text:
Cyril Edward Gourley

Captain Cyril Edward Gourley VC MM (19 January 1893 – 31 January 1982) was a British Army officer and an English recipient of the Victoria Cross (VC), the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Early life
Cyril Edward Gourley was born in Wavertree, Liverpool and educated at Calday Grange Grammar School and Liverpool University, graduating in 1913.

First World War service
Gourley had joined 7th Lancashire Battery of the IV West Lancashire (Howitzer) Brigade, Royal Field Artillery (Territorial Force) in May 1914. He was mobilised with his unit on the outbreak of war in August 1914 and went with it to the Western Front in September 1915. His battery was transferred to CCLXXVI (276) Brigade in 1916. In September 1917, he was serving near Ypres and was awarded the Military Medal for conspicuous gallantry in putting out a fire near an ammunition dump.

Victoria Cross
Gourley was 24 years old, and a sergeant in D (Howitzer) Battery of 276th (West Lancashire) Brigade, RFA, when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.

On 30 November 1917 at Little Priel Farm, east of Epehy, France, during the Battle of Cambrai, Sergeant Gourley was in command of a section of howitzers of the 55th (West Lancashire) Division. During an enemy advance, when their forces were within a few hundred yards of him, both to the front and on one flank, and though plagued by snipers, Sergeant Gourley managed to keep one gun firing. At one point he pulled the gun out of the pit and engaged a machine-gun at 500 yards, knocking it out with a direct hit. All day he held the Germans in check, firing over open sights on enemy parties, thereby saving his guns, which were withdrawn at nightfall.

The citation for his VC reads:

"No. 681886 Sjt. Cyril Edward Gourley, M.M., R.F.A. (West Kirby).

For most conspicuous bravery when in command of a section of howitzers. Though the enemy advanced in force getting within 400 yards in front, between 300 and 400 yards to one flank and with snipers in the rear, Sjt. Gourley managed to keep one gun in action practically throughout the day. Though frequently driven off he always returned, carrying ammunition, laying and firing the gun himself, taking first one and then another of the detachment to assist him. When the enemy advanced he pulled his gun out of the pit, and engaged a machine gun at 500 yards, knocking it out with a direct hit. All day he held the enemy in check, firing with open sights at enemy parties in full view at 300 to 800 yards, and thereby saved his guns, which were withdrawn at nightfall. He had previously been awarded the Military Medal for conspicuous gallantry."

- London Gazette, 13 February 1918

Gourley was originally denied an officer's commission due to "defective eyesight", but, after being made a second lieutenant in the RFA, later rose to the rank of captain.

Post-war
From 1919, Gourley worked for Lever Brothers, travelling widely to open up new business for the company. On his retirement a director of the company spoke of "...his quiet, gentle courteousness and his readiness to do all he could for other people. In fact he was a jolly good man to have beside you when you were in trouble". In 1925, the Gourley family moved to Hill Close, School Lane, off Column Road, Grange, West Kirby; the house was later renamed Gourley Grange and the lane renamed Gourley's Lane in his honour. The gardens created by the Gourley family have now been redeveloped as a small housing estate.

During the Second World War, Gourley was a firewatcher in Liverpool, and dealt with many of the air raids on Liverpool.

In 1952, Gourley, "a modest, kindly and courteous gentleman", moved to Haslemere, Surrey, where he died on 31 January 1982, at the age of eighty-nine. He is buried in Grange Cemetery, West Kirby, Wirral. Gourley never married.

The Trustees of The Cyril Edward Gourley Victoria Cross Endowment, Registered Charity 525987, set up in his honour after the First World War from local donations, provide grants to University Students who attended schools, or reside in the Hoylake and West Kirby area, subject to certain conditions.

The medal
His VC, along with his other medals which include the Croix de Guerre, is held by the Royal Artillery Museum.

title: Cyril Edward Gourley


text:
Talk:Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus

Sensitive or susceptible?
I know I'm supposed to fix the double redirects that I created by moving this article, but I have deliberately refrained from doing so in case a debate springs up over the choice of "sensitive" or "susceptible". The three existing references on Wikipedia use the former option, while all the examples I can find on the Web use the latter. If nobody notices this within, say, the next week, I shall delete the "sensitive" version and remove the double redirects. -- Heron 13:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Insomniac's Dream

Insomniac's Dream is the first EP by American rock band Adema, and was released on November 5, 2002 after their self-titled debut album. Only the first three tracks are new, though "Shattered" was released on some international versions of Adema and "Nutshell" is a cover of an Alice in Chains song. "Immortal" was the theme song for Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, and is the only song to have had a music video.

Credits

 * Adema
 * Mark Chavez — vocals, executive producer
 * Tim Fluckey — guitar
 * Mike Ransom — guitar
 * Dave DeRoo — bass
 * Kris Kohls — drums

 * Additional musicians
 * Fran Cathcart 	—	guitar, engineer
 * Sam "Sever" Citrin 	—	drums, engineer, mixing, effects, remixing, producer

 * Production
 * Josh Surratt  - 	Mixing
 * Richard Mouser -	Mixing
 * Brian Reeves 	 -	Mixing
 * L.A. Reid 	 -	Executive producer
 * Richie Zito 	 -	Producer
 * Jeffrey Schulz -	Art direction, design
 * Chris Vrenna 	 -	Producer, remixing, mixing
 * David Dominguez -	Engineer
 * Joshua Sarubin -	A&R
 * Patrick Shevelin -	Engineer, Pro-Tools
 * Annamaria DiSanto -	Photography
 * Tim Harkins    -	Assistant engineer
 * Brian Nolan    -	Photography
 * Tobias Miller  -	Producer, engineer
 * Adema 	 -	Producer
 * Bill Appleberry -	Producer, engineer
 * Mike Fraser 	 -	Mixing
 * David J. Holman -	Mixing

title: Insomniac's Dream


text:
Talk:Unusual types of gramophone records

Unrec01 ubt

Thanks for the nice illustration! -- Infrogmation 00:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Triple Inchophone
Now that the article has been deleted, shouldn't it be incorporated here? Pellucidity 07:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaped picture discs
Should also include mention of these. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a scan of the shape picture version of Poland by Tangerine Dream if that would add anything here. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is Warsaw in the Sun, a remix of Poland. The record is in the shape of Poland, the bottom center images are of Lech Wałęsa and Pope John Paul II. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the image as it was not properley oriented. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Multi-grooved records
Could the same trick be tried on CD? Has anyone ever tried a CD with two or more intelaced spiral tracks of pits and lands?

No i don't think so, because with a record the needle follows the track around the record, ie. the record determines where to needle moves. For a cd, the lazer does not follow the tracks, it just moves in the standard way, independent of the way the information is written on the cd as there is no physical connection. --LeakeyJee 12:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * That's not actually true. The laser follows the track as impressed on the disc using a couple of side beams designed to detect when the track is moving off the centre line.  Recording a disc with interlaced tracks would be entirely feasible.  There may be a problem when selecting individual tracks if the laser picked up the alternate track before finding the correct one.

Locked grooves
A locked track on the edge of a CD (the track spirals outward from the centre) would not achieve the same effect because the turning speed of CDs is much higher than that of an LP. But could the same effect be emulated by digital technology?
 * CDs can skip in much the same way as records, especially when dropped down the side of a car seat! Spenny 15:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you could rely on every CD player to skip in the same way - some read ahead, some might give up. The CD format doesn't accomodate for any kind of loop function. In other words, not really. Chris 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a mention of Pierre Schaeffer as an earlier use of locked-groove records than The Beatles? He was using these as loops on plastic discs (before tape was available) to produce Musique Concreté works in the late-40s.

"Bones Records"
A very interesting phenomenon worth considering here are so-called "bones records" (roentgenizdat). In the mid 50's Russia was heavily censoring any Western influences, including music. In order to gain aceess to the music, a copies of records were cut on used, discarded x-ray film, which was plentiful and not likely to be suspected. The quality was poor and degraded quickly. They traveled through musical circles not unlike peer-to-peer file sharing. Musical material ranged from swing and bebop to early rock/R &B. Reportedly the most popular title was "Rock Around the Clock."

Kraftwerk Neon
According to rumours, the single's production ended prematurely when the plastic was discovered to be toxic, adding to the records rarity. Whilst this comment is noted as a rumour, I don't think it is substatiated. The single (c/w Trans Europe Express and The Model) is made of a form that is luminous because of sun light. People get confused over the fact that up until the 1970s, many watches had luminous dials made with radiactive material (which worked throughout the day and night and did not need to be recharged). As proud owner of the 12", I can confirm it did/does not glow without being charged in daylight. Mind you it might explain the 15 foot long spider in my attic! I suspect it was withdrawn simply because it was a special edition, or simply did not sell. Spenny 15:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Froot Loops record
I once had square record that came with a box of Froot Loops. Wish I still had it. PrometheusX303 01:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the cardboard record you cut out of the back of the box? I seem to recall one by the Archies. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I can't remember what was on it, though. Prome theus  -X303-  17:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Inside-to-outside recording
Mid-20th-century broadcasting-style record cutters could record in either direction. I believe starting from the inside and then spiraling out mitigated the problem of the sudden increase in drag when the cutter is lowered onto the platter. I have some 1952 recordings made at a radio station from the outside-in and the beginning of each has a very noticeable speed variation. If the cutter was lowered at the inside, there would be less torque produced and hence the speed would not be affected as much. (My particular recordings were intended for use on a commercial-grade phonograph, hence they were recorded in the conventional direction.) Does anybody else agree with this view?

