text:
Talk:Habituation

Untitled
I tried to dissacotiate habituation with habit and fixed up some incorrect definitions. I suggest to combine habituation and sensitization to a combined article on nonassociative learning. fkeel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.23.227 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some problems with the grammar and semantics of the article, and there was already a citation template on here. I think some attention is needed. E.g. "Both adults and infants gaze lesser at a particular visual stimulus" is poor English, "repetition of certain behaviors that are rewarding to a life form" is stylistically strange, "one can detect the smallest degree of difference that is detectable" is tautological. Also it is not clear whether the article as about psychology or biology since I don't think psychology considers protozoans. Oliver Low (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

IT IS NON-ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING

 * Could someone knowledgeable in the field please explain that to the layman at the beginning of the article? I have no idea what it means.  Spalding 19:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

It functions like an average weighted history wavelet interference filter

 * ??? I have seen models using low-pass filters, a wavelet-filter is usually some kind of bandpass filter, meaning there is a preferred frequency. What would that frequency be then?
 * or short: please explain!

--Maddanio 10:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kelsfann.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

addiction
Can a habit be considered an addiction? I mean, for example some people can't go a day without smoking a cigarette, and sometimes do it without thinking. I can't determine the stimulus besides chemicals in the brain washing about but... please explain.
 * Habituation would be more like getting used to cigarette smoke and not noticing it so much when entering a room. Richard001 03:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This article is a bit confused, it commences with the correct definition of habituation and then gets habituation and habit mixed up. Habituation is a gradual reduction in response to a specific stimulus over time, and as such is the opposite of addiction. Although addiction may incorporate some element of habituation,in that the dosage of a stimulant drug needed to produce the effect desired may increase over time, the addictive drive to consume the drug does not reduce. True habituation reduces the value of the stimulus, encouraging the organism to move on to a different stimulus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect) APM Feb 25 2009

Why isn't there an article closer to the ordinary sense of habit?
I'm glad this article makes sense to psychologists, but it does not address what ordinary people mean when they refer to habits. There must be something intelligent that can be said about habits. You'd think we could edit something out of William James' The Principles of Psychology (the book, NOT the article) that people would find comprehensible and would provide a bridge to contemporary psychological and psychotherapeutic thought. DCDuring 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you are looking for Habit (psychology)? Richard001 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Background section?
The author of this section seems confused about the meaning of the term as it applies in this context (as a psychology term). Habituation does not refer to things done out of habit, as the section seems to imply, but rather refers exclusively to the diminishment of a response due to repeated introductions of a stimulus. For example, seeking out food is not a habituated response. The food (stimulus) will continue to elicit eating (response) if the animal is to survive. What this describes is a habit, not habituation. To say an animal has been habituated to food would be to say the animal is no longer very interested in eating due to the repeated presence of food (though not to be confused with satiety).

It is true that acclimation and habituation are similar, with acclimation describing a decreased response to the environment as a whole rather than a single distinct stimulus. Habituation is also essential to our ability to discern important stimuli from background noise, like the section notes. However, most of the rest of the section needs to be rewritten to avoid confusion over the meaning of the term. --Foxhound199 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Neurobiology section
Neurobiology of Habituation It is a neutral form of learning in which a neutral stimulus is repeated many times. The first time it is applied it is novel and evokes a reaction (the orienting reflex or "what is it?" response). However, it evokes less and less electrical response as it is repeated. Eventually the subject becomes habituated to the stimulus and ignores it. This is associated with decreased release of neurotransmitter from the presynaptic terminal because of decreased intracellular Ca++. The decrease in intracellular Ca++ is due to gradual inactivation of Ca++ channels.

...

I've placed this section in Talk, as it is:

a) factually inaccurate b) confusing c) very important

I think the author is trying to describe the mechanisms of habituation as mapped out in Aplysia, but I can't tell. If so, it's not entirely correct to say that it's neutral or that a neutral stimulus was used. It's also incorrect to say that habituation doesn't occur until the response is completely extinguished; habituation occurs throughout the process in steps. Also, to describe these mechanisms as underlying all habituation is misleading and potentially inaccurate; for this section to exist it needs to be clear that it describes habituation in a specific circumstance to avoid suggesting that the mechanisms of mammalian behavioral habituation are known and identical.

I'll leave this for a few to see if anyone else chimes in; if not, I'll see about rewriting this and bringing it back. If someone else wants to give it a go, please feel free. :)Abidagus (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Paper on History of Habituation
Perhaps this paper could be of use

Thompson, R. F. (2009).Habituation: A History. Neurobiol Learn Mem, 92, 127-134.

Sensitization is not really the opposite of habituation
I noticed in a very brief review one possible error, but I may be wrong, the powers that be may have decided to reorganize their terms. What I've learned is that sensitization is an increase in responding however elicited by a second stimulus (or multiple other stimuli), not the original stimulus (with habituation the decrease is always in reaction to further exposures to the same stimulus). The opposite of habituation would likely be a process called potentiation, and potentiation likely fits the definition given in the Wikipedia entry for sensitization (which is wrong - again if we are going by the sources that I know of - see Catania's "Learning"). The opposite of sensitization I would think would be desensitization, and there is a procedure termed systematic desensitization to help people learn to overcome their fears or phobias (the idea being that the fear or phobia is conditioned via sensitization pairing therefore it can be unconditioned, however if the response is unconditioned then no sensitization occurred and thus also desensitization would likely be ineffective).

