * Rex071404 04:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * If Admin were Neutrality's name, that would be a problem since it's clearly deceptive. His name is no more deceptive than yours or mine.  Some editor goes by 'CrucifiedChrist'.  Now that's intimidating — if you are the sort who takes things literally.  Who wants to get on the wrong side of Jebus?

 * Think of it this way Rex; do you think Neutrality is neutral just because of his name? Your arbitration complaint against him suggests otherwise.Wolfman 05:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Wolfman, obviously no one here thinks that about Neutrality. That's not the issue.  The issue is whether or not it's likely for someone else to think such a thing.  I, for one, can easily see a newcomer looking at a post by Neutrality, knowing him to be a member of the mediation committee, and thinking that he was in some way officially designated as being especially skilled at assessing NPOV-ness and to a greater extent than other members of the mediation and arbitration committees.  That, to me, is a problem and one that could be easily fixed.  –Floorsheim 23:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * What Floorsheim just wrote pretty much sums up my objections against this user name. Spot on. Ropers 21:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * NB: I would myself have VASTLY preferred not to submit this here. I first politely contacted Neutrality on his talk page and pursued a discussion there, hoping that I could convince him to change his user name voluntarily. I think it shouldn't be a big issue to change a name like that if there are some objections against it. (It's not like it was his actual surname, as in the case of my own user name.) And who, after all, wishes to attrackt opposition? Anyway, at a certain point Neutrality didn't comment further and I waited a substantial amount of time before I went ahead and poted this RfC. In a way I even feel bad about it because, again, I'm not out to "get" Neutrality in any way. Plus, going the confrontational route is to some extent always counterproductive. Still, I think the issue would just have been swept under the carpet had I not filed this here. (And indeed Neutrality actually unlisted this RfC himself. It was later reinstated by someone else.) Yet, somehow I still think and hope that the option of an amicable/voluntary solution is still there. I would welcome that. Ropers 21:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seems quite a far stretch to me. I suppose he could always just use some other name while he is mediating. Of course this is really all up to him, as his name violates no rule. Thinking of changing my name to Paragon_of_Virtue_and_Wisdom.Wolfman 21:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * It is your opinion that his user name doesn't violate a rule. I beg to differ: As Neutrality himself quoted from the user name policy: ``The username policy disallows usernames that “are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task.”`` Note the discouraging to other contributors bit. Especially as regards newbies.
 * But anyway, maybe the majority view will be that his name doesn't violate that rule. I'm not trying to "convict" Neutrality as a rulebreaker. I am trying to lobby for what I feel is an issue of fairness and I filed this RfC to give some exposure to it. My hope is that if several people share my objections that that will maybe make Neutrality reconsider. Ropers 21:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yawn
Neutrality's name is not the name of a page or a position on this website. It's a concept, and I think people are smart enough to distinguish between a user and a concept. The name objected to by a whopping three people, one of whom has a clear grudge against Neutrality.

If anyone genuinely thinks Wolfman is actually a lycanthrope, then I will sign on to this complaint against Neutrality. Until then, this is merely a waste of time. Gamaliel 22:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I am appalled by Gamaliel's sophomoric argument! Rex071404 23:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, I am. And I plan to wreak vengeance upon all who oppose me, next full moon.  Beware! Wolfman 22:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Rex: Come, come. Be polite. Admittedly Gamaliel's argument could be perceived as impolite as well (though I personally just think it's an illogical point he made (if at all intended seriously)), but no one is helping anyone by ranting. Get a website. Get a blog. Rant there. Not here. Please. Ropers 00:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that this objection is a bit silly. Am I being rude in saying this? ··gracefool |☺ 04:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are. Rex071404 15:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Sunborn's take
I don't want to take sides, I aim for neutrality (tongue firmly in cheek). However, I would allow a username like JRR Trollkien but not JRR Tolkien. There is no attempt at deception in the former but there would be in the latter. Wolfman noted above that '''Neutrality's name is not the name of a page or a position on this website. It's a concept,''' however, it is a position. Neutrality is the lack of position. I honestly find the name Neutrality more disruptive than that of CrucifiedChrist or whatever troll is on the block today.

Neutrality is not an offensive name (unless you pray to some neutral deity) however, it is a possibly disruptive name. I could live with a troll (or a normal user for that matter) with the name of Neutrality but I would never vote for a sysop named Neutrality. It is just the way things go. --metta, T he  S unborn  ☸  23:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

People. We are talking about someone's username. It's not Kyke_Go_Home, KKK_4_Life, or even CrucifiedChrist... its just a concept. You sign a petition of 10 people that believed Neutrality was actually neutral because of his username and I will endorse changing the name. That is, if you are honestly worried about other users assuming neutrality because of a username (i still can't write that without smiling), and do not simply hold a grudge. --kizzle 22:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "i still can't write that without smiling" This concerns me, Kizzle.  I hope your reason for bringing this up was not to make it clear that you think the people who disagree with you on this issue are silly or that their point of view is a silly one.  That would be something that goes against Wikiquette ("Be Civil") and must be avoided.  Assuming that was not your intent, you should generally try to avoid remarks of this sort as they can easily be interpreted by others as being personal attacks.  –Floorsheim 02:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

point taken, i apologize. i'm new. but my request for petition still stands. --kizzle 06:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please. Nothing Kizzle said was remotely close to a personal attack. 18:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying that it was. I wouldn't know seeing as I'm not Kizzle.  That being the case, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it wasn't.  My point is that his words might be interpreted that way by some, which is not helpful to anything we are trying to do as Wikipedians.  For that reason, remarks that leave room for this sort of interpretation must be avoided.  The same goes for "oh, please," your earlier remark "this is merely a waste of time," and your titling a section on this discussion "Yawn."  None of these are conducive to discussion, and most of them would be considered by most an intentional effort at mockery.  I'm giving you the same benefit of the doubt I give Kizzle in assuming your intent was not to be offensive.  However, regardless of whether it was or it wasn't, we all must refrain from this sort of thing in the future as it is destructive to our cause.  Instead, if you have a position to express, do so by giving the reasons behind your position, and leave it at that.  For more about this, read Wikiquette and Civility  –Floorsheim 23:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm all for civility. I'm not for policing ourselves to such an extent that we live in constant fear of offending someone with an innocuous comment.  I’m sorry you think some of my comments are not conducive to discussion, but if my opinion is that this RfC is a waste of time, why should I not say that?  I don’t see any need to sugarcoat strong views as long as they are not personally insulting.  Perhaps the “yawn” was a bit much, true, but most of the contempt I have for this RfC is because I see it as a retaliatory effort by a user who added a link here in his signature and has an evident grudge against Neutrality.  That user is in far more need of lectures on civility than I am, as you can see from a month’s worth of attacks and insults on half a dozen users documented here.  I’m sure that you have as little respect for the “Well, he did it first!” excuse as I do, so all I can say in response to that is that I am not made of stone, and a little contempt is going to show through after being bombarded by vitriol from one user for a whole month.   As far as my response to your comment to Kizzle, I thought that by lecturing Kizzle about civility after a harmless comment seemed to me to go against the principle of Please do not bite the newcomers.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "I thought that by lecturing Kizzle about civility after a harmless comment seemed to me to go against the principle of Please do not bite the newcomers."
 * Point taken. I could have found a gentler way of saying what I did.  Kizzle, if you're reading, my apologies.  However, I do not agree that Kizzle's comment was harmless.  Sarcasm, however slight, feeds the cycle of disrespect between users and makes Wikipedia more stressful than it has to be.  It must be avoided.
 * "...I am not made of stone, and a little contempt is going to show through after being bombarded by vitriol from one user for a whole month."
 * Took a look at the rfa you mentioned, and I can understand where you're at. I've dealt with my own share of frustrating users, and I must admit that I too haven't handled every situation as well as I wish that I would have.  However, we shouldn't allow the fact that we are human and are bound to fail from time to time keep us from always trying our best.
 * "I'm all for civility. I'm not for policing ourselves to such an extent that we live in constant fear of offending someone with an innocuous comment."
 * I agree that no one should be expected to give careful consideration to every little thing they say, discerning and minimizing probabilities of someone being offended by it. However, there is a big difference between that and simply following a few guidlines, such as avoiding sarcastic and derisive remarks and words and phrases that generally would be taken as insulting when we can preserve meaning without using them.  It is typically the case with usage that falls into these categories that much more explanatory wording may be found.  Supplying this wording makes the meaning more clear than not.
 * "I’m sorry you think some of my comments are not conducive to discussion, but if my opinion is that this RfC is a waste of time, why should I not say that?"
 * This provides a good example. I doubt your point in making that statement was to inform other users that your time had just been wasted by you reading this RfC.  I'm sure you're aware that that bit of information would interest few people other than yourself.  Rather, it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) you were saying that you didn't think there was currently sufficient reason to deem Neutrality's user name a considerable threat to the facility of Wikipedia.  It would have been preferable for you to simply say that (or whatever your point was if I have interpreted you incorrectly) than to say something that is considered sarcastic and disrespectful by most yet does not establish your point as clearly.