Jmatxx 23:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Flexis & cardboard records
Given that these two articles probably aren't going to get an awful lot bigger, I think they should be merged here. Thoughts? Tzaquiel 17:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Merge. They fit the subject matter of this article.  Prome  theus  -X303-  17:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Nope. The term flexidisc is used frequently, and it's not self-explanatory in the same way that the other odd varieties on this page are. Chris 21:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Nope. No way! flexi-disc is a specific format, historically widely used. Why not have it's own page? If it was a type of Pokemon it would have it's own page for sure, so why not a type of record?! :) And "unusual" isn't a very 'encyclopedic' catagory anyway really, I think it's worthwhile to make specific pages for the more notable unusual formats. :-S 85.8.189.11 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish postcards
This might be interesting: --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Large holes on 45s
I initially requested a citation regarding 45s having larger holes to accomodate jukeboxes. I have a citation to the contrary and will simply change the text.Squad51 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * There's no denying that the application to jukeboxes exists, whether it was the reason the larger hole size was invented or not. A quick Google search produces a number of references for this use.  And I've seen at least one jukebox of this kind in my life.  So AISI, it wasn't right to remove the mention of it completely. -- Smjg 14:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that some jukebox versions of 45's were manufactured but most had the push out centers allowing them to be used on both platforms or were "dinked" (large hole punched with a "dinking machine"). Plastic inserts were sold to the public that allowed jukebox records to be played on regular equipment (as many jukebox records were recycled after use and sold at a discount).

REFS: -

"Heartbreak Hotel / Hound Dog Jukebox 45 RPM 7" Elvis Presley Vinyl Single Elvis Presley Heartbreak Hotel / Hound Dog 45 RPM Vinyl JUKEBOX single to promote the release of the The King Of Rock 'n' Roll box set. Limited availability. From RCA USA 1992 07863-62449-7 (Factory new - never played) Single included with the juke box strip and large hole (We will supply insert to play on standard player.)"

http://shop.elvis.com.au/category111_1.htm

"In addition, the RCA engineers designed the new 45 disc featuring the large center 'hole' to prevent the stress and damage common to the shellac 78 disc small center 'hole' by a combination of the records weight and mechanical auto changers. The new 45 RPM disc records would not suffer either surface or 'hole' damage,"

http://www.downstairsrecords.com/about/rpm.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimulti (talk • contribs) 08:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aimulti (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Binaural recordings
There was a short section here I removed earlier, containing the text italicized below:
 * An early binaural format — Before the development of the single-groove stereo system circa 1957, at least one company, Cook Laboratories, released a number of "binaural" recordings. Each side of one of these recordings consisted of two long, continuous tracks — one containing the left-ear signal, one containing the right-ear signal. It was intended that the buyer purchase an adapter from Cook Laboratories that allowed two cartridges to be mounted together, with the proper spacing, on a single tone arm. Only a very small number of recordings were ever released in this format. It is not known how many purchasers went to the effort and expense needed to play them binaurally. Binaural recordings resurfaced in the late 1970s, Pink Floyd used several binaural sound effects on The Final Cut, and the German group Can released several LPs recorded using the technique. However, these simply used the standard stereo system to encode the sound.

This article is about unusual types of gramophone records, the discs with spiral grooves. This section discusses an unusual kind of record groove layouts -- two parallel spirals, one for each channel. These are unusual because the industry settled on a single-groove system when it began to mass-produce binaural records.

There is no need to say that binaural recordings resurfaced. They of course rapidly became the standard format which ushered the record industry into maturity. This section is talking about an unusual kind of binaural (stereo) record.

I think the text I removed is trying to refer to QSound, which is a kind of binaural sound effect. It really isn't relevant at all in this article, as the recordings that used it and other similar systems have all been standard stereo records.

Let's please try to keep this article on its topic. —ptk✰fgs 11:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I object to the continued removal of the information. Each time I have justified its inclusion and each time you have arbitrarily deleted. Your justification in this case is wrong: QSound is not binaural - follow the link to binaural and you will see that there is more to it. Your interpretation is that it is unusual physical attributes, it is not my interpretation - we would delete unusual speeds on that basis.

 * QSound absolutely is binaural. Follow the link and read the article. It presents "3D sound" using two channels. The meaning of the word "binaural" is "two-channel audio".

 * On the more general point, it is quite appropriate to give a context to the topics discussed. You didn't like that under grooving, so I created a different section which noted some other relevant unusual types: short notes referring to the explicit articles. To me, the point of a Wiki is to be able to create explorable information. If you are too strict on topic then you lose that. Is colouring vinyl unusual - arguably not, they were very common in the 1970s, and there was nothing technical about them, but it is of interest. Binaural and quadraphonic are interesting variations - a lot less common than picture discs and coloured vinyl.

 * Binaural (stereo) records are as common as dirt. We should discuss quadrophonic recordings here, but then again I've never had an objection to that.

 * So I think guiding the readers onto other topics of interest is appropriate. Backwards recording - more interesting than other speeds; quadraphonic recording, of interest for people who find that Dolby 5.1 of today came out of earlier failed experiments in the 1970s. Binaural is of interest if you didn't know of this rare recording format (and if you heard one of Can's LPs you would find it has an interesting sonic quality that is worth seeking out). Spenny 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Binaural is a synonym for "stereo". That's all. —ptk✰fgs 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, but you misunderstand the difference between binaural and stereo. Binaural is more than just a two channel stero system, it is a use of the acoustic properties of the head to create a realistic sound field, it is not synonymous. Arguably the error is in describing the original system as binaural in the context of the modern understanding of the word. Here is the quote from that very article:

 * Binaural recording is a method of recording audio which uses a special microphone arrangement. Dummy head recording refers to a specific method of capturing the audio, generally using a bust.

 * The term "binaural" has often been confused as a synonym for the word "stereo", and this is partially due to a large amount of misuse in the mid-1950s by the recording industry, as a marketing buzzword. Conventional stereo recordings do not factor in natural crossfeed or sonic shaping of the head and ear, since these things happen naturally as a person listens, generating their own ITDs (interaural time differences) and ILDs (interaural level differences).

 * Binaural is understood to mean this enhancement. Stereo recording is simply two channels - listen to early Beatles recordings and you will find that there are several mono tracks assigned left right and centre. Binaural is a process of capturing the actual sounds from within the ear to allow the subtleties of placement to be captured. QSound is not precisely the same thing (it was a 1990s innovation) and that relies on the artificial generation of some of the signals, but it is related. If you want a disambiguation to make the difference clear then we can add that, to emphasise that the meaning of binaural in the context of 1970s and 1980s records is the use of a head stereo recording technique. I feel it is important because it is fundamentally about the determination to go beyond the apparent limitations of a two channel system which in the modern world has been abandoned and technology allows recordings to be produced in multiple discrete channels.

 * Seriously, I tried to address your valid criticism of the confusion of the physical traits - however, I do believe it is important to be aware of context. As is clear, you have misunderstood the issue, which is entirely understandable as the binaural topic makes clear, so I think that the linking in to the topic is appropriate. So I insist that you stop reverting my edits which you also acknowledge have other items of relevance in them. Spenny 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Binaural Recordings
This is a dispute about whether binaural recordings are appropriate to this article 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Binaural recordings were introduced into the article some time ago due to the use of two grooves to represent the two channels of recording. Again some time ago, by way of clarification, an edit was added to note that binaural recordings also existed. Ptkfgs recently deleted the comment as he felt that it was an irrelevance, however, I reinstated the edit with a short explanation as to why. This clearly did not satisfy the editor and he reverted the edit. I therefore considered the specific issue he raised and determined that there was some merit in his concerns and therefore created a section which attempted to keep what I felt was an important clarification and concept in the article and introduce summary links into other related information, yet resolve the concerns on the ambiguity. I provided the justification in the talk (above). For the understandable reason of the ambiguity of the term binaural (which is addressed in that article) the edits were again disputed and entirely reverted, even though some other information introduced was acknowledged to be relevant. Rather than continue the tennis match, I think it would be appropriate for a neutral view to be given on the appropriateness of the links of other information. Spenny 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Comments

The insertion of the irrelevant content appears to derive from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "binaural" when discussing the manufacture of gramophone records. Binaural, in general audio discussion, is merely a synonym for "stereo" or "two channel audio". This is why the unusual two-groove/two-pickup system is mentioned here. The new section "Unusual recording techniques" discusses a second esoteric meaning of "binaural", referring to binaural sound effects that attempt to reproduce three-dimensional sound spatialization using a standard stereo signal.