I would also say, in the first paragraph that it should be referred to as operant conditioning (when referencing extinction) and not simply say conditioning since many of these respondent processes do in fact involve pairing of stimuli (i.e., conditioning) compare for instance the case of Pavlov who noticed that his student who brought the meat powder, when entering the room with the dog without meat powder, would elicit salvation from the dog and thus screw up all of his original experiments on the salivation process..BenjaminSchooley (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ASD & failure to habituate to social stimulus
General and anecdotal adult self diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder using web questionnaires or magazine articles is now a common place practice that would normally be rightfully considered unscientific and ambiguous. When I read of research showing specific failure to habituate to facial/social stimulus, I think of my friends telling me for years that I was missing the non-verbal cues. Having asperger's syndrome almost purely without any other disorder is rare. Having accelerated language devlopement and high intelligence can compensate for a blind-spot in non-associative/non-verbal skills by using associative learning about social cues, a more arduous and time consuming technique. For all I may have learned, at age 48 I can still easily miss immediately obvious social cues, I still do not sensitise or habituate properly to specific kinds of stimulus though I understand them logically. I am excited to learn that sensitization and habituation research in other species offers the potential of providing an animal model of ASD and other conditions that, as I have been forced to admit about myself, can be so mild in humans they may be thought of as personality variations. 71.212.28.240 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for sharing your input, but just a kind reminder that these Talk pages are about improving the article rather than a general discussion thread about the topic itself. Humanatbest (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Habituation. 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/20110927024534/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/subdep.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/subdep.htm

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) 17:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Drug habituation
I think the section on drug habituation will be more appropriate in the page about drug tolerance than in habituation.I think there’s too much  information in this page. Angunnu (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Accustimisation" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accustimisation&redirect=no Accustimisation] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Accustimization" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accustimization&redirect=no Accustimization] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Habituation


text:
Phil Kaufman Award

The Phil Kaufman Award for Distinguished Contributions to EDA  honors individuals for their impact on electronic design by their contributions to electronic design automation (EDA). It was established in 1994 by the EDA Consortium (now the Electronic System Design Alliance, a SEMI Technology Community). The IEEE Council on Electronic Design Automation (CEDA) became a co-sponsor of the award. The first Phil Kaufman Award was presented in 1994.

The IEEE has a policy not to issue awards to deceased persons. To honor individuals who made a significant impact on EDA, but died before the award was established the Phil Kaufman Hall of Fame was created by the ESDA in 2020. The first Hall of Fame honor was presented in June 2021. Phil Kaufman awardees are included in the Phil Kaufman Hall of Fame.

Contributions to qualify for the Phil Kaufman Award are evaluated in any of the following categories:

 * Business
 * Industry Direction and Promotion
 * Technology and Engineering
 * Educational and Mentoring

The award was established to honor Phil Kaufman, the deceased former president of Quickturn Systems.

The award is described as the "Nobel Prize of EDA".

Recipients
All recipients are listed at the ESDA Phil Kaufman Award webpage.

 * 1994 – Hermann Gummel
 * 1995 – Donald Pederson
 * 1996 – Carver Mead
 * 1997 – James Solomon
 * 1998 – Ernest S. Kuh
 * 1999 – Hugo De Man, known for his contributions in creating and driving the development of design automation tools that have had measurable impact on the productivity of electronic design engineers.
 * 2000 – Paul (Yen-Son) Huang
 * 2001 – Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli
 * 2002 – Ronald A. Rohrer, electronic industry pioneer, entrepreneur, researcher and educator, who head led a students' circuit simulator projects, which had eventually led to the development of SPICE.
 * 2003 – A. Richard Newton
 * 2004 – Joseph Costello
 * 2005 – Phil Moorby, inventor of Verilog
 * 2006 – Robert Dutton, creator of SUPREM (Stanford University Process Engineering Models) and PISCES (Poisson and Continuity Equation Solver) simulation tools and software used in Technology Computer Aided Design.
 * 2007 – Robert K. Brayton, known for work in logic synthesis, formal verification and formal equivalence checking. Co-developer of Espresso.
 * 2008 – Aart de Geus, Synopsys CEO for contributions to the EDA industry, more specifically the Design Compiler tool.
 * 2009 – Randal Bryant, CMU professor, for his seminal technological breakthroughs in the area of formal verification.
 * 2010 – Pat Pistilli, for pioneering the EDA industry and building the Design Automation Conference as its premiere showcase and networking platform
 * 2011 – Chung Laung Liu, for his Distinguished Technical Contributions, Leadership Skills, and Business Acumen in Electronic Design Automation.
 * 2013 – Chenming Hu, for major contributions to transistor modeling enabling the generation of FinFET based design.
 * 2014 – Lucio Lanza, for helping numerous startups to develop innovative technologies.
 * 2015 – Walden C. Rhines, CEO of Mentor Graphics, for his efforts growing the EDA and IC design industries.
 * 2016 – Andrzej Strojwas, CMU professor and chief technologist of PDF Solutions, for his research in the area of design for manufacturing in the semiconductor industry.
 * 2017 – Rob Rutenbar, for his contributions to algorithms and tools for analog and mixed-signal designs.
 * 2018 – Thomas Williams, for his outstanding contributions to test automation and his overall impact on the electronics industry.
 * 2019 – Mary Jane Irwin, Pennsylvania State University, for her extensive contributions to EDA and the community.
 * 2020 – Hiatus due to COVID-19 pandemic
 * 2021 – Anirudh Devgan, Cadence Design Systems CEO for Distinguished Contributions to Electronic System Design.
 * 2022 – Giovanni De Micheli, for his significant impact on the electronic system design industry through pioneering technical contributions.