 * –Floorsheim 09:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I don’t wish to drag this out much longer, because I think that this is merely a disagreement of where to draw the line and not really any more fundamental disagreement. I do wish to note that I do not merely “ think there was currently sufficient reason to deem Neutrality's user name a considerable threat to the facility of Wikipedia” but I think this RFC is in fact a waste of time and utterly, jaw-droppingly ridiculous, and I think that difference is important enough to be noted.  The language I used to make that distinction may have been a bit impolitic, but frankly under your system where even harmless words like “silly” are verbotten, I don’t think it would even be possible to express such a difference.  I admire (and agree to an extent) with your desire for more civility, but I wouldn’t really want to be a part of a project where you can’t even call something “silly” (and not someone, an important distinction), because that would drain so much color and life out of it as to make it about as fun as an Amish quilting bee.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

nah it's ok, seems like people are bit sensitive here. or was that a personal attack? --kizzle 19:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not that Wikipedians are in general any more sensitive than an any other group of people but more that we are aware that all human beings can be sensitive at times—especially in the course of discussing topics we feel passionate about. Because of that, we take precautions to keep the atmosphere here as friendly and free of conflict as possible so that we all may function at our best.  In that spirit, we make it a rule to not do or say things that unnecessarily detract from such an atmosphere.  If you haven't already, you (and I'm not singling you out here, Kizzle; this goes for everyone) should probably read Civility as well.  –Floorsheim 23:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To Gamaliel and for the record:

 * 1) I filed this RfC.
 * 2) I did so AFTER contacting Neutrality on his Talk page and waiting a long time. See above.
 * 3) I do not have any link to this place in my sig.
 * 4) I am not in any way affiliated with Rex071404 — I don't know him much more than I know you.
 * 5) I don't have a grudge against Neutrality.
 * 6) For all these reasons, I would like to invite you to read my actual concerns (above). That you got the above points wrong IMHO suggests that you haven't read them yet.

Ropers 04:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I apologize for any ambiguity in the wording of my comments. The comments to Floorsheim all refer to Rex and none of them refer to you. I have no idea what your motives are, but I'm sure they are sincere. I believe Rex's motives are not. I know that you started this RfC and I have read all of the comments here. I still think this is all silly, sorry. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, please avoid words like "silly" as most people find them offensive. –Floorsheim 09:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Imagine you got into an argument with somebody, where you'd disagree about what's the NPOV, say, in a political article: Wouldn't it drive you nuts if the other guy (who's point of view you totally disagree with and personally consider biased)had a user name of "Neutrality"?"

 * If we are still considering this as a topic of discussion, I don't see how the above complaint can in any way shape or form be construed as an argument. "Wouldn't it drive you nuts" is not a justification for changing one's name and is nowhere stated in the username policy as a reason for changing someone's name.  In addition, anyone who is using the pretense that normal users are assuming some form of objective neutrality because of his username, please find some ACTUAL users who will complain to this seeing as I highly doubt that any of you actually believe this.  Otherwise, someone please succinctly state any good reasons why Neutrality should change or let this page fade away.  there are a whole lot more usernames we should ban if complaints like this take precedent, and doing so I think would detract from the actual discussions taking place if we focus on the trivial names we pick for ourselves rather than the content of our discussions. --kizzle 20:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reinstated RfC
I have relisted this RfC at Requests for comment. Neutrality had twice self-archived this RfC about his user name. I think that's inappropriate: Let others archive it off if and when it gets resolved or becomes inactive. Self-delisting your own RfC is very bad style. Ropers 18:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I found it odd that someone would archive a debate in which they are the focus. I talked to him about it because I had posted a comment the previous day. He claimed that this was missed and that he was sorry. If it was a vandal or a troll there would have been some consequences. He seemed calm and collected. However, he has lost a bit of my trust. I just hope he has learned from it. --metta, T he  S unborn  ☸  02:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Summary
Maybe it's helpful at this point to summarize how people have sided so far (please correct me if I'm wrong about anyone):

People with and w/o concerns about the username "Neutrality":

Looks like a fairly even split to me -- so, well, if the community consensus gets to be that Neutrality should be free to keep his user name despite the concerns given at the top of the page, then well, I'd find that unfortunate, but I would accept it. I'll not however accept any Mullarkey like Neutrality delisting his own RfC. IMHO people aspiring for higher positions should conduct themselves to a higher standard than "the rest of us", not a lower one. Ropers 18:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I added my name to the "no concerns" list. Mike H 19:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * When I was a new user, I found the name very distracting. I saw references all around to the Neutral point of view, thought his name refered to it.  I don't have a major concern, but I think that if he is going on to higher level of responsibility, and because there are any concerns, he should respect the portion of the community that objects. -- Netoholic @ 00:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Just to clear up my position, I do not think Neutrality should be forced to change his user name. I politely suggest that he do it on his own for reasons I've already stated.  I do find his self-archiving of this RfC to be both inconsiderate to the users who are voicing concerns here and bad practice in general.  Since emotions are certain to play a part in such a decision if made by him and administrative decisions ought to be distracted as little as possible by emotions, the authority over this particular decision should belong to someone else.  –Floorsheim 03:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI about Netralility
At this very moment, Neutrality has started an edit war over my modifications to his spam comments on my personal talk page. He doesn't seem to get the hint that his spam comments (unless they are a dialog with me) are not welcome on my personal talk page. He keeps modifying comments on my talk page. His behavior is extremely alarming and bizarre. 19:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion at hand. --kizzle 19:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just had a look at the history of your talk page. What Neutrality (and a couple of other users as well) was doing was removing fabricated comments you made up and signed with the names of other users. See this edit. I didn't think my opinion of you could get any lower, but it just has. Have you any shame at all? 19:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * They were "nose-tweaked" for spamming my talk page, yet they kept reverting me on my own talk page. This included Neutrality.  [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 19:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I would like to voice my protest here to both Gamaliel and Rex071404. Your comments above do not belong on this RfC, and neither of you are observing Wikipedia's Be Civil policy, which is something you both have been asked multiple times to do.  I hope the following quote (from Be Civil) will remind you why this policy is such an important thing for us to observe.

 * Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia. Where incivility here is defined as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress, the Civility rule states that people must act with civility toward one another. Our [community] has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the first being neutral point of view. The second demands a reasonable degree of civility towards others. Even if "civility" is just an informal rule, it's the only term that can apply, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We can't always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility.

 * Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of other contributors. This directly affects the quality of the community experience at Wikipedia. By hurting the community, the quality of articles is affected as well. This creates a cycle of incivility that reinforces itself, and in some cases conflicts between contributors over one article can expand to involve additional people and additional articles.

 * –Floorsheim 03:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, I am striking my text per your advice. 03:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If someone engages in behavior I find appalling and contrary to norms of behavior on wikipedia, I'm going to call them on it. If you find that violates your personal idea of civility, I'm sorry as that is not my intention. You are right that this discussion does not belong here, so why not just delete this whole section instead of elongating it? 03:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Rex. Gamaliel, there is nothing subjective about the fact that your behavior toward Rex here is uncivil.  The term is defined as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress.  Explicitly telling someone how low your opinion of them is clearly falls into that category.  While there's nothing wrong with expressing the problems you may have with other users' behavior as they pertain to the functionality of Wikipedia (indeed, that's exactly what I'm doing right now), please make sure you do that in a way that is civil and that you find the proper forum for it.