The Oxford English Dictionary confirms this more general application of the term:
 * ''1. Of or pertaining to one's two ears; used with both ears, as the binaural stethoscope.
 * ''1861 [see STETHOSCOPE n.]. 1878 Engineering XXIV. 151/3 Mr. S. P. Thompson..read his paper ‘On Binaural Audition’. 1881 LE CONTE Light 265 A kind of binaural audition, by means of which we judge imperfectly of direction of sound. 1881 Nature XXV. 208.
 * ''2. Applied to a system of sound reproduction that uses two separated microphones and two transmission channels to achieve a stereophonic effect; esp. one in which the sound is delivered to each ear separately by earphones.
 * ''1933 Electronics July 196/2 Ready-made equipment for an experiment with binaural transmission. 1952 N.Y. Times 26 Oct. II. 11/6 In binaural transmission, the sound is broadcast on both the standard radio wave length and on FM. In the home two receivers are necessary to achieve the effect of ‘three dimensional’ sound. 1958 N.Z. Listener 10 Oct. 21/3 In a binaural recording of an orchestral performance, two microphones would be placed some distance apart among the players and the output from each microphone recorded separately. Both sound tracks would then go onto a single tape or onto a single record.

There are millions of unusual recording techniques, and discussing them here is not on the topic of the article. The binaural sound effects used by Can and Pink Floyd do not affect the physical attributes of the record; the rest of this article is about physically unusual records. If we include discussion of unusual sound effects inside the signal of a standard LP, we are going to be left with a directionless mess of an article. This is not "unusual music recordings"; it is about unusual variations to the discs themselves.

Surely this material is encyclopedic if it can be sourced, but this is not the place for it. This article is about unusual types of gramophone records, not unusual types of sound effects. —ptk✰fgs 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things for you to think about: on your rationale, how would you fix the binaural recording and Stereophonic soundpages? Secondly, my point was exactly to create direction, rather than leaving a sterile (and arguably unencyclopaedic) listing page, here is a small link to topics, not of etymological but of encyclopaedic knowledge.

 * I don't think there's anything to fix. Binaural is, as it should be, a stub page defining the word, and pointing the reader to articles about different senses of the word.

To go back to the comment on "does it fit?": if I go back through my beloved but unused records in the attic, showing them to a young person who did not know about such things, which ones would I pull out? I'd pull out my Kraftwerk 12" Neon Lights (which still glows now), I'd pull out my coloured vinyl, but I would pull out my Renaissance with its Aphex Aural Exciter, my ELO (sticking it on the turntable and playing it), my Hi-Fi Answers Test Record. These are things of interest which tell the story of the heyday of the technology - they have a "wow! what about this!" to me. Thelma Houston's direct to disc recording also tells a story of a direction disc technology took: just a record, but the back-story of the technology (and audiophile fixation technology over content) makes it unusual. Beach Boys Holland - a "double album" where the second record was a 7" fairy tale story. I hope it explains my POV as to why it is an appropriate direction in which to take the article. Where to put this information - the main topics are busy, and should be focused on the mainstream - here we have a nice little article from which to leap off into wider research - it seems right to me.

 * We cannot let this turn into an article about "unusual music recordings." That topic is far too broad. Every musician tries to make a unique recording. Selecting the two "binaural recording" examples is an arbitrary and unrepresentative approach, and drags the article away from its focus.
 * This article is about the physical records. A discussion of unusual recording techniques belongs in its own article, not tacked on here where it's not relevant.

Finally, I note the citation tag added. I think that is an inappropriate tactic to try and assert your POV. The reference material is in the actual articles, which are of sound quality. This is simply a summary paragraph referencing other main articles, the citation is there by dint of the reference so there is no need to litter text with further references. Let this play out please. Spenny 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The claims are unreferenced. If we must include off-topic material in this article, then it must comply with Wikipedia policy. A reference to another Wikipedia article is not appropriate. —ptk✰fgs 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I'll reserve my comments to avoid inflaming you further. I note that you are not acting in good faith to resolve this amicably. Spenny 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The articles for the recordings named in the disputed section don't mention anything about having been recorded using binaural dummy heads. We definitely need a source for those claims somewhere.
 * One solution which might make sense is to clarify that the two-groove binaural records were standard stereo recordings, noting that this is different from binaural dummy recording. I'll try this out in the unusual grooving section and add a short blurb about quadrophonic records. —ptk✰fgs 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that is an excellent solution. I am pleased that you have come up with a good resolution which shows that you understand my original concern about the ambiguity of the article. Spenny 08:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warsaw in the Sun shape (TD).jpg
Image:Warsaw in the Sun shape (TD).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo?: 1/3 bpm and are replayed at 33 1/3 rpm
Locked grooves: "would play seamlessly to a locked groove at the end of a side. There are also many techno records featuring loops as locked grooves, which, when recorded at 133 1/3 bpm and are replayed at 33 1/3 rpm, will continuously repeat the beats and musical phrases, which can then be utilised creatively by a DJ."

Is this a typo? Should it be 33 1/3 at both places?

Is it necessary to write that it is recorded in one speed and that it should be played back in that same speed?--Bjornwireen (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

some stuff has been overlooked
Arcade fire's neon bible: on the locked groove at the end of side four there is some electronic bubbling noises

Lou reed's metal machine music: the noise on side D runs into the locked groove

Lee ranaldo's (I don't remember the name) is entirely based on locked grooves

Fucked up's year of the dog has double grooves but that's probably not relevant. 79.72.249.28 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing about the 1970's and 80's 33.33 rpm Golden Hour LP's which played for at least 60 minutes.

There is at least one 33.33 rpm 1970's LP of Beethoven's 9th Symphony which plays for almost 65 minutes.

There is no mention of several 78 rpm jazz records which were made out of glass in the 1940's.

Reference to Godspeed You! Black Emperor
The phrase "The title's "infinity" refers to this phrase." in the article is misleading. F#A#(infinity) refers to a guitar tuning used on the album: F# A# F# A# F# A# etc. I can't find the source of this, so, I won't modify the contents of the article, but if someone could look into this, I'd appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistWeasel (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Curved Air's Airconditioning
Could someone familiar with this article please check the caption of the Curved Air's Airconditioning image? The original image had a caption in the image itself which I transcribed as accurately as possible. However, someone might wish to double check the spelling of Mark's last name and the quantity pressed. JBarta (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

McDonalds square record
I remember this square record from way back in the day, I think it was a promotional item, and it had a jingle on it. Maybe it could be mentioned here. -- blm07 06:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive examples
There are generally more examples of certain techniques than necessary. The Unusual grooving section should be trimmed to include illustrative or notable examples only. --Kvng (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Slap-A-Ham 1 & 2 inch "records"
These were not really records. The bands "on" these "records" did not record music for them, and the actual records were plastic arts & craft items label owner Chris Dodge found in an arts & craft store, he made tiny sleeves for them with band names on them, and were meant to be a joke, they should probably be removed from the article, although it is amusing something so obsucre made it into this article. garyleejr@outlook.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.154.65 (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

4 inch
There are also 4" records, both flexi and hard vinyl. Discogs shows 159 of these types of records if you do an advanced search and click on format  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.154.65 (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Multi-speed record
I think mention should be made of Nash the Slash's "Decomposing", which was advertised as "playable at any speed" (although actually only 33, 45 and 78--it sounded pretty dire at 16) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.88 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Unusual types of gramophone records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070706044440/http://exd.sohc.org:80/RE10.php?letter=n to http://exd.sohc.org/RE10.php?letter=n

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to find an image of the original sticker on Metallica's Black Album
Which was 63 minutes. If memory serves, it shipped with a sticker that said "We could have put this on a single LP, but it would have sounded like sh*t". Which I'm guessing was directed at Def Leppard, whose "Hysteria" was also 63 minutes and shipped on a single LP. The internet is failing me. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Trimicron info source
Source of the information is unclear; appears to be taken from here, but it's not clear if that is the original source. There's this edit at fr.wikipedia in 2009, and someone has a middling-quality translation here at Discogs, but I haven't checked whether the other discogs source is an improved (later) translation or whether the other discogs source came first and was translated two ways(?)

(IIRC I had a Discogs account once, but I don't have the time right now to find it and log in to see when that edit was made, assuming that's possible).

If the fr.wikipedia is the original source, that's probably fine. If not, it's probably plagiarism.