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

title: Phil Kaufman Award


text:
Convair XF-92

The Convair XF-92 (re-designated from XP-92 in 1948) was an American, delta wing, first-generation jet prototype. Originally conceived as a point-defence interceptor, the design was later used purely for experimental purposes and only one was built. However, it led Convair to use the delta-wing on a number of designs, including the F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart, B-58 Hustler, the US Navy's F2Y Sea Dart as well as the VTOL FY Pogo.

Early work
Prior to August 1945, the Vultee Division of Consolidated-Vultee looked at the possibility of a swept-wing aircraft powered by a ducted rocket. Years earlier, the company had performed designs which involved liquid-cooled radiator engines. With this design, fuel would be added to the heat produced by small rocket engines in the duct, creating a "pseudo-ramjet".

In August 1945, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), soon to be renamed the United States Air Force, issued a proposal for a supersonic interceptor capable of 700 mi/h speeds and reaching an altitude of 50000 ft in four minutes. Several companies responded, among which was Consolidated-Vultee, which submitted its design on 13 October 1945. This design featured swept wings and V-tails, as well as a powerful propulsion system. Besides the ducted rocket, four 1,200 lbf rockets were positioned at the exhaust nozzle, along with the 1,560 lbf 19XB turbojet produced by Westinghouse.

A proposal by Consolidated Vultee (later Convair) was accepted in May 1946, with a proposal for a ramjet-powered aircraft, with a 45° swept wing under USAAF Air Materiel Command Secret Project MX-813. However, wind tunnel testing demonstrated a number of problems with this design.

Switch to delta
Convair found that by straightening the trailing edge and increasing the sweep of the leading edge, the characteristics of their new wing were greatly improved. Thus, contrary to suggestions that German designer Alexander Lippisch influenced it, Convair independently discovered the thin high-speed delta wing. Ralph Shick, chief of aerodynamic research, later met Lippisch at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. This helped to convince him that the thin delta was the way forward, however the influence of Lippisch provided no more than "moral support" and Convair rejected many of his ideas, such as the thick wing of the Lippisch P.13a project and the DM-1 test glider which the US had tested.

Thrust was to be provided by a 1560 lbf Westinghouse J30 jet engine assisted by a battery of six 2000 lbf liquid-fueled rockets. This mixed-propulsion system required a very large intake duct, which not only fed the jet engine but also passed air around the rocket exhaust to provide thrust augmentation. Located centrally, the large duct left nowhere to put a traditional cockpit; in its normal location it would have projected deep into the duct. To address this, the team modified the design in a fashion similar to both the Leduc 0.10 and Miles M.52, placing the cockpit in a cylindrical body in the center of the intake. The design was presented to the U.S. Air Force in 1946 and was accepted for development as the XP-92.

Delta research
In order to gain inflight experience with the delta wing layout, Convair suggested building a smaller prototype, the Model 7002, which the USAAF accepted in November 1946.

In order to save development time and money, many components were taken from other aircraft; the main gear was taken from a North American FJ-1 Fury, the nosewheel from a Bell P-63 Kingcobra, the engine and hydraulics were taken from a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, the ejection seat and cockpit canopy were taken from the cancelled Convair XP-81, and the rudder pedals were taken from a BT-13 trainer.

Construction was well underway at Vultee Field in Downey, California when North American Aviation took over the Vultee plants in summer 1947. The airframe was moved to Convair's plant in San Diego, and completed in the autumn. In December it was shipped without an engine to NACA's Ames Aeronautical Laboratory for wind tunnel testing. After testing was completed, the airframe was returned to San Diego, where it was fitted with a 4250 lbf Allison J33-A-21 engine.

By the time the aircraft was ready for testing, the concept of the point-defense interceptor seemed outdated and the (now redesignated) F-92 project was cancelled. They also decided to rename the test aircraft as the XF-92A.

Operational history

In April 1948 the XF-92A was shipped to Muroc Dry Lake (later to become Edwards AFB). Early tests were limited to taxiing, although a short hop was made on 9 June 1948. The XF-92A's first flight was on 18 September 1948 with Convair test pilot Ellis D. "Sam" Shannon at the controls. On 21 December 1948 Bill Martin began testing the aircraft for the company. After 47 flights totaling 20 hours and 33 minutes, the aircraft was turned over to the USAAF on 26 August 1949, with the testing being assigned to Frank Everest and Chuck Yeager.

On 13 October 1949 Yeager became the first Air Force pilot to fly the XF-92A. On his second flight he dove the aircraft in a 4 g split-S dive, reaching Mach 1.05 for a brief time. When approaching for landing on this flight he continued to pull the nose higher and higher in order to slow the forward speed to avoid the problems from his first attempt. Surprisingly, the aircraft simply wouldn't stall; he was able to continue raising the nose until he reached 45 degrees pitch, flying under control in that attitude to a landing at 67 mi/h, 100 mi/h slower than Convair had managed.