 * I would agree to moving the details of this discussion and others to another article, but I won't agree to deleting anything. I think this last bit in particular is quite relevant as it speaks to the objectivity of both yourself and Rex concerning this issue.  –Floorsheim 02:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * How about moving all unrelated comments to the talk page? By now it seems over half of this page is devoted to issues that have nothing to do with the RfC. As you said, this is not the proper form for my complaints about Rex, nor is it the proper forum for your lectures on civility or Rex's complaints about his nemesis. While I do think this is all silly, Ropers posted it in good faith and it does deserve an uncluttered hearing. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm fine with moving discussion that does not directly concern the appropriateness of Neutrality's user name (including the present discussion) to the talk page at this time. However, I maintain that a discussion of civility is pertinent to any forum in which incivility is in the process of taking place.  This is because incivility stands directly in the way of the functionality of such a forum as a place to exchange ideas (as opposed to insults).  Users who are being uncivil to others must be made aware that their behavior is against the rules and that it has to stop.  Also, reminding people about civility generally helps to reverse the cascade of incivility that often takes place once one user has been uncivil to another.  I will continue to bring up civility every time it is breached in a discussion I am involved with, and I urge everyone else to do similarly.

 * On that note, Gamaliel, I protest your use of the word silly on the same grounds that I protested it before, and I also protest your use of the word nemesis. I don't think that Rex has stated anywhere that Neutrality is his nemesis.  By referring to him as such, you exaggerate the conflict that already exists between these two users, which doesn't help anything, and you risk the possibility of Rex interpreting this statement as mockery of his feelings of of frustration with regard to this conflict.  Be advised that you are breaking Wikipedia's rules by doing these things and please stop doing so.  –Floorsheim 14:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * While you are correct in saying that I’ve regrettably gone overboard in some of my comments here, I simply do not agree that the word “silly” is some sort of vile epithet that must be avoided. As you know, we’ve already had this discussion above, and if you feel the need to rehash this discussion again, please take it to my talk page so we can avoid cluttering this page any further, as this is not the proper forum for such a discussion.

 * I will move all unrelated comments to the talk page later today in case someone wants to register an objection between now and then. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of bias
I rex071404, hereby acknowledge that my vote and comments here against Neutrality's name, were motivated largely to bother user Neutrality on a personal level. Frankly, I was annoyed with him about certain other things which have transpired and I piled it on here as a "get back". So as to clarify my position, I do feel that his name ought to be changed, but I think it might best be handled by the simple addition of an !, as in "Neutrality!". To me, this is one way of making clear to new users that "Neutrality!" is a moniker, not to be mistaken with a Wiki role of authority. That said, I now recuse myself from further dialog on this topic. 04:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

bravo rex. i like the new attitude. --kizzle 06:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I too am very happy, Rex, to see your remarkable honesty, willingness to admit mistakes and dynamically more civil tone. Keep it up.  –Floorsheim 14:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Respect. ( /me is impressed. ) Ropers 20:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks rex. Now maybe this absurdly long RfC will end. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞ Storm]] 20:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok. The majority now seems to agree that the user name is not a problem. I only ask for two things:

 * 1) Somebody else who feels that consensus has been reached should archive this off the RfC page. Not Neutrality. Not me.
 * 2) I think Rex' "Neutrality!" idea was rather good. I would ask Neutrality to at least consider it.

Ropers 13:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * OK. I will archive it. The consensus seems to be:
 * Neutrality's name is not in violation of Wikipedia policy
 * Many users would, however, be reluctant to support the current name for a post of authority.Wolfman 16:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


text:
Bird's Opening

Bird's Opening (or the Dutch Attack) is a chess opening characterised by the move:
 * 1. f4

Named after 19th century English player Henry Bird, Bird's opening is a standard flank opening. White's strategic ideas involve control of the e5-square, offering good attacking chances at the expense of slightly weakening their own. Black may challenge White's plan to control e5 immediately by playing From's Gambit (1...e5); however, the From Gambit is notoriously double-edged and should only be played after significant study.

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings assigns two codes for Bird's Opening: A02 (1.f4) and A03 (1.f4 d5).

History
The opening was mentioned by Luis Ramírez de Lucena in his book Repetición de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez con Cien Juegos de Partido, published c. 1497. In the mid-nineteenth century the opening was sometimes played by La Bourdonnais and Elijah Williams, among others. The British master Henry Edward Bird first played it in 1855 and continued to do so for the next 40 years. After a six year break from Chess, he forgot how to play the more familiar openings. In 1885, the Hereford Times named it after him. In the first half of the 20th century Aron Nimzowitsch and Savielly Tartakower sometimes played 1.f4. In more recent decades, grandmasters who have used the Bird's with any regularity include Bent Larsen, Andrew Soltis, Lars Karlsson, Mikhail Gurevich, and Henrik Danielsen.

1...d5
Black's most common response is 1...d5, when the game can take on the character of a Dutch Defence (1.d4 f5) with colours reversed. White will then often either fianchetto their with Nf3, g3, Bg2, and 0–0 with a reversed Leningrad Dutch; adopt a Stonewall formation with pawns on d4, e3, and f4 and attempt a  attack; or fianchetto their  to increase their hold on the e5-square. Another strategy, by analogy with the Ilyin–Zhenevsky variation of the Dutch Defence, involves White playing Nf3, e3, Be2, 0-0, d3 and attempting to achieve the break e3–e4 by various means, e.g. Ne5, Bf3, Qe2 and finally e3–e4, or simply Nc3 followed by e4. Timothy Taylor's book on Bird's Opening suggests as a main line: 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 c5.

White can also play 2.c4, the Mujannah-Sturm gambit. This is a decent opening and seems to borrow ideas from the Réti Opening (1.Nf3 d5 2.c4) and the Queen's Gambit Accepted. Eventually, this move order is followed by Nf3. The best move in this position is 2...d4, where the game continues in the style of the Réti Opening, with 3.Nf3 being a possible next move. 2.c4 is not a true gambit, since if Black tries to hold on to their pawn, they will be punished (2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 [Black should pursue development instead] 4.a4 c6? 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3, where Black must part with a, akin to the Queen's Gambit Accepted trap).

From's Gambit: 1...e5
Black's reply is 1...e5, From's Gambit, named for the Danish chess player Martin Severin From (1828–1895). White then has the option to transpose into the King's Gambit with 2.e4. This is an important option which may cause Black to consider playing a different line if they wish to avoid the King's Gambit. It has been observed that one of the possible disadvantages of From's Gambit is that it is very easy for White to avoid.

If White accepts the gambit with 2.fxe5, Black must choose between the main line 2...d6 and the rather obscure 2...Nc6. After 2...Nc6, International Master (IM) Timothy Taylor, in his 2005 book on the Bird's, recommends 3.Nc3 Nxe5 4.d4 intending 5.e4, rather than 3.Nf3 g5! when Black stands well. After the normal 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6, White must play 4.Nf3, avoiding 4.Nc3 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxg3+ 6.hxg3 Bxg3 checkmate. Then Black again has two alternatives: 4...g5 to drive away White's knight, and 4...Nf6, threatening 5...Ng4 and 6...Nxh2! Future world champion Emanuel Lasker introduced 4...g5 in the game Bird–Lasker, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1892, so it is known as "Lasker's Variation". Taylor considers 4...g5 dubious; a quiet response that he considers favourable for White is 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5! (6.Ng5 leads to a dubious piece sacrifice) Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3! Be6 (9...Nxe5?! 10.Bf4 f6 11.Nd5 Kd8 12.Nxf6!) 10.Bf4 0-0-0+ 11.Ke1 Nge7 12.e3 Ng6 13.Bg5 Rdf8 14.Bf6 Rhg8 15.Be2 Ngxe5 16.Rf1 "with the typical edge for White that is characteristic of this variation", according to Taylor. He also considers the sharper 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 favourable for White, giving as the main line 6...Ne7 7.d4 Ng6 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.Qd3 Nc6 (9...Rh5 10.Bg2; 9...Na6 10.c3) 10.c3 (10.Nc3? Nxd4! 11.Qxd4?? Bxg3+ wins White's queen) Bf5 (10...Qe7 11.Bg2! Bd7 12.Nd2 0-0-0 13.Ne4! favoured White in Taylor–Becerra Rivero, Minneapolis 2005) 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3. According to Taylor, White has a large advantage in all lines, although play remains extremely sharp, e.g. 13...Rde8 14.Nd2; 13...Rxh2 14.Rxh2 Bxg3+ 15.Kd1 Bxh2 16.exf5! Re8 17.fxg6! Qxe3 18.Qxe3 Rxe3 19.gxf7; or 13...Bd7 (threatening 14...Rxh2!) 14.Bf2!