Ubcule (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I did a bit of editing on this section, as it was a very crude translation from the French text and could be improved a bit. In terms of original sources, I know the youtuber Techmoan covered the format in a video this year, at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fG1crhGqI0 --Agamemnon2 (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It would probably be a good idea to be certain that we are following WP:RS, though. Techmoan has been used on a handful of articles at Wikipedia, but it would probably be a good idea to run it by WP:RSN before we base the entire subsection on that source alone. And of course if there are no reliable sources then it should be removed until such sources can be located and properly cited. -Thibbs (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

3 inch record
The 8-ban record is three inches. It runs at 33 1/3 rpm like LPs. Reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20040612161316/http://8-ban.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.105.160 (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Pocket Discs
The Pocket Discs were 4 inch 33 RPM flexi discs released in the late 1960s. They were small and could fit in a pocket.


text:
Philippe Morillon

Philippe Morillon (born 24 October 1935) is a former French general and was a Member of the European Parliament until 2009. He was elected on the Union for French Democracy ticket with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group. On 23 July 2004 he was elected Chair of the Committee on Fisheries.

Before turning to politics he was an army General, and commanded the United Nations Forces in Bosnia (1992-1993). In Srebrenica, Bosniak survivors fled into three eastern enclaves where the Bosnian republican army had resisted: Goražde, Žepa and Srebrenica, their populations swelled by displaced deportees, cowering, bombarded relentlessly and largely cut off from supplies of food and medicine. The population of Srebrenica swelled from 9,000 to 70,000, and by March 1993 the situation was sufficiently horrific that Philippe Morillon led a convoy into the battered pocket and, appalled, promised: “You are now under the protection of the UN forces. I will never abandon you.” The UN duly proclaimed Srebrenica as one of six “safe areas” to be defended by the United Nations Protection Force (our emphasis), or Unprofor. In July 1995, 8000 Bosnian men and boys were massacred in Srebrenica.

After Bosnia, Morillon commanded the Rapid Reaction Force, after which he retired with the rank of général de corps d'armée. He is a Grand Officer of the Légion d'honneur.

In September 2010, Morillon was denied access to Srebrenica Genocide memorial by Bosniak women who believed that he had allowed the Srebrenica massacre.

Education

 * Graduate of École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr (Saint-Cyr military college) (1956)
 * the École supérieure for studies relating to electricity, Supelec (1964)
 * the Army Staff College (1974)

Career

 * 1984-1986: Military expert, National Assembly
 * 1988-1990: Member of the National Assembly Delegation for International Relations
 * 1993: Adviser to the government, Ministry of Defence
 * 1992-1993: Commander of the United Nations Forces in Bosnia
 * 1994-1996: Commander of the Rapid Reaction Force
 * 1999-2009: Member of the European Parliament
 * President of the association L'envol pour les enfants européens
 * Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour

title: Philippe Morillon


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of universe

From the same user as the previous page, I think. Also copyvio and, um, dubious science... --Robert Merkel 13:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete, though it may be then created as a redirect to something useful. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect Creation? Then we don't have to go through this. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Contains copyrighted material - this should be pushed through the copyvio process to ensure its history is deleted also. I've copyvio'ed it for now, if the  VfD proposer agrees I suggest that he unlink this discussion from the main VfD page. - TB 13:51, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Feel free to do so... --Robert Merkel 01:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Commodore 128

Cursor keys
It is said that Previous Commodores had only two cursor keys, which required using the shift key to move the cursor up or left.. This not true, as the computers of the 264-series (C16, Plus/4, and C116) had four cursor keys. Only VIC20 and C64 had 2 cursor keys.Leo72 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commodore 128. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021635/http://www.kirps.com/web/main/_blog/all/in-memory-of-the-commodore-c128.shtml to http://www.kirps.com/web/main/_blog/all/in-memory-of-the-commodore-c128.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cursor keys
The phrase "previous commodores had only two cursor keys" was not correct, because it let mean that C16 & +4 had 2 cursor keys too but they instead had single cursor keys (for a number of 4). Fiexd. Leo72 (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Predecessor = Commodore Plus/4, 16, 116
You have changed predecessor=C64 to predecessor=Commodore Plus/4, 16, 116 and undid my revert of that. Why would you think that your edit improves the predecessor info.? Removing the C64 is ridiculous as it's by architecture and by compatibility the direct predecessor. The Plus/4, C16, C116 were a different line, not too similar in architecture, and entirely incompatible in software. With the same logic you could include VIC-20, PET 2001 and KIM-1 as predecessors. --Zac67 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 * No, Zac67, you misunderstood me a little. Besides, you're wrong about the compatibility. All Commodore 8-bit computers are somewhat compatible in software because they all have a form of Commodore BASIC and they all use a version of the MOS 6502 CPU, so some of their machine language would be the same too. Not that there's much software out there that could run across the board, but the point still remains that they are at least a little bit software-compatible. The 64 is probably hardly, if at all, any more compatible with the 128 in 128 mode than the 264s are with the 64 or 128 mode, especially the 128 in 80-column and CP/M modes, because that part of the architecture is that much different too; especially the CPU for that (remember, the 128 has 2 CPUs, one of which is shared by the 128 and 64 modes). These machines are also all somewhat hardware-compatible, because, for example, you can use an 8050 drive on a PET, and on a 128 and maybe also the 264s with a small bit of adaptation, and a 1551 drive that's made for the 264s also on the 128 and others with a reasonable adaptation, and you can very easily use a 1541 on the 264s, 128, 64, and 20 without any adaptation. Not so with the Amiga line with its 1010 drive, and not so with the Commodore PC line with its drives.

 * I don't know where you got that I was talking about hoping to remove the 64 as a predecessor of the 128 in order to meet my logic. But of course my edit improves that article; it makes it more consistent with the others that are like that. So why wouldn't it be an improvement? No, what I was saying is that the article of the Commodore 16 (which I meant to put in the edit summary) says that the 16's preds are the 20 and 64s, and that its sucs are the 128s and Amigas. But especially the Amiga isn't in the same line. So why is it on there? But it is. And as the 116 and +4 are in the same subcamp as the 16, the same thing goes for them. So if the 16's and 116's article says they are the preds of the 128, and that it and even the Amiga are their sucs, then why shouldn't the 128's article say so too, as well as saying that that its suc is the Amiga line?

 * And if you're gonna include the Amiga, then why not also include the PET, KIM-1, and PC lines? See, I wouldn't even have the Amiga and PC lines there, but I would include the whole 8-bit line-up, including the B128/CBM-II, unless the rule is to just include up to the 2 preds and 2 sucs. So why are you trying to prevent one article from doing what the ones about the other Commodore 8-bit computers do? In other words, why would you think your edit of reverting one that supposedly improves the consistency between articles is the actual "improvement"? Why would you rather destroy the consistency between articles?

 * MaxxFordham (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 * This is a hard no from me - the successor to the C=64 is clearly the C=128 and vice versa. For a start this is stated in the lead:   so if you want to change the infobox, you also need to change the body of the article.  I'm all for discussing the nuances of computer hierarchy, but it happens while the original version of the article is in place, not with a disputed change.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Oh yeah, Chahell Riens, I forgot to fix it in the lead to match. So let's do that, then. Also, that's not the original version of the article; it's had many changes over the years since it was submitted to the Wikipedia. Again, if the 128 in 128 mode is very little more compatible with the 64 than the 264s are to it, and the other articles even include the Amiga, which isn't even 8-bit, then why shouldn't the 264s be included with the other 8-bits in pred/suc? Why shouldn't this article be matched with the others that say the same things?