In 1951, the XF-92A was refitted with an Allison J33-A-29 engine with an afterburner, offering a thrust of 7500 lbf. The re-engined XF-92A was flown by Yeager for the first time on 20 July 1951. However, there was very little improvement in performance. In addition, there were maintenance problems with this engine and only 21 flights were made during the next 19 months. A final engine change was made to the 5400 lbf J33-A-16.

On 9 April 1953, Scott Crossfield began a series of flights on behalf of NACA. These tests revealed a violent pitch-up tendency during high-speed turns, often as much as 6 g, and on one occasion 8 g. The addition of wing fences partially alleviated this problem. Crossfield flew 25 flights in the XF-92A by 14 October 1953. After the aircraft's last flight the nose gear collapsed as Crossfield taxied off the lake bed; the aircraft was retired.

None of the pilots had much good to say about the design. Yeager commented "It was a tricky plane to fly, but ... I got it out to 1.05 Mach." Crossfield was more direct, saying "Nobody wanted to fly the XF-92. There was no lineup of pilots for that airplane. It was a miserable flying beast. Everyone complained it was underpowered."

Influence
The delta wing's thin airfoil cross section, low weight and structural strength made it a good candidate for a supersonic airplane. The large surface area of 425 ft2 (39 m2) gave a low wing loading which in turn led to good low-speed performance. Very slow landing speeds could be achieved, at the cost of extremely nose-high landing angles and the resulting poor visibility. The combination of good high-speed and low-speed characteristics was very difficult to achieve for other planforms. Although the XF-92 itself was not liked, the design concept clearly had promise and the delta wing was used on several Convair designs through the 1950s and 1960s.

Of particular interest to aircraft designers was the unexpectedly good low-speed behavior Yeager had noticed on his second flight. The aircraft continued to remain controllable at very high angles of attack (alpha), where a conventional layout would have stalled. The reason for this turned out to be the unexpected creation of a large vortex over the top of the wing, generated by the airflow between the fuselage and leading edge of the wing at high alpha. The vortex became "attached" to the upper surface of the wing, supplying it with air moving at speeds much greater than the aircraft's forward speed. By controlling the flow in this critical area, the performance envelope of the delta could be greatly expanded, which led to the introduction of canards on most delta-wing designs in the 1960s and 1970s. More recently "mini-deltas", in the form of leading edge extensions, have become common on most fighter aircraft, creating the vortex over a more conventional wing planform.

In the movies
The XF-92A can be seen in the aviation film Toward the Unknown (1956) standing in for a belly-landed Convair F-102 Delta Dagger fighter jet.

Aircraft on display

 * 46-682 – Research & Development Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio.

Operators

 * United States Air Force
 * United States Air Force

Popular culture
An unusual application of the XF-92A was as a movie model, stepping into the role of the "MiG-23" in the Howard Hughes film, Jet Pilot, starring John Wayne and Janet Leigh. Due to the lengthy delay in releasing the film, by the time it appeared in 1957, the XF-92A's role had been left on the cutting room floor. It did appear in the film Toward the Unknown (1956) starring William Holden, again in the guise of another aircraft, this time as its descendant design the F-102 Delta Dagger.

title: Convair XF-92


text:
Melksham Without

Melksham Without is a civil parish in the county of Wiltshire, England. It surrounds, but does not include, the town of Melksham and is the largest rural parish in Wiltshire, with a population of 7,230 (as of 2011) and an area of 29 km2.

In 1894 the ancient parish of Melksham was divided into Melksham Urban District and the rural parish of Melksham Without. The northern boundary of the parish is the Roman road from Silchester to Bath; downstream from Melksham the Bristol Avon forms the southwestern boundary, and parts of the southern boundary are the Semington Brook and the Kennet and Avon Canal.

The parish includes the villages of Beanacre, Berryfield, Shaw and Whitley, and the hamlets of Outmarsh and Redstocks. It also includes the outer Melksham suburbs of Bowerhill and The Spa, and the dispersed settlement of Sandridge which includes Sandridge Common.

Governance
The Local Government Act of 1894 created the parish of Melksham Without, dividing the ancient parish of Melksham into an urban area (Melksham Within) and a rural area (Melksham Without). The latter consists of the ancient settlements of Beanacre, Shaw and Whitley, surrounding Melksham Within on all sides except the west. Until the 17th century, the area to the east was royal forest, and this part is lightly populated and agricultural. To the south the land was similarly rural but was used for military purposes in the mid-20th century, with RAF Melksham based at Bowerhill, and this area now consists of light industry and housing estates. There is another housing estate separate from the town at Berryfield, to the south. The civil parish elects a parish council. It is in the area of Wiltshire Council unitary authority, which performs most local government functions. Unusually, the parish shares some land in common with the parish of Broughton Gifford, namely farmland to the north of Holbrook Farm, bounded to the west by the Avon.

There are two electoral wards, Melksham Without North and South. The northern ward consists of the northern section of the parish together with the parishes of Atworth and Broughton Gifford. The southern ward has the rest of the parish, south of a boundary which mostly follows Clackers Brook, and includes Bowerhill and Berryfield. The total ward population taken at the 2011 census was 8,402.