The worst response to From’s Gambit is 2.g4??, since black will respond with Qh4#, which is a Fool’s mate.

Other Black responses

 * The flexible 1...Nf6 is also possible. Then if White plays 2.b3?! (2.Nf3 is safer), 2...d6! 3.Bb2?! (or 3.Nf3 e5! 4.fxe5 dxe5 5.Nxe5?? Qd4!) e5!, a sort of From's Gambit Deferred introduced by IM Michael Brooks, is dangerous for White, e.g. 4.fxe5 dxe5 5.Bxe5 Ng4! Then 6.Bb2 Bd6 "leaves White in huge trouble down the e1–h4 diagonal", and Black wins an after 7.Nf3 Bxh2! 8.Rxh2 Nxh2. After the alternative 6.Bg3, 6...Qf6! (even better than 6...Bd6) 7.c3 (not 7.Nc3? Ne3! 8.dxe3 Bb4) Bd6 is strong for Black.
 * Another popular response is 1...g6, a sort of Modern Defense, which may transpose into a reversed Dutch Defense (if Black plays ...d5 and ...c5), or a Sicilian Defence (if White plays e4 and Black plays ...c5). Black thus prevents White from playing on the a1–h8 diagonal.
 * Also reasonable is 1...c5, hoping for a transposition into the Tal Gambit, a favourable variation of the Sicilian Defence, after 2.e4 d5! 3.exd5 (3.Nc3, the mellifluously named "Toilet Variation," is also possible) 3...Nf6, but White need not oblige, and may build up more slowly with 2.Nf3, followed by g3, Bg2, d3, and possibly a later e4.
 * The offbeat 1...b6!? is also known, and more soundly based than the same move after 1.e4 or 1.d4, since 1.f4 does not aid White's, and weakens the a8–h1 diagonal as the move f3 is no longer available to shore up White's . Taylor recommends 2.e4 Bb7 3.d3 e6 4.Nf3 Ne7 5.c3 d5 6.Qc2 Nd7 7.Be3, with a spatial advantage for White.
 * Also possible is 1...b5!?, a form of the Polish Defense. After the natural 2.e4 Bb7, White has no good way to protect e4 while maintaining their attack on b5, since 3.Nc3? b4 4.Nd5 e6 wins a pawn.
 * If Black chooses the symmetrical reply 1...f5, Taylor considers White's best line to be quiet play with 2.b3 b6 3.Bb2 Bb7 4.e3, when 4...Nf6 5.Bxf6! exf6 6.Nf3 left White with the better pawn structure in Larsen–Colon Romero, San Juan 1969. Instead, 4...e6 5.Qh5+ forces the weakening 5...g6, with a slight advantage to White according to Taylor. Also possible is the aggressive 2.e4!?, when Taylor analyses 2...fxe4 3.d3 exd3 4.Bxd3 Nf6 5.Nf3 (5.g4 is well met by 5...d5, when after 6.g5, 6...Bg4 and 6...Ne4 both favour Black) 5...d5 6.0-0, when he considers White to have some, but not enough, compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Another possible continuation is 2...fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4, the Swiss Gambit. This gambit was named by Alexander Wagner (1868–1942), a Polish chess player and openings analyst who introduced it in the Swiss correspondence game Wagner–Kostin, 1910–11. The term "Swiss Gambit" is often used to refer more generally to 1.f4 f5 2.e4. Chess historian Edward Winter has criticized that usage, pointing out that 1.f4 f5 2.e4 was analysed by F.A. Lange in the June 1859 Deutsche Schachzeitung, and was played by many players, including Adolf Anderssen, in the nineteenth century.
 * An aggressive but rare response is 1...g5?!, the Hobbs Gambit, with play possibly continuing 2.fxg5 h6, a sort of mirror image Benko Gambit. White can simply return the pawn with 3.g6, leaving Black with a weakened after 3...fxg6. A variant is the Hobbs–Zilbermints Gambit, 1...h6 intending 2...g5; against this, White could proceed with 2.e4 g5 3.d4, when Black has lost time and weakened their kingside.
 * Another offbeat try is Martin Appleberry's 1...Nh6!?, also known as the Horsefly, which exploits the closed c1-h6 diagonal. One idea is to meet 2.b3 with 2...e5, another deferred From Gambit, and 2.e4 with 2...d5, when 3.exd5 Qxd5 would result in a Scandinavian Defense where White's pawn is oddly placed on f4. However, 2.Nf3 avoids both of these lines. The primary objective of the Horsefly is to retain control of e5, preventing the Stonewall attack, but otherwise giving White great flexibility.
 * Another possible reply by Black is 1...Nc6. With this move, Black lays the support for the advance of the e-pawn. The general sequence of moves that Black may opt for is ...g6, ...Bg7 and ...d6 and eventually advance the e-pawn.
 * Another possible reply is 1...e6. This exploits the weakness created by 1.f4 on the e1–h4 diagonal by releasing the queen, and also releases the without offering a pawn, unlike the From Gambit. White should avoid playing 2.g4?? as it leads to 2...Qh4# (a variation of the Fool's Mate). 2.e4 transposes to the La Bourdonnais Variation of the French Defense (the normal order being 1.e4 e6 2.f4).

Popularity
Out of the twenty possible opening moves, 1.f4 ranks sixth in popularity in Chessgames.com's database, behind 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4, and 1.g3. It is less than one-twentieth as popular as the mirror image English Opening (1.c4). The move 1.f4 slightly weakens White's king's position. Chessgames.com's statistics indicate that the opening is not an effective way of preserving White's first-move advantage: as of February 2013, out of 3,872 games with 1.f4, White had won 30.7%, drawn 32%, and lost 37.7%, for a total score of 46.7%. White scores much better with the more popular 1.e4 (54.25%), 1.d4 (55.95%), 1.Nf3 (55.8%), 1.c4 (56.3%), and 1.g3 (55.8%), as well as with the less popular 1.b3 (52.5%).

According to the similar site 365chess.com, which includes data for lower-level games, as of August 2015, out of 20,010 games with 1.f4, White had won 35.1%, drawn 25%, and lost 39.9%, for a total score of 47.6%. The five more popular openings are still substantially more successful for White: 1.e4 (53.15%), 1.d4 (54.8%), 1.Nf3 (55.4%), 1.c4 (54.65%), and 1.g3 (54.9%).

At lichess.org, in the 1600-2200 rating range in Rapid, Classical, and Correspondence time controls White wins 50% of the time while losing 45% of the time in the 2,600,000 games in their database. In those games the most common responses to 1.f4 are d5 (41%), e6 (11%), c5 (9%), e5 (7%) and Nf6 (7%). Black's most successful response to Bird's Opening in that rating range is e5, where Black's win percentage is 50-46%, but that evens to 48-48% when White plays 2.fxe5.

title: Bird's Opening


text:
Category:Aquariums

This category is for articles about and related to public aquariums.

title: Category:Aquariums


text:
List of colonial and provincial heads of Cabinda

This is a list of colonial and provincial heads of Cabinda. The Cabinda Province, an exclave of present-day Angola, was once colonized by the Portuguese Empire along with the rest of Angola, until the nation became independent in 1975. The province has had a head since 1885.