 * MaxxFordham (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Of course it isn't the original version of the article, but that's not the point. You're suggesting a change to the current version of the article, and that's what we're discussing the pros and cons of.  You can't consider reverting a change (obvious vandalism notwithstanding) that was made anything more than a few months ago to be a valid reversion under the BRD process - otherwise I would be perfectly justified by removing all mention of both successor and predecessor on the grounds that it wasn't in this version from back in 2007.  That's obviously nonsense, and it's a pretty weak position to base your argument on.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What I said about what you said about the article's originality is actually not one of the points that I was basing my argument on. I simply said what I said about it because what you said about it seemed ridiculous. If it's "not the point" that this isn't the original version of the article, then why did you mention that as if it is the case and was one of the points?
 * Also, B/R/D doesn't require the next R to be a few months out. It doesn't say anything about that; you just can't make more than 3 non-antivandalism reversions of the same part of the article within a day. But of course some Wikiers get overzealous about that and still call repeated reversions that happen like that but don't break that limit "edit-warring." So if that's what so many of them think then they should ask Jimbo for a rule change that reflects that. But you can see that I didn't go back to make another reversion after we started getting into this in here. When I REreverted the one time, Zac hadn't made me aware of the D that he had already started, but here we are, so we're good.
 * Also, I'm not getting notified of new replies in here now; I'm not sure why. Maybe you can help me fix that. I got Zac's ping but that was it.
 * MaxxFordham (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Apparently, you ignore (or lack understanding of) how Commodore spawned different products. The 128 was designed (see hardware architecture, built around the VIC-II/VIC-II E video chip) and marketed as a direct successor to the 64. Compatibility with respect to BASIC isn't really relevant imho, as minimalist BASIC programs run on any implementation. What defined the software market on the 64 was system-specific, machine-level software, and that software only runs on the 64 and on the 128 (in 64 mode), on nothing else. In reverse, the 128 runs its own software and the 64's (in compatibility mode), nothing else.
 * In contrast, the Plus/4/C16 family is a completely different, TED-based product line, that was (at least partially) intended for a more professional market, between the VIC-20/64 home computers and the CBM line. Your reference to peripherals: 'with a little bit of adaption' pretty much anything is possible. However, you can't run an 8050 or a 1551 on a C128 without a hardware adapter with some non-trivial circuitry. That's not compatible.
 * Your references to other models/products and what their articles say isn't relevant here, we're discussing this article now. Issues in other articles may be addressed later.
 * Also, please recheck your understanding of WP:BRD: you may be bold, I revert and then we discuss – without you restoring your edit before reaching a consent. --Zac67 (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Zac, I did not just ignore B/R/D. When I REreverted this article you hadn't written your segment here yet. If you had already posted here, though, then I wouldn't have rereverted that. And you can see that I haven't since then.
 * I knew that there was first the pre-VIC-II line (KIM/PET/B), with whatever video chip those are based on, then the VIC-II line (what happened to the VIC-I?), interrupted by the TED line before we got back to a VIC-II machine with VDC also. And then the 16-bit series, AKA Amiga. But since all of the 8-bit Commodore computers from the 20 forward have at least 16 colors and that big border (except the Educator 64/PET 64) and some form of sound processor, and are all based on the 6502 CPU, and since the 20 forward can all run the serial disk drives and printers--so no, they are NOT "completely different"; it's the Amiga and PC lines that are completely different (besides also being Commodore computers, of course)--AND since the articles outside the main 128 (not the B/"PET" one) mostly have/had pred/suc that mixed the 8-bitters together, I figured that was the standard and did it here too.
 * And I didn't see why you two (so far) would work so hard to make this ONE article the exception to that rather than also going to the other articles to match them. I don't have a problem with splitting them up into the PET line, VIC-II line, and TED line (a.k.a. 264, for some odd reason), but let's just be consistent. It's not just about "Well, this isn't about the other articles; just this one!" Yes, it IS about the other articles too, because there's no good point in fixing, or at least "fixing," one article if you're not gonna try to do so to others that might have the same problem, or at least "problem." I mean... at least no point in being so zealous about the one if you don't at least look for others like it to handle in the same way. Because when you don't do that, you demonstrate that you don't really care about applying the rules across the board. It doesn't make sense. I mean... OK, not that you can guarantee to apply all the rules across every article in the site all at once, but we should at least try to do it to the first several obvious ones that we can spot right off the tops of our heads. Should we not? Because if you don't, leaving the other articles in the shape that you don't want this one in, it looks like the rules are actually that way instead of this way. In fact, that's precisely why I did this edit here (but just forgot to apply it to the prose too, yet). So if you have a beef with it here, then have a beef with it on the others too, and let's fix (or "fix") those. But if you don't have a beef with it on those, then why push so hard about it here on this one?
 * Why is it that so many of you Wikipedians just watch over ONE article from a certain "clan" of them and just fight to maintain that ONE, but not give any consideration that others like them are breaking the same rule(s) that you're fighting about on the one, but you just ignore those others? If you're gonna push so hard for one thing on one article then why don't you have enough gumption to go to the other similar ones you can find and do the same, like in this case, all the other Commodore 8-bit computer ones (or even keep looking for other device article outside of Commodore computers that might also have pred/suc misalignments like this and fix those too)?
 * MaxxFordham (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 * , Oh, and now I've put this page on my watch list. --"Maxx"

You seem to be doing a fine job already - with a few exceptions, such as here?

I've checked over the entire Amiga line, Vic-20, Commodore 64 and the Commodore Plus/4 articles, and all of them are now strictly linear (with some branching, especially for the Amiga) going Vic-20 -> C=64 -> C=128 - with the Amiga being treated as a separate line, and not appearing in the "successor/predecessor" parameter at all. Amiga is mentioned in the 64/128 articles, but not in the context of it being a direct successor - although I think it should be mentioned as a logical (not in the computing sense) successor.

Out of curiosity I also checked ZX Spectrum and Atari 8-bit family - those are slightly different in that the entire range is bunched up into a single article, so there is no linear successor, and as such the relevant infobox field does include the next generation (QL and Atari ST respectively) instead.

I think it depends on the definition one uses of the term "predecessor" and "successor", From a family point of view, the successor to the C=64 is the C=128, but from a use point of view, the C=64's successor was most likely to be the Amiga. Few people - I imagine - would have upgraded from a C=64 to a C=128 - most would have gone to a 16bit machine. The infobox help is equally vague, and just says

PS: It's "Chaheel", not "Chahell". Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commodore 128


text:
National Credit Union Administration

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is an American government-backed insurer of credit unions in the United States, one of two agencies that provide deposit insurance to depositors in U.S. depository institutions, the other being the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures commercial banks and savings institutions. The NCUA is an independent federal agency created by the United States Congress to regulate, charter, and supervise federal credit unions.  With the backing of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, the NCUA operates and manages the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, insuring the deposits of more than 124 million account holders in all federal credit unions and the overwhelming majority of state-chartered credit unions. Besides the Share Insurance Fund, the NCUA operates three other funds: the NCUA Operating Fund, the Central Liquidity Facility (CLF), and the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF). The NCUA Operating Fund, with the Share Insurance Fund, finances the agency's operations.

, there were 5,099 federally insured credit unions, with assets totaling more than $1.84 trillion, and net loans of $1.16 trillion. The NCUA exclusively insures credit unions, whereas commercial banks and savings institutions are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Organization
The NCUA is governed by a three-member board appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The president also chooses who will serve as Chairman. Board members serve six-year terms, although members often remain until their successors are confirmed and sworn in.

The NCUA is administered through three regional offices, each responsible for specific states and territories.

History
As part of the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Credit Union Act into law in 1934. The law allowed the chartering of federal credit unions in all states. The federal law sought to make credit available and promote thrift through a national system of nonprofit, cooperative credit.

At first, the newly created Bureau of Federal Credit Unions was housed at the Farm Credit Administration. Regulatory responsibility shifted over the years as the bureau migrated from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to the Federal Security Agency, then to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In the 1940s and 1950s, credit unions grew steadily, reaching a membership of more than six million people at over 10,000 federal credit unions by 1960.

1970s
The growth in credit unions resulted in an overhauling of the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions to form the modern independent federal agency that presently regulates the industry.

In 1970, the renaming to National Credit Union Administration was made possible in part by the creation of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) to insure credit union deposits. The NCUSIF was created without any tax dollars, capitalized solely by credit unions.

By 1977, services available to credit union members expanded, including share certificates and mortgage lending. In 1979, a three-member Board replaced the NCUA administrator. Congress added the finishing touches to this new administration with the addition of the Central Liquidity Facility, the lender of last resort for all credit unions.

The decade of the 1970s saw substantial growth for existing credit unions, with membership doubling and assets tripling to over $65 billion.

1980s and 1990s
The high interest rates and unemployment in the early 1980s brought insurance losses. The NCUSIF experienced strain, and credit unions lobbied Congress to recapitalize the Fund. In 1985, the plan became law, and federally insured credit unions recapitalized the NCUSIF by depositing 1 percent of their shares into the NCUSIF. The fully capitalized National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund has "fail safe" features. In 1991, when equity level dipped below 1.23 percent, the Board charged credit unions a premium to insure deposits. The enhancement of member services in the 1980s accompanied deregulation and increased flexibility in merger and field of membership criteria. Previously, membership in credit unions was generally limited to select groups with a pre-existing common bond, often employees of a particular company or trade. Changes since 1998 as a result of H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act, opened up membership eligibility to include much larger and loosely defined groups.

During the 1990s and into the 21st century, credit unions grew steadily in assets, shares and members. Failures remained generally low, and the Share Insurance Fund maintained a healthy equity level.

2000s and 2010s
During the 1990s and into the beginning of the 21st century, U.S. credit unions continued to develop as a whole. The NCUSIF also continued to thrive due to very few credit union failures. In 2008 and 2009, the global financial crisis exerted a strain on all institutions in the financial services sector – including credit unions. As a result, the Board charged NCUSIF premiums in 2009 and 2010. Ultimately, five of the largest wholesale corporate credit unions (Constitution Corporate, Members United Corporate, Western Corporate, Southwest Corporate, and U.S. Central Corporate) in the United States were rendered insolvent after investing in troubled mortgage-backed securities that became overwhelmed with unprecedented declines in value. In response to the growing corporate credit union crisis, the NCUA took the following actions:

 * Collaborated with the U.S. Treasury Department and Congress to establish the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund (Stabilization Fund) to stabilize the U.S. credit unions, protect the NCUSIF and ensured credit unions, not taxpayers, paid the costs of the Stabilization Fund over time.
 * Re-securitized the unsuccessful mortgage backed securities after liquidating the five failed corporate credit unions. With a government-backed guarantee, the securities were sold to raise nearly $30 billion.
 * A temporary share guarantee was established for deposits at corporate credit unions.
 * Bridge corporate credit unions were established to ensure services continued to be provided to consumer credit unions during the transition and resolution timeframe.
 * Worked together with bridge corporate credit union members and to ensure a seamless transition of services to new entities.