Notable buildings
The parish has one Grade I listed building: Beanacre Old Manor, west of what is now the A350, has a timber-framed hall from the late 14th century, with many additions and alterations in later centuries. Close by to the south-west is Beanacre Manor, from c.1595 with a 17th-century dairy, Grade II* listed.

Two further buildings are listed Grade II*: Woolmore Manor, built in 1631 and now on the south-east edge of Melksham, near modern Bowerhill; and Christ Church, Shaw, designed in 1905 in Arts and Crafts Gothic style by C.E. Ponting.

Transport
A packhorse bridge dating from 1725 spans the River Avon, providing a route (now a public footpath) to Broughton Gifford.

The Kennet and Avon Canal was built in the south of the parish by 1804 and fully opened in 1810. In the same year the Wilts & Berks Canal opened, having been built through the parish from its connection with the K&A near Semington. After passing through the eastern side of Melksham town the canal continued north through the parish towards Chippenham, Swindon and Abingdon. Both canals fell into decline following the arrival of the railways in the 1840s, and the closure of the Somerset Coal Canal (which provided much of their traffic) in 1904.

In 1848 the Wilts, Somerset and Weymouth Railway company built their line through the parish, to link the Swindon-Bath line (near Chippenham) with Westbury via Melksham and Trowbridge; the line was handed over to the Great Western Railway in 1850 and is still in use. From 1905 to 1955 there was a small station, Beanacre Halt, near Beanacre on the road towards Whitley. The Devizes Branch Line was completed in 1857 and also taken over by the GWR, but closed in 1966. It connected with the main line near Holt and passed near Outmarsh, where there was a station,.

Today the Kennet and Avon Canal is a well-used recreational waterway, following its restoration in the 1970s and 1980s and formal re-opening in 1990. The Wilts & Berks Canal was abandoned in 1914 and its route south and east of Melksham has been built over; preservation and restoration efforts began in 1977 and in 2012 a planning application was submitted for a new section of canal (called the Melksham Link) to connect the Semington junction, via Berryfield, with the Avon below Melksham.

The A350 primary route runs north–south through the parish on its section from Chippenham to Melksham and passes through Beanacre. South of Melksham, on its way to Westbury, its original route past Berryfield and Outmarsh was replaced in 2004 by the Semington bypass, about 400m to the east. The new route required the construction of an aqueduct to carry the Kennet and Avon Canal, the New Semington Aqueduct. The Hampton Park West industrial area, between the old and new routes, has the headquarters of Avon Rubber and G Plan Upholstery, and a divisional headquarters of Wiltshire Police.

title: Melksham Without


text:
User talk:Demonslave

Demonolatry
Someone has proposed a merge of demonolatry with demonology. You've contributed to the article, so it'd be interesting to hear your thoughts. Hope to see you on the talk page sometime:)Merkinsmum 17:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Demonslave


text:
Louise Dacquay

Louise Dacquay (born June 25, 1940) is a politician in Manitoba, Canada. She was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1990 to 2003, and served as speaker of the assembly from 1995 to 1999.

Dacquay was born Louise White, the daughter of Horace White, in Manitou, Manitoba. She is a certified business education teacher, and worked as an educator for seventeen years, mostly in the Fort Garry School Division of Winnipeg. In 1962, she married Hubert J. Dacquay. She was a regional organizer for the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba from 1984 to 1986, and an executive director of the party from 1987 to 1989.

Dacquay served on the Winnipeg City Council from 1986 to 1989, representing the Langevin Ward. She won the seat from veteran councillor Evelyne Reese in 1986, but lost it to Reese three years later.

She was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in the 1990 provincial election, defeating incumbent Liberal Herold Driedger by forty-seven votes in the south-end Winnipeg constituency of Seine River. She was named deputy speaker of the assembly on October 11, 1990, and held this position for the next four and a half years.

Dacquay was re-elected by an increased margin in the 1995 provincial election, and was appointed speaker of the assembly by premier Gary Filmon on May 23, 1995. Unlike her predecessor, Denis Rocan, she was often accused of partisanship by members of the opposition New Democratic Party. NDP legislator Steve Ashton called for her resignation in 1996, after she refused to grant him permission to raise a point of privilege during a debate on the privatization of Manitoba's telephone system. Dacquay is generally regarded, along with Myrna Phillips of the NDP, as one of the weakest and most partisan Speakers in recent history.

The Progressive Conservatives were defeated in the provincial election of 1999, though Dacquay was personally re-elected in Seine River. She served as opposition critic for culture, heritage and tourism in the legislative session which followed. The NDP campaign targeted Seine River in the 2003 election, and Dacquay lost her constituency to NDP candidate Theresa Oswald by a margin of 4,314 votes to 3,582.

title: Louise Dacquay


text:
List of mayors of Salt Lake City

This is a list of mayors of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Salt Lake City was incorporated on January 6, 1851. The mayor of Salt Lake City is a non-partisan position.

title: List of mayors of Salt Lake City


text:
Tanja Karpela

Tanja Tellervo Karpela (née Vienonen; previously Karpela and Saarela; born 22 August 1970) is a Finnish former politician and beauty pageant titleholder who was crowned Miss Finland 1991. She was a Member of Parliament from 1999 to 2011 and served in the government of Finland as Minister of Culture from 2003 to 2007.