List of Colonial and Provincial Heads of Cabinda
Coastal enclave, part of present-day Angola


text:
Talk:Circles

Surely, Eddie Izzard's Circle should not be here. It's not even called Circles! - Moochocoogle

defs
Do all the formulae and definitions belong here? They don't seem appropriate for a disambiguation article, and most are already well-formated and placed at the circle article. -- Mikeblas 15:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Circles


text:
Category:Walls

This category is for articles about walls.

title: Category:Walls


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality/Talk about username

The following was copied from User talk:Neutrality on 14 Aug '04:

 * Hi Neutrality,
 * I'm writing to say that I consider your user name problematic (to say the least).
 * Your user name conveys that you are identified with neutrality (as a concept). However, I have seen that you have repeatedly been involved in edit wars.
 * I have never been in an edit war with you myself and I hope I never will be. But I feel it to be improper to hang on to a user name that conveys to (especially inexperienced) readers that you are/were some kind of authority as regards neutrality and the NPOV. This is very, very misleading and confusing to new users. It will also fire up your opponents in edit wars much more (than without the use of this user name). Please understand that I am not asking you to change your user name because of anything you wrote: In principle, I feel that no one should have such a misleading user name. I might hypothetically be more forgiving with, say, a long term user consistently demonstrating freedom from any bias whatsoever -- but that's in theory and may not even be possible.
 * The bottom line is this:
 * A Wikipedia user name of "Neutrality" is pretty much on the same level as an ordinary user having a user name of "Administrator." It's misleading and should be changed.
 * John Kenney is an administrator who has changed his user name in the past-- maybe he is the right person to ask how to proceed? (I am not asking anyone else on this issue yet -- I will wait a while and give you the chance to respond first.)
 * No hard feelings, kind regards,
 * Ropers 22:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I use my username as a reminder to me that neutrality is the most important thing in this project, not as a statement that I am always neutral. I doubt anyone has been confused by it, or will ever be. And I disagree with your analogy about my username being as misleading as a user having "Administrator" as their name. While I appreciate your concerns, I must decline your offer — for now, at least. Thanks! Neutrality 22:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, I see you are new here! Welcome to the wiki! :) Neutrality 22:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for your answer and for welcoming me. :) Regarding your username however, I still have a very uneasy feeling about it: It just doesn't seem right to me. And I for one was confused by your user name when I first encountered it. I did figure things out rather quickly, but it did confuse me first. Also, see for instance item no. 3 on this page. I think I probably will want to seek some advice on this from some senior Wikipedians, administrators or mailing lists in the long run. If everybody here thinks that it's all-rightey for you to have a user name like that, well, I'll certainly accept a democratic decision. But I do think it's a question that should be raised — and I would like to stress that I in no way want to threaten you by writing this, I just think it's fair to discuss this with you in advance. Also consider this: Assuming you were some ordinary user and you got into an animated discussion/argument with somebody, where you'd disagree about what's the NPOV, say, in a political article: wouldn't it drive you nuts if the other guy (who's point of view you totally disagree with and personally consider biased) had a user name of "Neutrality"? Such an imbalance isn't just bad for the side not carrying such a user name. — It's bad for you as well as you carry that name, because it will just be like a red cape to a bull — it will attract unnecessarily strong opposition and raise tempers on both sides. Finally, I found it's apparently not totally uncommon or terribly difficult to change a user name — see this page. I hope I haven't offended. Thanks and regards, Ropers 18:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Australis (automobile)

Aurora australis A polar aurora which occurs in the south pole. One which would occur in the north pole is an aurora borealis.

title: Talk:Australis (automobile)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other.  Specifically, please see entry on the list entitled Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 13. (I am leaving this note here because it involves templates and XfD.) Thanks! House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Readability of Template:Tfd top
Template:Tfd top uses background color #e3f9df (as of Special:Permalink/1172064855). Part of the template's text is the red "Please do not modify it.", which looks like this:

''... Please do not modify it. ...''

This combination of colors – background #e3f9df and foreground #ff0000  – is not very readable. It fails WCAG for normal text in a contrast checker.

In the interest of accessibility, I suggest changing the colors. For example, the foreground color can be changed to maroon (aka #800000 ):

''... Please do not modify it. ...''

which passes the contrast check. You can see how maroon looks with the whole text in the sandbox. —andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Other templates in Category:Deletion archival templates are also affected, but they are out of scope for WT:TFD. —andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know you say it's not relevant, but we might as well change all of the affected templates, such as atop green, at the same time. Also, why is this thread small? Primefac (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * we might as well change all of the affected templates – sure, I'll go be BOLD. why is this thread small? – because it's out of scope. Important enough to be mentioned, but not important enough to have normal text size. —andrybak (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For reference, the brightest color for foreground which passes the contrast check with the same background is #A90000 (see also in the sandbox). —andrybak (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, no one is likely to care because you're improving readability, I say just go for it (for all affected templates). If people complain, point 'em here. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the support :-) I'll even point my edit summaries here. —andrybak (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bold text has an exception that your average color contrast checker will not catch that allows 3:1 (web-aware ones will note that this use is allowed). This particular line is accessible. "Accessibility" isn't a very good argument on the point.
 * One reason not to change it is that this is our standard red for errors and other eye-catching text of a warning nature. The closed color is not and should perhaps be reconsidered. Izno (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The contrast checker above, webaim.org has a "Large Text" section, which is 14pt (18.6667px) and bold (font-weight: 700). For this font-size and font-weight, the red foreground color passes "WCAG AA", but doesn't pass "WCAG AAA".
 * In the templates, the font-size is 14px, which is 25% smaller. For me personally, the boldness only makes the readability worse for smaller text. Best way I can describe it is that because elements are thicker, the gaps between them are smaller, which makes distinguishing letters harder. I only came here, because I had been reading some TfD archives, and I have noticed that my eyes completely glossed over the the "Please do not modify it." part, because I couldn't read it.
 * , could you please clarify what you mean by standard red for errors and other eye-catching text of a warning nature. The closed color is not? Do you mean that the chosen maroon color is not eye-catching? —andrybak (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that red (#f00) is our standard red for such things. The background color OTOH has no standardization. Izno (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The bold red is readable enough, and - for afd top in particular - there are more than half a million substed uses of the old color.  Changing it isn't worth the inconsistency.  It's certainly not worth changing them all. —Cryptic 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All changes were reverted. —andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering background colors of other templates, the contrast with red of Tfd's very light green is bad (contrast ratio 3.59:1, with needed 7:1). The worst offenders are Rfd's pale orange  (3.52:1) and 's light purple  (3.39:1). —andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read Design/Archive/Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color usage. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

D MENA topic
d MENA topic The template was deemed delete-able mostly for not being in use, and is now on a list of things to remove from pages, this is a bit contradictory. MWQs (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 * And for being an unnecessary fork. I asked for an example of where the original template wasn't working and you didn't give one. If there isn't a problem was the current one, we don't need a duplicate template. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion


text:
User talk:Softssa

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Softssa


text:
List of heads of state of Cabinda

This is a list of heads of state of Cabinda.

A short-lived secessionist regime in the Cabinda enclave of Angola.

Note: The current president of the Republic of Cabinda in exile is General of Army Antonio Luis Lopes

title: List of heads of state of Cabinda


text:
Anabasis of Alexander

The Anabasis of Alexander (Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἀνάβασις, Alexándrou Anábasis; Anabasis Alexandri) was composed by Arrian of Nicomedia in the second century AD, most probably during the reign of Hadrian. The Anabasis (which survives complete in seven books) is a history of the campaigns of Alexander the Great, specifically his conquest of the Persian Empire between 336 and 323 BC. Both the unusual title "Anabasis" (literally "a journey up-country from the sea") and the work's seven-book structure reflect Arrian's emulation (in structure, style, and content) of the Greek historian Xenophon, whose own Anabasis in seven books concerned the earlier campaign "up-country" of Cyrus the Younger in 401 BC.

The Anabasis is by far the fullest surviving account of Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire. It is primarily a military history, reflecting the content of Arrian's model, Xenophon's Anabasis; the work begins with Alexander's accession to the Macedonian throne in 336 BC, and has nothing to say about Alexander's early life (in contrast, say, to Plutarch's Life of Alexander). Nor does Arrian aim to provide a complete history of the Greek-speaking world during Alexander's reign. Arrian's chief sources in writing the Anabasis were the lost contemporary histories of the campaign by Ptolemy and Aristobulus and, for his later books, Nearchus. One of Arrian's main aims in writing his history seems to have been to correct the standard "Vulgate" narrative of Alexander's reign that was current in his own day, primarily associated with the lost writings of the historian Cleitarchus.

Content
The Anabasis gives a broadly chronological account of the reign of Alexander the Great of Macedon (336–323 BC), with a particular focus on military matters. After a short Preface concerning Arrian's sources, the seven books describe the reign of Alexander the Great.