In addition to the corporate credit union crisis, the NCUA dealt with the failure of a number of consumer-owned credit unions, which weakened as a result of spikes in home foreclosures, business failures, and unemployment.

To protect against the failure of more credit unions, the NCUA implemented a 12-month examination cycle for federally insured credit unions to detect problems in individual credit unions before they became insurmountable. NCUA also stepped up administrative actions wherever necessary to ensure prompt compliance. By year-end 2009, more than 96 percent of credit unions met the statutory definition of "well capitalized."

On December 8, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order revising the Seal for the National Credit Union Administration.

On August 20, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of the NCUA's 2016 field-of-membership regulations changes, and on June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States denied an appeal to review the NCUA's 2016 field-of-membership rule.

2020s and beyond
On March 10, 2020, the NCUA celebrated its 50th anniversary.

On March 16, 2020, in response to the global coronavirus pandemic, the NCUA issued a Letter to Credit Unions that outlines several strategies credit unions may consider when determining how to address the challenges associated with COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic, the NCUA provided targeted regulatory flexibility, where appropriate, so federally insured credit unions could manage their operational and financial risks. Notably, the NCUA worked to bolster the Central Liquidity Facility and enhance its ability to serve as a liquidity backstop for the system during 2020. Following the regulatory enhancements provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and changes to the agency's regulations by the NCUA Board, the facility experienced a significant increase in its membership and borrowing capacity.

Because the COVID-19 pandemic posed unique economic and financial challenges to rural and underserved communities, the NCUA committed the majority of its 2020 Community Development Revolving Loan Fund allocation to COVID-19 assistance.

In 2021 and beyond, the NCUA's goals include advancing economic equity and justice within the credit union movement and build on the agency's ACCESS program. Plans call for enhancing support for minority depository institutions, ensuring compliance with fair lending laws, advancing initiatives to close the wealth gap, and proactively considering future challenges like climate change to mitigate risks posed by rising seas, climbing temperatures, and devastating wildfires.

Insurance coverage

The National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) is the federal fund created by the United States Congress in 1970 to insure members' deposits in federally insured credit unions. On July 22, 2010, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law and included permanently establishing NCUA's standard minimum share insurance amount at $250,000. The NCUA operates and manages the NCUSIF, insuring the deposits of more than 111 million account holders in all federal credit unions and the overwhelming majority of state-chartered credit unions.

Credit unions may also offer an array of additional financial services which are not covered by federal insurance.

Website
On March 9, 2011, then Board Chairman Debbie Matz unveiled MyCreditUnion.gov, a source of educational information and personal finance tips designed to help individuals make financial decisions. The website also explains how credit unions work, where to find one, and even how to start a credit union.

title: National Credit Union Administration


text:
Unstable (Adema album)

Unstable is the second studio album by the American rock band Adema, and is the final album to feature its full original lineup with lead vocalist Mark Chavez and guitarist Mike Ransom departing from the band after its release and then again after their reunion, although they returned to the band in March 2017 (only for Mark to leave once again in 2019). The album was released on August 19, 2003 by Arista Records. It features the self-titled single "Unstable" and has sold about 400,000 copies worldwide. Many songs relied more on instrumentation and harmony instead of distortion in comparison to their previous album. It debuted at number 43 on the Billboard 200 before quickly falling off the chart.

Limited Edition DVD

 * "Unstable" (Video)
 * "Giving In" (Video)
 * "The Way You Like It" (Video)
 * "Immortal" (Video)
 * Behind-The-Scenes Footage
 * Photo Gallery
 * Weblinks
 * & More!

Credits

 * Adema
 * Mark Chavez – vocals
 * Tim Fluckey – lead guitar, backing vocals, keyboards, programming
 * Mike Ransom – rhythm guitar
 * Dave DeRoo – bass, backing vocals
 * Kris Kohls – drums

 * Additional Musicians
 * Synth Strings on "So Fortunate" by Deborah Lurie

 * Production
 * Produced by Howard Benson
 * Executive Producer: Antonio "LA" Reid
 * Recorded by Mike Plotnikoff at Bay 7 Studios, Valley Village, CA
 * Mixed by Alan Moulder at The Townhouse, London, England
 * "Unstable" Mix Engineer: Andy Saunders
 * "Needles" & "Stressin' Out" Mixed by Mike Plotnikoff at Skip Saylor Recording, Los Angeles, CA
 * Instrument Rentals Provided by Megawatt Rentals
 * Pro Tools Operator: Eric Miller
 * Pre-Production Pro Tools Operator: Patrick Shevelin
 * Pro Tools Editing: Vince Jones
 * Studio Drum Technician: Gersh for Drum Fetish
 * Mastered by Tom Baker at Precision Mastering, LA
 * A&R: Joshua Sarubin
 * A&R Administrator: Barbara Wesotski
 * Producer Coordinator: Dana Childs at Nettwek Producer Management
 * Career Direction: Scott Welch & Mark Botting for Mosaic Music Group
 * Legal Affairs: Terri DiPaolo
 * Business Management: Wayne Kamemoto for Gudvi, Sussman & Oppenheim
 * Booking Agent: Ethan Rose for William Morris Agency
 * Creative Designer: Joe Mana-Nitzberg
 * Art Direction & Design: Jeff Schulz
 * Photography: Joseph Cultice
 * Styling: Mandy Line

title: Unstable (Adema album)


text:
User:Avala/Answer

Here I will write about almost completely false accusations by Snowspinner.

I will follow User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence and try to provide answer to everything written in there.

User:Snowspinner has been very agressive many times. In some arguing with him, I tried to reach compromise but they were rejected by Snowspinner. He was pointing to consensus. His consensus can be found at Requests_for_comment/Avala where he had votes of the sides that were completely unneutral like User:Romanm and the vote by User:GeneralPatton who calls other users "cunts" but it will be explained later. I also once mentioned Snowspinner in requests for arbitration, and somehow I have felt his angriness since than.

I will put what Snowspinner said in italic and the answer in bold.

''One such edit war can be found regarding Template:NAM. When it was suggested that the box was overly large, and it was suggested that NAM might not be a good subject for an ASB, the following posts ensued:. When the box was subsequently listed on VfD, Avala’s responses were of similar tone – the archived VfD discussion can be found at MediaWiki talk:NAM.''

'''I actually don`t see the problem in here, this box passed VfD and I don`t know why is Snowspinner still arguing about it. Consensus he was pointing to many times was actually proven in here. Regarding those links it is mostly discussion and don`t need any comments.'''

''When faced with this criticism of the box, Avala also responded by deleting the comparable NATO box from a bunch of articles and replacing it with a box that simply said the country was a part of NATO. This can be seen at     and .''

'''I was trying to point that Nam box was not only organization box with many country links. I also changed it to have only NATO emblem and text-Member of Nato, because it was visually much better. I also made Template:NAMm in the same way which was not mentioned by Snowspinner. These links are placed just for no reason because they are showing how I edited those articles-swaped Template:NATO with Template:NATOm. Anyways I think i proved my point because Template:NAM was not deleted'''

'' This was followed with a discussion regarding Template:Serbia and Montenegro, the following edits were made: (Note here what might be taken as a personal attack). These edits, made in response to the concern that the box didn’t have enough information to be worth making an ASB about, demonstrate hostility, refusal to negotiate or seek consensus, and general unhelpfulness in favor of being excessively provocative.''

'''Again Snowspinner still seems to be angry that those boxes weren`t deleted. I am very shocked we are still talking about this box, on whuch everyone agreed, box is still here and no need to discuss something like that. This was written by Snowspinner, I guess, just to make those evidence list longer.'''

'''He somehow accepted that Template:SFRY should be placed in history articles of these countries not on main article. But still never said he agree but only stopped replying.'''

''Another edit war occured on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, where Avala sought to remove the honorific "Her Majesty." Avala violated the three revert rule on this article as shown here:. ,, , and. In discussing this edit, Avala adopted a hostile and beligerant tone, frequently responding with large amounts of capital letters and exclamation points, giving his posts an exceedingly aggressive tone, and generally refusing to accept widespread opposition as a reason to stop reverting. See      .''

'''My point was that we shouldn`t include Her Majesty in the article because Britannica, Encarta and any tiehr encyclopedia does not. I have some links at User:Avala/EII. Anyways I was called an "idiot" together with Hemanshu for deleting HM from first sentence. I agreed to use HM elswhere in the article but once again my compromise proposal was rejected. Only thing I was trying to gain is NPOV but it is hard to get with many stuborn users who like to press revert. I was also accused of using sockpuppets in that article, even though I never did something like that. All these links are more like they were placed by Snowspinner in my deffence that as an "evidence": .