Life and career
Karpela was born in Salo. As a beauty queen, she held the title of Miss Finland and represented her country in the Miss Universe 1991. Prior to her political career, she also became famous for her work as an underwear and lingerie model.

Karpela was elected to parliament from the Electoral District of Uusimaa in 1999, representing the Centre Party. She was appointed Minister of Culture in Prime Minister Anneli Jäätteenmäki's cabinet in 2003. After the resignation of Jäätteenmäki, Karpela went on to serve in the same post under Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen.

In December 2005 Karpela received a Big Brother Award from the Finnish on-line civil rights organization EFFI for proposing Internet traffic blocking software be installed in schools and libraries. She was also a supporter of the 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code, which has been nicknamed Lex Karpela due to her acceptance of what many perceive to be a highly controversial addition to the Finnish law. In March 2010, Karpela announced that she is no longer pursuing a parliamentary career following the 2011 parliamentary elections.

Personal life
Karpela is a convicted drunk driver and since entering politics, she has become most famous for her relationships – she has remarried twice and broken off a third, separate engagement. Karpela caused a stir in 2001 when it became public that she (a divorcée) was having a relationship with Finance Minister Sauli Niinistö (a widower). Karpela's Centre Party was in opposition and Niinistö was considered the second-most influential man in government. Under close press scrutiny ever since, in 2003 Karpela and Niinistö announced their engagement. They broke off their engagement in 2004.

On 21 May 2006, Karpela married film director Olli Saarela, and took her new husband's surname. She filed for divorce from Olli Saarela in November 2007, and on 22 February 2008 she changed her name back to Karpela.

Karpela has two children (born 1995 and 1998) from her previous marriage to Totti Karpela and one (born 2009) from her third marriage to Janne Erjola.

Honours

 * Belgium: Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown (2004)

title: Tanja Karpela


text:
Graham Spry

Graham Spry, CC (February 20, 1900 – November 24, 1983) was a Canadian broadcasting pioneer, business executive, diplomat and socialist. He was the husband of Irene Spry and father of Robin Spry, Richard Spry and Lib Spry.

Life
He was born in St. Thomas, Ontario. While a student at the University of Manitoba, he became an editorial writer at the Manitoba Free Press, where he was mentored by editor and Canadian nationalist John W. Dafoe. He also edited the student newspaper, the Manitoban. He then studied history at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. Upon his return to Canada, he became Secretary of the Canadian Clubs, and organized a nationwide broadcast to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Canadian Confederation. The accomplishment, achieved despite the lack of a national radio network, convinced Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King to appoint the Aird Commission on Radio Broadcasting, a royal commission which recommended the creation of a national broadcaster.

Following the defeat of King's government Spry and Alan Plaunt formed the Canadian Radio League to rally support behind the Aird Commission's recommendation, arguing that it amounted to a choice between two alternatives, "the State or the United States". The League mobilized public opinion in both English- and French-speaking regions of Canada, and convinced the Conservative government of R.B. Bennett to form the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, which later became the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

A socialist, Spry cofounded the League for Social Reconstruction (LSR), contributed to the writing of the Regina Manifesto, and purchased both the Farmer's Sun (publication of the United Farmers of Ontario), renamed the New Commonwealth, and the Canadian Forum to propagate the LSR's views. He served as vice president of the Ontario Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) from 1934 to 1936. He was the first national Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidate in Ontario, running in the 24 September 1934 by-election in Toronto East. He ran again for the National CCF in the 1935 general election, this time in the newly created Broadview electoral district. He lost on both occasions to Conservative Tommy Church.

During the Spanish Civil War Spry helped organize the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion that fought on the Republican side.

In 1938, Spry married Irene Mary Biss. Unable to find work in Canada because of his socialist convictions, however, Spry accepted a job offer from an old Oxford friend and served as a British-based executive for Standard Oil from 1940 to 1946, managing subsidiaries operating in the Middle East and elsewhere. From 1942 to 1945, he also served as personal assistant to Sir Stafford Cripps, a Labour minister in the wartime British cabinet, and travelled with Cripps to India. After the war, Spry was named agent-general of Tommy Douglas's CCF government in London representing the province of Saskatchewan from 1946 to 1968 in Britain, including responsibility for Europe and the Middle East.

Spry played a crucial role during the 1962 Saskatchewan doctors' strike against Medicare by recruiting British doctors to move to the province. In 1968 he reactivated his involvement with broadcasting, founding the Canadian Broadcasting League over which he presided until 1973. In 1970, Spry reputedly turned down Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's offer of a Senate seat. That same year, he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. Graham Spry died in Ottawa on November 24, 1983.

Building
A federal government building dedicated in the name of Graham Spry is located at 250 Lanark Avenue, Ottawa. Formerly the home of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Ottawa television studios, it now houses several directorates of Health Canada.

title: Graham Spry


text:
Wikipedia talk:Administrator Activity Proposal

("Who shall guard the guardians?") Who will be responsible for keeping tabs on the admins? The other admins, any user, the bureaucrats? This should probably be enumerated on this page (once a decision is made, of course). And when a sysop is found to be inactive, will his or her sysop rights be taken immediately away, or will a "good-faith" effort be made to contact the administrator, at least as a warning? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite hesitant about these types of solutions in search of a problem. Do we really need this, or is this just another place for Wikipedians to waste time that they could spend creating articles? anthony (see warning) 23:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony, admins can virtually do no harm even if their account is compromised, and this just adds needless overhead and turns the whole sysop thing into more of a status game than it already is. In any case, "shall permanently have their sysop access removed" is unacceptably draconic. If you want to pursue this, at least include notification on the talk page and by e-mail, and a secondary period in which former sysops have privileged access to restore their status.