Book 1

This book covers the early years of Alexander's reign (336–334 BC), including notable descriptions of Alexander's sack of Thebes in 335 and the battle of the Granicus in summer 334 BC.

Book 2

The majority of this book is dominated by three large set-piece military operations: the campaign and battle of Issus (333 BC) and the sieges of Tyre and Gaza (332 BC). This book also recounts the defeat of King Darius of Persia and how Alexander treated Darius's family after his death. The trial of the Gordian Knot is also included in this book.

Book 3

Book three begins with an account of Alexander in Egypt, including his visit to the oracle of Zeus-Ammon at Siwah (winter 332/331 BC), before turning to the battle of Gaugamela and defeat of Darius III (331 BC). The latter half of the book describes Alexander's pursuit of Darius through northern Iran, the revolt of the pretender Bessus, and the deaths of Philotas and Parmenion (331–329 BC).

Book 4

This book begins with describing the long Sogdian campaign of 329–327 BC against Bessus, Spitamenes, and Oxyartes, and the early stages of the campaigns in the Punjab (327–326 BC), with a notable departure from chronological sequence at 4.7–14, where Arrian collects many of the most notorious stories tending to Alexander's discredit in a single apologetic digression (the killing of Cleitus, the proskynesis affair, the pages' conspiracy and the death of Callisthenes).

Book 5

This book continues the narrative of the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great of 326 BC, including Alexander's arrival at Nysa, the battle with Porus at the Hydaspes river, and the decision at the Hyphasis not to push on further into India.

Book 6

The journey down the Indus to the Indian Ocean (326–325 BC) is described, including the increasingly brutal violence inflicted on the local inhabitants by the Macedonians en route (notably at the Malli town), and the crossing of the Gedrosian Desert (325–324 BC).

Book 7

The last of the books recounts the events of Alexander's final year, including the Susa marriages, the Opis mutiny, the multiple predictions and omens of Alexander's own death, the death of Hephaestion, and Alexander's own death (324–323 BC). The very end of this book concludes with speculation about how Alexander died, and whether it was by poisoning or something else.

Criticism
Arrian's Anabasis has traditionally been regarded as the most reliable extant narrative source for Alexander's campaigns. Since the 1970s, however, a more critical view of Arrian has become widespread, due largely to the work of A. B. Bosworth, who has drawn scholars' attention to Arrian's tendency to hagiography and apologia, not to mention several passages where Arrian can be shown (by comparison with other ancient sources) to be downright misleading.

Modern editions
The only complete English translation of Arrian available online is a rather antiquated translation by E.J. Chinnock, published in 1884. The original Greek text used by the Perseus Digital Library is the standard A.G. Roos Teubner edition published at Leipzig in 1907.

Probably the most widely used scholarly English translation is Loeb Classical Library edition (with facing Greek text), in two volumes. The work first appeared in 1929 and was later revised with a new introduction and appendices by P.A. Brunt in 1976.

An English translation by Aubrey de Sélincourt appeared in Penguin Classics in 1958. This edition was revised and annotated by J.R. Hamilton in 1971.

The Landmark Ancient Histories, edited by Robert B. Strassler, includes The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, edited by James Romm (Professor of Classics at Bard College, 2010), and translated by Pamela Mensch. The Landmark edition includes extensive margin notes and maps on every other page.

A new translation by Martin Hammond with introduction and notes by John Atkinson appeared in the Oxford World's Classics series in 2013.

title: Anabasis of Alexander


text:
John Shelton Wilder

John Shelton Wilder (June 3, 1921 – January 1, 2010) was an American politician who was the 48th Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee for 36 years from January 1971 to January 2007, possibly the longest time anyone has served as Lieutenant Governor or a similar position in the history of the United States. He was a Tennessee state senator from 1959 to 1961 and again from 1967 to 2009. Tennesseans do not elect their lieutenant governor; rather, the Speaker of the Senate, who is first in the line of succession to the governor, is granted the title by statute.

Early life and education
Wilder was from Fayette County, near Memphis. He was from an affluent family with extensive agricultural and agribusiness interests. He attended Fayette County Public Schools and received an undergraduate degree from the University of Tennessee College of Agriculture and a law degree from Memphis State University, now the University of Memphis.

He and his family were known for fairer dealings with African American farm employees and tenants than was typical of the area during the segregation era. This fact served him very well upon entering into elective politics at about the time that Tennessee blacks in rural areas were first being allowed their constitutional rights to participate in political decisions which had been guaranteed under the Tennessee and federal constitutions but previously unenforced. Wilder was also a prominent attorney in Somerville, the county seat of Fayette County.

Wilder married his wife Marcelle in 1941 and served in the U.S. Army during World War II.

Political career
He was a member of the former Fayette County Quarterly Court (now the County Commission) for 18 years. A Democrat, he was first elected to the Tennessee Senate in 1958, serving until January 1961.

Wilder did not run for reelection in 1960, but returned to the state Senate in 1967. After this time, a state constitutional amendment extended the length of terms in the state Senate to four years. Wilder was elected to a four-year term in 1968 and was reelected every four years thereafter until 2008. He represented Senate District 26, which currently included Chester, Crockett, Fayette, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, McNairy, and Wayne counties.

Lieutenant governor
Wilder was elected Speaker of the State Senate by his fellow senators in January 1971, which made him the state's Lieutenant Governor. Under the Tennessee state constitution, the Speaker of the Senate is first in line of succession to the governorship. The title of Lieutenant Governor was granted to the Speaker of the Senate by statute in 1951.

He was the first Tennessee Lieutenant Governor in almost half a century, and only the second since Reconstruction, to serve under a governor of a different political party, Republican Winfield Dunn, who had been elected the previous November.

Prior to this time, the General Assembly had never had its own independent staff, or even its own offices, frequently working out of hotel rooms. Wilder now oversaw a massive building project (which somewhat ironically entailed the demolition of one of the hotels that many legislators had previously favored) which was undertaken to correct this and make the legislative branch of state government more co-equal to the other two.

Wilder defied precedent by seeking to serve as lieutenant governor for an extended period. Previously, no one had served more than three consecutive terms as Speaker of the Senate since Tennessee's current constitution was adopted in 1870. He faced little opposition until the mid-1980s. By then, many of the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus had tired of his leadership. There were also regional issues at stake – by this time the speakers of both houses of the legislature had been from West Tennessee for almost two decades. The dissident faction coalesced around the leadership of State Senate Majority Leader Riley Darnell from Clarksville in Middle Tennessee. When Darnell received the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor in 1987, Wilder's long tenure as Lieutenant Governor appeared to be over.

However, in a surprise (but not entirely unprecedented) move, Wilder was then nominated by the Republican Caucus for Lieutenant Governor. With the support of all 15 Republicans in the chamber, and six dissenting Democrats, Wilder won the vote 21 – 15 and then proceeded to organize the Senate on a "bipartisan" basis, awarding a majority of the committee chairmanships to his Democratic loyalists with the remainder going to the Republicans. This was not out of character for Wilder; in 1979 he had acquiesced in the ouster of Governor Ray Blanton three days before his term was supposed to end after a series of controversial pardons. The state constitution is somewhat ambiguous on when a governor is supposed to be sworn in, so Wilder and his counterpart in the State House, Ned McWherter, supported the early swearing-in of his Republican successor, Lamar Alexander. Wilder called the move "impeachment, Tennessee style."

After this, Wilder, until 2005, continued to be reelected "unanimously" and to award chairmanships to his supporters in both parties, making the Tennessee Senate one of the few legislative bodies in the world to be elected on a partisan basis, but organized on a more-or-less nonpartisan one. Even when two outgoing state Senators switched parties in the mid-1990s, giving the Republicans a short-lived one-seat Senate majority, nothing of consequence changed.

This coalition had made Wilder one of the longest-serving (reputedly the longest) freely-elected legislative leaders in the world. Given his support among many Republican state senators, he long faced little opposition in holding onto his State Senate seat, even though the Memphis suburbs were becoming increasingly Republican. In much of his district, he was the only elected Democrat above the county level by the turn of the millennium.