'''Many times I said I PROPOSE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION in the article and on IRC but I guess it was wrong because Snowspinner is using it against me. His idea is I guess to propose hostile solutions. I am really confused why did he post it in here. Also anytime I tried to write anything that was not OK by Snowspinners POV I got problems, and was threatend to get banned'''

'' Avala’s most problematic conduct in an edit war, however, comes from Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek. (Note that this matter was previously turned down for arbitration). Avala sought to add a note that both Kucan and Drnovsek were being accused of war crimes. More or less everyone who was not Avala objected to this on the grounds that it did not appear to be a serious charge, mentioned only marginally in one paper. I will not list every reversion and edit made to these articles – only those with relatively abusive edit summaries. For Drnovsek:    and. For Kucan:. In discussing these reversions, the following posts were made:. Note later that he listed several of those who were opposing him in this on Vandalism in Progress. Note also the violation of the three revert rule at, , , and. ''

'''I provided evidence, many evidence which you rejected in worst style. No compromise again. Finally I decided not to write anything in those articles anymore becuase there is no point, ver loud Slovenian users were against my edits and I decided to leave even though article is not complete.'''

Some of this tendency towards edit warring may be explained by the attitude expressed at, in which Avala suggests that an edit war can be justified if the user “knew much more than other users” – an attitude which goes against the Wikipedian drive towards consensus.

Well, I think everyone will agree with me that two users can't fight about for an example Heart where one user is cardiologist and the other one is pool cleaner.

''Avala also regularly demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia conventions, policy, making spurious listings or votes on ViP, RFA, and FAC. When called on these listings, he responds with the hostility described above.Examples of this include his opposition to User:Snowspinner’s nomination on RFA, which was on the grounds that User:GeneralPatton had supported the nomination. This can be found at with further explanation and comments at  and. Obviously, the vote itself is not actionable - one can vote however they want. My concern is the larger issue of not seeming to work within the context of Wikipedia conventions and engaging with the community - particularly when combined with his nomination of User:Nikola Smolenski, which demonstrated a lack of understanding of what people look for in an administrator. When users pointed to edit wars Nikola had engaged in, he maintained that this should be ignored in the face of Nikola’s edits and promotion of Wikipedia. Although, certainly, these things should be weighed, the seeming disregard for concerns as towards Nikola’s judgment seems further symptomatic the described lack of awareness of normal Wikipedia conventions and procedures. Evidence of this can be found at, as well as (Which was linked to above). Again, nominating a user and supporting him is not itself actionable - what concerns me is that not wanting to be on the same list as another user is considered a good reason to oppose a user, but concern about edit wars and misconduct are not. And, more broadly, what conerns me is that these things, combined, seem to indicate willful disengagement with Wikipedia as a community, and to constitute deliberate provocativeness so as to disrupt Wikipedia's function.''

'''I think is is my right to nominate whoever I want. Plus I see that you are very angry because of my vote even though you say you are not. Your tone sounds like you are very angry, and I think that you should just take a rest. Mentioning evidence in style like this is some detective work on spying the country makes you look funny, and I am not personal attacking you. I am just saying it with best intention'''

Later in this text I will copy/paste some parts of Snowspinner's nomination to show how this evidence list made some people vote against him

''On FAC, he has made a number of unsuitable nominations, and been obstinate about objections. Furthermore, he has shown a disregard for the request that each nominator only submit one article. Some of his many nominations can be found at, , , and.

The latter two are particularly telling. Russian humor at the time of its nomination was little more than a list of Russian jokes, as you can see (It hasn’t changed), and Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro was a mess – poor grammar and formatting, and over half the article consisted of source text. Its original form can be found at.

When people raised the natural objections, a typical flurry of snippisness and refusal to change anything ensued. Note particularly the refusal to summarize source text. and. The last is particularly noteworthy, with its insinuation and near-personal attack of Snowspinner, saying “We all know why you are doing this, Snowsppiner [sic]. It is sad but I shall not comment it in here.”

Another display of unhelpfulness on FAC can be found when someone objected to the placement of an ASB on Nikola Tesla and complained that the see also section was gratuitously long, his response was, indicating an unwillingness too His activities at FAC extends into Featured article removal candidates, where he listed L. Paul Bremer saying that it was a “stub” at. Later, he denied calling the article a stub, as shown at. The article, of course, was not a stub – here is how it stood when Avala listed it –. ''

'''I just don`t get your point in here. First link you provided after saying :"he has made a number of unsuitable nominations" I see the nomination of the article that became Featured? Do you check or just post these links? Still I have a right to nominate an article I think deserves to be nominated. Sometimes I made mistakes, I agree. When you said these are some of mmy many nominations you were wrong because I can`t think of any other nomination I made. Then you say "when someone objected to the placement of an ASB". I thought it was you? Anyways many many people agreeed that Nikola Tesla article should become featured but you dissagreed about the box, and links. I hoped that you will help in making it better, but instead you raised your nose because on IRC noone agreed with you. Like I said million times I never called L. Paul Bremer article a stub. I said it is more a stub then featured. You probably didn`t undersand me well but what I meant to say is that this article is longer than a stub but certainly not of featured quality. You even posted links in here which prove everything what I said. I guess your play is that people will get bored after 70 links, and that they will beleive you. I just hope that such a thing will not happen.'''

''On VIP, Avala listed User:Romanm and User:GeneralPatton who were clearly not committing vandalism, but who were merely disagreeing with him on the matters of Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek (Note that the exchange between GeneralPatton and Avala that resulted in the personal attacks happened after this point). I’m still working on finding the actual edits – it appears that ViP was affected by Wik’s vandalbot attacks, and that the edit history is lost somewhere. I’m not entirely certain where. As soon as I find those, I’ll post them.''

'''I am waiting for you to post them. To help you he called me cunt-pickice and i will shit on your kings picture-serem ti na sliku kralja'''

''Smaller instances include the questionable practice of voting for one’s self on RFA, as shown at. Although its unclear whether this is an actual violation of the rules, it is, again, certainly a disregard for convention. There is also the voting in a long-ended poll at .''

'''Actually you couldn`t find anything so you pointed to "There is also the voting in a long-ended poll". You should know that I settled this up with Raul on IRC because you were there. He said that some admin unprotected the poll and that he will do it again. And the reason I voted was that this poll was mentioned as alive on IRC so that is why I voted. I just placed a vote not checking the note at top of the page. Are you the only one who sees the problem in here?'''

''Avala also engages in personal attacks with some frequency. When called on these personal attacks, whether in IRC or Wikipedia, he frequently refers to an incident in which User:GeneralPatton called him a ‘cunt” in a foreign language, seeming to believe that because he was a victim of a personal attack at one point, he somehow has eternal amnesty from the personal attacks policy. One instance of this fixation on this instance can be found at, which is arguably a personal attack as well.

(note: I've never told him he's a "cunt". He's making that up. -- GeneralPatton 01:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Other examples of personal attacks can be found at (The term roughly translates to “petty lawyer” as far as my skill with a  Croatian dictionary goes). , contain abusive edit summaries.

Also possibly of interest is, in which he responds to GeneralPatton, who, as noted previously, he has a bad history with, clearly yelling, though it is not clear what he is saying, since he’s responding in Croatian.''

'''I think that we have some double standards in here. When Adam Carr called us all idiots, you did not react, when I was pointing to GP swearing you did not react. Now you pint to GP saying "I've never told him he's a "cunt". He's making that up" but not to when he admitted it saying something like-"I just said he was editing in the most cuntish way" even though "pickica" is noun.'''

 * It would be really helpful if you could point where did he say that. Nikola 23:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it was at Vandalism in progress. [[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 14:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

''' I saw many other users saying something like:yawn reverting rubbish. I don`t see why am I the only one you point your finger to? Anyways I regret for saying that.?'''

'''In I was very angry of some POV edits, while at the same day in Serbia volonteers of SRS were shooting at people who think differently. I was shocked to see such thing on Wikipedia and had to point to other users what kind of peace party SRS actually is'''

'''At I will translate it all.GeneralPatton saying:look,look that Serbian takes care of litlle Ivica, now we can see who is he(pointing that I like Ivica Racan). What I said is:YES, YES I AM RACAN'S. HOW DID YOU GUESS?. I don`t know why did I keep my capslock on but I was certainly not yelling.'''

'''Here I will post opposals of Snowspinners nomination most probably because of his way dealing with me. Also on IRC many users were questioning why is he behaving so badly to me.'''