In any case, can you name a single instance where keeping an inactive sysop around has done any harm?--Eloquence*

Like Anthony and Eloquence, I think this looks rather like a solution in search of a problem, and would suggest that those advocating the policy are going to have to produce some persuasive evidence as to why this is necessary. —Stormie 00:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of what's above. At least definitely "include notification on the talk page and by e-mail, and a secondary period in which former sysops have privileged access to restore their status". Robin Patterson 00:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have altered the proposal in two ways. First, a sysop shall be contacted and given one to two weeks to respond to belief of their inactivity once they are found to be inactive. Second, if a sysop is desysopped for inactivty, they have one month to return and reclaim their access before they must reapply through RFA. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:19, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Hello Grunt et al. Even with the alteration, I don't understand the problem that this policy is attempting to address. This seems like a lot of additional work and checking for people, and it doesn't seems to address any of the numerous complaints and concerns I've seen raised about sysops. I think it would be helpful if you (Grunt) could explain in more details the problem that we currently face and why it's important to address this with a system of automatic desysopping. BCorr | Брайен 00:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IMO, this is an unneeded solution in search of a problem. I will be voting NO to this unless a bit more justification is produced as to why this is needed in practice (not theory). There's pretty much nothing an admin can do that can't be undone. Developer access, yes, but not admins. —Morven 00:37, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly support this policy. Some of the problems it addresses are:
 * If a user wants to contact an admin, Special:Listadmins becomes useless if it's full of admins who are inactive. This is a real problem, not a hypothetical one. I frequently need to find admins on other projects and keep coming up against this problem.
 * It gives misleading statistics when people report that we have 300 admins.
 * People who have been away for a long period of time are not going to be aware of the policies. There is nothing wrong with saying they should be around for a month or more before reapplying for adminship. This period of reacquainting themselves with the new rules will prevent issues occurring from them breaking those rules.
 * Some feel we currently have too many admins, and are probably overly opposing in their RfA votes because of this. Removing the inactive people would give a better idea of how many admins we really have.
 * Admins are supposed to be trusted by the community. People no longer involved with the project are not even known by the community, much less trusted by them.
 * Keeping every admin even after they are inactive gives the impression that adminship is something so special it can never be removed.

This policy is only the start of a solution. Ideally, every admin should have their status reviewed periodically, not only the inactive ones. I feel the fact that sysop status is seen as something so permanent is a real problem, and makes the idea that "adminship should be no big deal" something far harder to believe. It wouldn't be a big deal if admins that are no longer trusted by the community could be removed, but currently they can't be. Angela. 01:19, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * These are all good points, as is Angela's reminder about the "confirmation proposal" that was being discussed a few months ago. Perhaps Grunt would allow Angela to add a section on the rationale to the proposal. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 01:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I was wondering "Do we need this?" until Angela explained it. Perhaps put this in a "Rationale" section before this proposal, so people know why it's being proposed. Fuzheado | Talk 02:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I have done this, using Angela's reasoning as a starting point. Please feel free to add any other reasons to that section if you can think of any. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:51, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

 * Well put, Angela. One more point: it will help keep "worthy" admins active and participating so we will always have a good group. Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Angela, my personal opinion is that this policy proposal is another example of unnnecessary bureaucratic overhead, but your points are perfectly valid. However, the timeframes are far too restrictive. If I want to take a time out of say a few months, I want to be able to just do it without worrying about bureaucratic procedures. Kosebamse 04:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * As I recall, the original policy was that admin status consisted of functionality that in an ideal world every user should have, but that unfortunately were a little too dangerous to give to everyone. Admin status was "no big deal" and intended to be given to any user who'd been around long enough to have shown a history of good intentions and reasonable judgment.

 * This proposal would officially change that. It makes the admin flag much more "special"; it puts into policy something I feel has been slipping in for a while.  Do we want to do this or not?  Do we wish to make admin status what the outsiders think it is, a position of heavy-duty trust and power? —Morven 08:05, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

This proposal is a bad solution to a real problem. Since the admin status was introduced as a temporary solution until the software was changed to allow all users the ability to carry what are currently "admin-only" functions without opening the system to damage by vandals, we should not be addressing problems with the system by making the admin status even rarer than it currently is. A better solution would be to do what was intended and redesign the system to make more of the admin-only functions available to all users. Then there wouldn't be difficulty in finding an admin -- any logged on user would be able to do what was necessary. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:40, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

I do not see the necessity of this proposal, despite Angela's points. (Must I not sign now? :-) The problem of locating active sysops could be solved by including the time of the last edit of any admin listed on Special:Listadmins. And anyway, the time frame for "inactivity" would need to be longer (three months isn't long), and I do not like the idea of people taking a Wikivacation being desysopped. Looks like red tape to me. Lupo 08:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Jamesday has just extracted some statistics (thanks a lot for doing this!), and it seems that even applying the proposed short three months inactivity period, more than 90% of the listed admins are active. I don't think we needed a policy on the remaining few. Lupo 08:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This proposal is, like one of the other objectors said, a solution in search of a problem. Once someone has been accepted by the community as an administrator, they should not be removed without good reason. Inactivity is not a good reason. Sometimes people get dragged away by real life - that's life. They shouldn't then have to be penalised for it.