Unlike many lieutenant governors, particularly in other states, Wilder never ran for governor. In 2009 he said that he had wanted to run for governor in 1974, but had been talked out of it by his family, and was "glad I stayed where I was because the Senate is the Senate."

Wilder was a cycling enthusiast and was a licensed private pilot for over a half-century, continuing occasionally until the end of his legislative career to fly himself 200 miles (320 km) from Fayette County to Nashville for legislative meetings.

Two Republican members of the Tennessee State Senate – enough to assure Wilder's reelection provided his traditional unanimous Democratic support in recent years – voted for Wilder on January 11, 2005, and he was sworn in for his 18th term as lieutenant governor. (One of them, Micheal Williams, was then rewarded with the post of Speaker pro Tempore.) Wilder then appointed Republican majorities to seven of the nine committees but left the five existing Democratic chairmen in place; this resulted in Democratic majorities and chairs on two committees, including what is regarded as the most important one, the Finance Committee, which left many Republicans very upset.

Following the November 2006 elections, the Republican Party retained a one-seat majority in the Tennessee Senate. However, Republicans who had supported Wilder in the past, particularly Williams, found themselves under severe pressure to adhere to party discipline, with even the threat of officially-endorsed primary opponents, unprecedented for Tennessee Republicans, for those who failed to comply with the party line, according to a series of columns by Tennessean columnist Larry Daughtrey. Wilder was challenged within the Democratic caucus for nomination as speaker by State Senator Joe Haynes of Nashville. Later articles in The Tennessean and the Nashville City Paper cited the possibility that all 16 Republicans might vote for Senator Ron Ramsey of Blountville and that 16 Democrats, including Wilder himself, would vote for Wilder, with Democratic State Senator Jerry Cooper, accused of wrongful business dealings with a bank controlled by Wilder, abstaining to prevent any appearance of conflict of interest. Under Senate rules, a 16–16 tie would result in Wilder's retention of the speakership.

However, in the vote held on January 9, 2007, all 17 Republicans voted for Ramsey and were joined by Democratic Senator Rosalind Kurita of Clarksville, ending Wilder's tenure as Speaker of the Senate and Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee.

On March 8, 2007, the Tennessee news media reported that Wilder had been seriously injured in a fall and was in intensive care in a hospital in Memphis. He was released from the hospital on March 11, 2007, and returned home to finish his recuperation.

In February 2008, the 2007-08 edition of the Tennessee Blue Book was dedicated to him.

On March 20, 2008, Wilder announced his decision not to run for re-election later that year.

Death
Wilder died early on the morning of January 1, 2010 at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis following a stroke on December 28, 2009. He was survived by his younger brother Wiggins Wilder; his two sons: Shelton (John Jr.) and David; his four grandchildren: John III, Joseph, Jarod, and Whitney; and his five great-grandchildren: Jess (John IV), Suzie, Russell, Ansel and Marcel.

General
Much of the information contained in this article is from the Tennessee Blue Book.
 * The Tennessean, December 24, 2006; December 31, 2006, January 8, 2007
 * Nashville City Paper, January 3, 2007, January 8, 2007

title: John Shelton Wilder


text:
OTP Bank

OTP Bank Group is the largest commercial bank of Hungary and one of the largest independent financial service providers in Central and Eastern Europe, with banking services for private individuals and corporate clients. The OTP Group comprises subsidiaries in the field of insurance, real estate, factoring, leasing and asset management, investment and pension funds. Besides Hungary, OTP Group operates in 11 countries of the region via its subsidiaries: in Albania (Banka OTP Albania SHA), in Bulgaria (DSK Bank), in Croatia (OTP banka d.d.), in Romania (OTP Bank Romania), in Serbia (OTP Banka Srbija), in Slovenia (Nova KBM d.d. and SKB d.d.), in Ukraine (OTP Bank JSC), in Moldova (OTP Bank S.A.), in Montenegro (Crnogorska komercijalna banka), in Russia (OAO OTP Bank), and in Uzbekistan (JSCMB Ipoteka Bank).

OTP Group had more than 36,000 employees, 13 million clients, and over 1,500 branches. OTP is the largest commercial bank in Hungary with over 25% market share.

OTP stands for Országos Takarék Pénztár (lit. 'Nationwide Savings Bank'), which indicates the original purpose of establishment of the bank. OTP went public in 1995 and has a high free float shareholder structure, with a free float ratio of 68.61%. The rest are held by Megdet Rahimkulov at 8.88%, Hungarian MOL Group at 8.57%, French Groupama at 8.3% and American Lazard at 5.64%.

History
The oldest antecedent of OTP Bank was the First National Savings Bank of Pest, established in 1839–1840 and nationalized in 1948. In 1949, the latter's operations were transferred to the newly established Hungarian National Savings Bank Company (Országos Takarékpénztár Nemzeti Vállalat), one of the country's four main financial institutions alongside the Hungarian National Bank, the Hungarian Investment Bank (renamed the State Bank for Development in 1972 and liquidated in 1987), and the Hungarian Foreign Trade Bank. Until 1987 the National Savings Bank was the only retail bank in Hungary. Since 1989 the bank operated as a multi-functional commercial bank with the authorization to provide commercial loans and banking services for banks and import- export transactions.

In 1990, the National Savings Bank became a state-owned joint-stock company with a share capital of HUF 23 billion. Its name was changed to the National Savings and Commercial Bank. Subsequently, non-banking activities were separated from the bank, along with their supporting organisational units. The state lottery was reorganized into a separate state-owned company and OTP Real Estate was established as a subsidiary of the bank.

OTP Bank's privatization began in the year 1995. As a result of 3 public offers along with the introduction of the bank's shares into the Budapest Stock Exchange the state's ownership in the bank decreased to 25 percent by 1995, then to a single voting preference (golden) share by 1999 (maintained until 2007).

In 1995, OTP purchased Merkantil Bank, created in 1988 mostly as a vehicle finance provider, from its parent K&H Bank. OTP then started an international expansion targeting countries in Central and Eastern Europe, namely in Slovakia (2002), Bulgaria (2003), Romania (2004), Croatia (2005), Ukraine, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro (2006).

In 2008, Paris-based Groupama acquired OTP's insurance business. As part of the transaction, they resolved to collaborate in strategic points and cross sell their financial and insurance products. Groupama S.A. thus acquired 8% of shares of OTP Group. This transaction allowed OTP to avoid the need of state recapitalization during the financial crisis of 2008-2009; OTP only took liquidity support from the state, entailing temporary government interference in its governance, and was able to repay it fully by 2010.

In April 2014, it was announced that OTP Bank was close to a deal to acquire the Hungarian MKB Bank from German firm BayernLB, which however was not executed. French Axa Bank Europe announced in February 2016 it has entered into an agreement with OTP Bank to sell its Hungarian banking operations, which is considered as medium-sized bank in Hungary.

In 2019, OTP Bank entered into an agreement to purchase MobiasBanca of Moldova. The agreement was finalized on 25 July 2019.

In March 2022, due to international sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, OTP Bank stopped financing its Russian branch.

On December 12, 2022, in Tashkent, OTP Bank signed an agreement on the privatization of 75% of the Joint-Stock Commercial Mortgage Bank "Mortgage bank". It is planned to close the deal in the first half of 2023, although the amount has not yet been disclosed. 73.41% of the shares in Ipoteka Bank JSCM were acquired from the Uzbekistan government in June 2023.

Controversy
On 5 May 2023, Ukrainian authorities added OTP bank onto its list of international sponsors of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which the bank refutes. The Government of Hungary backed the bank stating that it would block any further EU aid to Ukraine until the bank is withdrawn from the list. The bank was removed from the list in September 2023.

OTP Group
The Bank hosts an international organisation called the OTP group. The several parts of the group work in different areas of business.

title: OTP Bank


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauliina Lappalainen

Non-notable kid. 8 displayed hits. Only one in English is replies to a poll. Niteowlneils 14:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This page is the originator's only contribution. Did you create the article, Pauliina? If so, nobody's trying to be nasty about it, but you need to register at Wikipedia and put your personal details on your personal userpage, rather than in an article. Vote to delete article. Bishonen 15:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete: If it's a personal page, then the author should create an account and feel free to put the material on her page. Geogre 17:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree appears to be personal page. RedWolf 03:33, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Assuming the summary is accurate, delete as vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Begriffsschrift

Begriffsschrift (German for, roughly, "concept-writing") is a book on logic by Gottlob Frege, published in 1879, and the formal system set out in that book.