Oppose
 * 1) [[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - You have support of the GP, who calls other users "cunts", and uses fascist abbrevations. It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can still turn to yes but not under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of third party, but I am affraid that users like GP will be able to continue with such behavior. [[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *This very well may be the dumbest, dumbest, dumbest vote I've ever seen on RfA. Vote on the candidate's merit, not that of the people supporting him... blankfaze |  (беседа!)  11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **I don`t want to be in the same group with such people as GP. And please don`t call my votes - dumb. We have no personal attacks policy in here.Avala 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Sorry, but that vote is dumb. If you don't want to be in the same group, then just don't vote at all!  Voting against someone on account of something they have absolutely no control over and that relates in no way to their potential to be a good admin... makes you look like an 8-year-old.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  12:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ****Just utterly baffled here. a) Who is GP? b) What actions, exactly, would you have wished and expected Snowspinner to take? Not taking sides, just puzzled. Dpbsmith 13:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) *****To answer your first question, Dpbsmith, I think "GP" means GeneralPatton. -- Merovingian  ✍  Talk  13:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) *****On b) It looks like you are asking the question to blankfaze but presumably you mean avala. Pcb21| Pete 10:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ******This thing with Avala has been going on for a while, for more see Requests_for_comment/Avala. -- GeneralPatton 02:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) *I'll second the opinion that your vote is dumb. (A personal attack would be calling you dumb.) It's unfortunate you can't muster the maturity to separate one user's behavior from another's reputation -- but it's not surprising, reviewing your history. Glass houses, pal. Cribcage 18:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) *Well, I, for one, am glad. I think George Washington should be the only American to have the honor of being elected unanimously.  Waitamminit, is Snowspinner even American at all?  Rats, I should have asked him that before I voted! - Nat Krause 10:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Oh, yeah, you are. The not funny thing kinda got to me for a minute, there. Mike H 15:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) *I have decided to vote to support the nomination solely because God has not voted in opposition. - Tεx  τ  urε  17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I oppose solely because people are jumping on Avala for opposing. Who cares? If he feels like opposing, then allow him that privilege. Frankly, I don't care what his reasons are. And anyway, Snowspinner has 40 votes in favor... I do expect people to jump on me for this one as well. And Cribcage -- have you even read the personal attack page? If I were to say, "articles written by Cribcage are dumb", that's obviously a personal attack... or, "every article written by ugen64 is racist"... ugen64 21:40, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *If it makes you feel better, I think your vote is just as dumb. Cribcage 02:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) **No, dumber. At least Avala's was (peripherally) related to the current nomination. My discretion as a beaurocrat is to totally ignore both Avala's and this objection, and I recommend any other beaurocrat do the same. If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make frivilous objections like this a serious policy matter. →Raul654 18:47, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. [personal attack removed by Ambivalenthysteria]. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * (Personal attack was "Snowspinner is a jerk." I feel that especially on voting records like this, confidence in the system requires transparency, and transparency requires not altering someone else's words. I also note that Remove personal attacks was never passed, and so is not policy. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))
 * 1) *I think Lir should have been banned a long, long time ago -- but for the record, I don't like the idea of censoring others' comments, particularly on a ballot. Cribcage 02:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) **I don't think Ambi was out of line. It was an unsubtle and unequivocal personal attack, and was well justified under Remove personal attacks. I'd have done it if it were any RFA other than my own. Snowspinner 13:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * But Remove personal attacks was never passed; it's partly Snowspinner's reliance on non-policy policy that led to my vote. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) *** I prefer to leave a link to the diff showing personal attack removal. But that's me. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) ****Here is the link: . I looked at it and thought "is that all?" but it is a direct personal attack and the removal is appropriate. -  Tεx  τ  urε  18:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that Ambivalenthysteria should remove, or all personal attacks or none. [[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. sorry snowy maybe next time!--Plato 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctantly oppose. After reading User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence, in which Snowspinner includes as "evidence" against Avala that Avala opposed Snowspinner's previous nomination here, and that Avala nominated a candidate Snowspinner finds unworthy, I'm worried that Snowspinner doesn't clearly enough distinguish between his personal opinions and Wikipedia policy, and is too likely to see mere differences of opinion as actionable "rule breaking". I say this as someone who also finds Avala difficult, and as someone who had planned to vote for Snowspinner both here and for ArbCom. -- orthogonal 22:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * My objection was not that Avala nominated a candidate that I find unworthy - it's that he does not seem to consider "engages in edit wars and deletes other people's polls" to be a reasonable grounds for opposition, while finding "I don't want to be on the same list as person X" to be reasonable, which is part of the larger problem of not respecting or engaging with the community of Wikipedia and its consensus and conventions. Since that's unclear, I'll edit the evidence page to make that clearer. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Snowspinner 23:07, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, based on the tendency for confrontation and rash judgement evident on his edits to this page. Zocky 23:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * In the name of openess, I think, though I'm not sure, that what zocky is objecting to is that I removed a pair of nominations under the policy that obviously unsupported nominations may be removed. I did so because they were becoming exceedingly vicious and hateful, and, in the case of one of them, because it appeared to be posted by a sockpuppet and seemed designed to foster exactly the kind of flame war that it did foster. Were I an administrator, I would have done exactly this, and probably warned some people for personal attacks as well. I say this by way of saying that, yes, I am willing to be decisive in my actions. If something is causing a problem, I will attempt to fix it. I will note in my defense, however, that I did not remove the nominations once they were reinstated. I will be decisive - I will not be stubborn and insistent. Unless there's something else entirely that you're referring to here, in which case I confess curiosity as to what it is. Snowspinner 23:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * That is a part of it. Removing a nomination in less than 24 hours on an international website means that people from some parts of the world don't even get to see it. I call that rash judgement, yes. The other is including "Avala's limited fluency in English" as a reason to oppose his RFA. That's either a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia (which I choose to believe) or a sneaky perpetuation of personal antipathy. I found both very undesirable in someone who is trusted with the Delete button.Zocky 23:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Limited fluency in English is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. This is the English Wikipedia.  Admins especially should be fluent in the language as they must communicate frequently with other users.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  23:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think the amount of time matters as much as you do... there's just no way that Avala's nomination is going to pass, and I think that was clear when I removed it. A nomination with 12 votes in opposition, which was what I think it had at the time, needs 40 supporters to pass. Only one RfA has ever passed 39 votes. It was not concievable that it was going to pass, no matter how many people had time to vote on it. Clearly there was disagreement with this. I stand by my decision, but I'm not rushing to take it down again, as I said. As for the other... I personally attribute a lot of Avala's seeming hostility to difficulty expressing himself in English. I find that a more sympathetic opinion than that he's a hothead. I think we're reacting to the same set of behaviors here, at least, though attributing different causes to it. Looking at my wording, though, i can see how it could be misinterpreted - I'll clarify. But both of those are neither here nor there, and I don't want this to turn into a lengthy debate on the matter. Feel free to bring it up with me on my talk page or on IRC if you want (And please do - I'm happy to explain myself). I just wanted to note that my approach towards this page regarding Avala's nomination and its removal would in fact be consistent with my approach towards conflict as an administrator, so that, should anyone else find it extremely objectionable, they would be aware and would vote accordingly. :) Snowspinner 23:54, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'm entitled to the last word on my vote. Removing anything of consequence in less than 24 hours keeps even regular editors, who take time to follow the running of Wikipedia, out of the loop and denies the user's right to reply to objections.
 * The other thing is, Avala's English is nowhere neer as bad as you claim. I read all his comments on this page carefully. He has problems with articles and tenses, but so do most Slavic speakers. All his text is in fact perfectly understandable, if one reads it carefully. Zocky 01:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Well, after some consideration, I am compelled to oppose here.  I do not often vote in such things, but I am not at all certain I agree with many of this user's views on WP administration, particularly regarding resolution of disputes without recourse to enforced procedure and regulations.  Specific examples include Avala's RfAr evidence (which, while not containing any specific objections which would on their own disqualify a user from adminship, exemplifies my general feelings), and an opinion that mediation is not helpful; however, I also have a broad non-specific objection to hir general attitude and opinions in such matters.  While adminship should be something bestowed upon anyone willing to enforce the community's decisions, rather than an ability to enforce one's own views, there is at present a certain status associated with adminship and it does result in one's own opinions, however inadvertantly, carrying more weight than a normal user's.  I therefore cannot personally support adminship for those whose desired procedures differ so much from my own. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 00:27, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)  Having considered this further, I am changing my vote to neutral; not because my opinion has changed, but because I do not feel comfortable opposing a nomination on the grounds that I personally disagree with the direction the community is taking.  The solution to the exhalted admin status seems to be in having more admins, not less. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:41, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Snowspinner sees to jump at everyone voting against him by making me look bad.

'''At the end I would like to say that I admit making mistakes, but many of them were made while I was young editor in here. Still Snowspinner IMO was never able to solve problems, had to appologise to some users before becuase of personal attacks. I am really sorry that someone is obsessed with me but he also gets hard time finding anything against me. Still Snowspinner was saying bad things about me on IRC and sometimes unaware of my presence. Once he said "I love to poke Avala".'''

I hope that Snowspinner will realise his mistakes and withdraw this request as soon as possible.

Yours sincerily --[[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 13:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Avala/Answer