Begriffsschrift is usually translated as concept writing or concept notation; the full title of the book identifies it as "a formula language, modeled on that of arithmetic, for pure thought." Frege's motivation for developing his formal approach to logic resembled Leibniz's motivation for his calculus ratiocinator (despite that, in the foreword Frege clearly denies that he achieved this aim, and also that his main aim would be constructing an ideal language like Leibniz's, which Frege declares to be a quite hard and idealistic—though not impossible—task). Frege went on to employ his logical calculus in his research on the foundations of mathematics, carried out over the next quarter-century. This is the first work in Analytical Philosophy, a field that future British and Anglo philosophers such as Bertrand Russell further developed.

Notation and the system
The calculus contains the first appearance of quantified variables, and is essentially classical bivalent second-order logic with identity. It is bivalent in that sentences or formulas denote either True or False; second order because it includes relation variables in addition to object variables and allows quantification over both. The modifier "with identity" specifies that the language includes the identity relation, =. Frege stated that his book was his version of a characteristica universalis, a Leibnizian concept that would be applied in mathematics.

Frege presents his calculus using idiosyncratic two-dimensional notation: connectives and quantifiers are written using lines connecting formulas, rather than the symbols ¬, ∧, and ∀ in use today. For example, that judgement B materially implies judgement A, i.e. $$ B \rightarrow A $$ is written as.

In the first chapter, Frege defines basic ideas and notation, like proposition ("judgement"), the universal quantifier ("the generality"), the conditional, negation and the "sign for identity of content" $$ \equiv $$ (which he used to indicate both material equivalence and identity proper); in the second chapter he declares nine formalized propositions as axioms.

In chapter 1, §5, Frege defines the conditional as follows:

 * "Let A and B refer to judgeable contents, then the four possibilities are:

 * 1) A is asserted, B is asserted;
 * 2) A is asserted, B is negated;
 * 3) A is negated, B is asserted;
 * 4) A is negated, B is negated.

Let

 * [[File:Kondicionaliskis wb.png]]

signify that the third of those possibilities does not obtain, but one of the three others does. So if we negate , that means the third possibility is valid, i.e. we negate A and assert B."

The calculus in Frege's work
Frege declared nine of his propositions to be axioms, and justified them by arguing informally that, given their intended meanings, they express self-evident truths. Re-expressed in contemporary notation, these axioms are:

 * 1) $$ \vdash \ \ A \rightarrow \left( B \rightarrow A \right) $$
 * 2) $$ \vdash \ \ \left[ \ A \rightarrow \left( B \rightarrow C \right) \ \right] \ \rightarrow \ \left[ \ \left( A \rightarrow B \right) \rightarrow \left( A \rightarrow C \right) \ \right] $$
 * 3) $$ \vdash \ \ \left[ \ D \rightarrow \left( B \rightarrow A \right) \ \right] \ \rightarrow \ \left[ \ B \rightarrow \left( D \rightarrow A \right) \ \right] $$
 * 4) $$ \vdash \ \ \left( B \rightarrow A \right) \ \rightarrow \ \left( \lnot A \rightarrow \lnot B \right) $$
 * 5) $$ \vdash \ \ \lnot \lnot A \rightarrow A $$
 * 6) $$ \vdash \ \ A \rightarrow  \lnot\lnot A $$
 * 7) $$ \vdash \ \ \left( c=d \right) \rightarrow \left( f\left(c\right) = f\left(d\right) \right) $$
 * 8) $$ \vdash \ \ c = c $$
 * 9) $$ \vdash \ \  \forall a \ f(a)  \rightarrow \ f(c) $$

These are propositions 1, 2, 8, 28, 31, 41, 52, 54, and 58 in the Begriffschrifft. (1)–(3) govern material implication, (4)–(6) negation, (7) and (8) identity, and (9) the universal quantifier. (7) expresses Leibniz's indiscernibility of identicals, and (8) asserts that identity is a reflexive relation.

All other propositions are deduced from (1)–(9) by invoking any of the following inference rules:
 * Modus ponens allows us to infer $$\vdash B$$ from $$\vdash A \to B$$ and $$\vdash A$$;
 * The rule of generalization allows us to infer $$\vdash P \to \forall x A(x)$$ from $$\vdash P \to A(x)$$ if x does not occur in P;
 * The rule of substitution, which Frege does not state explicitly. This rule is much harder to articulate precisely than the two preceding rules, and Frege invokes it in ways that are not obviously legitimate.

The main results of the third chapter, titled "Parts from a general series theory," concern what is now called the ancestral of a relation R. "a is an R-ancestor of b" is written "aR*b".

Frege applied the results from the Begriffsschrifft, including those on the ancestral of a relation, in his later work The Foundations of Arithmetic. Thus, if we take xRy to be the relation y = x + 1, then 0R*y is the predicate "y is a natural number." (133) says that if x, y, and z are natural numbers, then one of the following must hold: x < y, x = y, or y < x. This is the so-called "law of trichotomy".

Influence on other works
For a careful recent study of how the Begriffsschrift was reviewed in the German mathematical literature, see Vilko (1998). Some reviewers, especially Ernst Schröder, were on the whole favorable. All work in formal logic subsequent to the Begriffsschrift is indebted to it, because its second-order logic was the first formal logic capable of representing a fair bit of mathematics and natural language.

Some vestige of Frege's notation survives in the "turnstile" symbol $$\vdash$$ derived from his  "Urteilsstrich" (judging/inferring stroke) │ and "Inhaltsstrich" (i.e. content stroke) ──. Frege used these symbols in the Begriffsschrift in the unified form ├─ for declaring that a proposition is true. In his later "Grundgesetze" he revises slightly his interpretation of the ├─ symbol.

In "Begriffsschrift" the "Definitionsdoppelstrich" (i.e. definition double stroke) │├─ indicates that a proposition is a definition. Furthermore, the negation sign $$\neg$$ can be read as a combination of the horizontal Inhaltsstrich with a vertical negation stroke. This negation symbol was reintroduced by Arend Heyting in 1930 to distinguish intuitionistic from classical negation. It also appears in Gerhard Gentzen's doctoral dissertation.

In the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein pays homage to Frege by employing the term Begriffsschrift as a synonym for logical formalism.

Frege's 1892 essay, "On Sense and Reference," recants some of the conclusions of the Begriffsschrifft about identity (denoted in mathematics by the "=" sign). In particular, he rejects the "Begriffsschrift" view that the identity predicate expresses a relationship between names, in favor of the conclusion that it expresses a relationship between the objects that are denoted by those names.

Editions

 * Gottlob Frege. Begriffsschrift: eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle an der Saale: Verlag von Louis Nebert, 1879.

Translations:
 * Bynum, Terrell Ward, translated and edited, 1972. Conceptual notation and related articles, with a biography and introduction. Oxford University Press.
 * Bauer-Mengelberg, Stefan, 1967, "Concept Script" in Jean van Heijenoort, ed., From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Harvard University Press.
 * Beaney, Michael, 1997, "Begriffsschrift: Selections (Preface and Part I)" in The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

title: Begriffsschrift


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhina Hansson

Non-notable person. 1 unclear hit. Still only 400 at the suggested spelling without the 'h', that may or may not be this person. Niteowlneils 14:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * What? You say the best and most beautiful woman in the world does not deserve her own article? You're a cynic, Niteowlneils. And look, it's NPOV, too, with the "is by many considered to be"--that's very cute. The originator, btw, also put the sentence "One important family in the area is the powerful Tykesson family" into the Svalöv article, until Mic reverted it, so complimenting his friends and family on Wikipedia seems to be his special thing. Don't know whether he's himself a powerful Tykesson or Swedish guitarist Gustav Bjarnason, but one of those seems very likely. Speedy delete joke entry. Bishonen 15:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete: Yet another mash note. I'm glad she has an admirer, but we are not match.com.  Geogre 17:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Speed deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
List of heads of government of Cabinda

List of heads of government of Cabinda (Angola)

(Dates in italics indicate de facto continuation of office)

title: List of heads of government of Cabinda