Angela does, however, highlight some real issues. Special:Listadmins becoming useless is a bad thing. However, perhaps the solution is for the server to take last edits into account, and splitting off the inactive ones into a seperate list. The same thing - or a manually-maintained list, would avoid the misleading statistics issue.

On the other hand, some of the reasons put up for this are complete bunk. I'd like to see at least one example of an admin who has been away, not been aware of any policies on returning, and then caused trouble, before we go running around making new policies about it. As for trust - I don't know about you, but if some user comes back from a break and is clearly respected (Zoe, who left before I joined, comes to mind), then I for one have no issues trusting them on their return.

The "some feel we currently have too many admins, and are probably overly opposing in their RfA votes because of this", simply doesn't stand up. We've gone one user who's doing this. I think the practice is manifestly stupid, but I can always vote to even up the balance. Finally, adminship is not something special that it can never be removed. But if it is removed, it should be for a damned good reason - and inactivity certainly ain't it. Ambi 08:10, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Angela's comments made me reconsider, but later comments have made me return to my original thoughts on the matter. Special:Listadmins (and statistics) can be fixed in an automated manner, and 90% of admins are active anyway. Someone being away, coming back, not catching up on the new policies, wreaking havoc, and not stopping when made aware of the new policies, is far too hypothetical to have this "policy bloat". If that ever happens, forcible deadminship is possible. As for those who feel we have too many admins, well, we don't, we have far too few admins. And 90% of admins are "active" anyway, so this won't do much to resolve that. The case of an admin who is trusted in the community, leaves for a while, and then returns a wholly different person likewise seems far too hypothetical for this policy to be worth the administrative overhead. If someone goes away, gets brainwashed by some cult, comes back as a psycho, and starts destroying Wikipedia, they can be forcibly deadminned.

Yes, deadminship is hard. Whether or not this should be the case depends on a lot of factors, including how hard adminship is. In theory, adminship should be easy and deadminship should be easy too. Anyone who isn't out to destroy Wikipedia should be adminned, and anyone who makes an action which does not have consensus support should be deadminned. I believe this was the original idea, but adminship has changed a lot since then. I like the idea of making adminship more and more irrelevant. The political caste system we've created is a real problem. But that's not really the focus of this proposal, and to the extent this proposal addresses it, it only makes things worse. anthony (see warning) 16:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Transparency, active system ops, instant messaging, trust metric voting

 * There is no reason why a cache of contactable, accountable on line system ops can not be created/maintained
 * Suggest they have a pic, a full bio and a voting system for the help received
 * The updating technology of wikipedia may give quick feed back - within 5 mins? or do we use jabber?

Who posted this? Anyway, I'm strongly opposed against requiring a picture/biography, and even more strongly opposed to any "trust metric". Adminship is no popularity contest, and whatever any Wikipedian (not just janitors) deems to reveal about her- or himself is what is on her or his user page. Lupo 07:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Quite true. If I had to have a picture/bio, I wouldn't have accepted nomination for sysop. I like my pseudonymity. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think we should be encouraging administrators to declare possible possible bias on the user page. This would act as a self-reminder to keep a NPOV and allows others to put administrator actions and comments in perspective. -- Solitude 14:32, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Do not edit this page directly
I have ignored this order because of its inappropriateness on the wiki. This is a collaborative project, not a military organisation. The article needed (and still needs) editing to put forward the pros and cons of the proposal. At the moment it makes little mention of the cons so editing is essential. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:04, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, effectively, "don't make major changes to this without first consulting everyone else involved." This mostly applies to the Articles section, so the wording has been revised as such. What you've done is perfectly acceptable. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:08, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

 * I hoped that that was what you meant. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:18, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

I agree. Until voting begins, people should feel free to make changes. In the last few days it would be rude to make any major changes without consensus, though. anthony (see warning) 16:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Administrators online
Note that, in the absence of the type of automated method of keeping track of which administrators are currently online that people have discussed above, I have added an extra section to List of administrators in which people can manually record whether they are on or offline at any given moment. --Derek Ross | Talk 15:05, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

GRUNT! Great idea. Hopefully I'll be active again in time to vote for it. Damn that Hurricane Ivan. blankfaze | (беседа!)  18:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UC's comments

 * I have removed the unwiki-like "do not edit this page" disclaimer. While there may be situations where such an approach is an appropriate way to handle policy discussions, this has only been done after considerable discussion.  There has not been much discussion of this idea yet.
 * I also made the "vote" a proposed one, in line with our way of doing things. We may find that a vote is unnecessary.
 * I removed some legal-sounding titles and verbiage from the policy, which I believe are out of place at Wikipedia.
 * I also added some information on existing policy. Perhaps Eloquence or some other developer can better remember how much this was actually done.  The last I remember there was some attempt to try to remove dormant admin logins about a year ago.
 * As for the policy itself, I'm concerned that it does not solve any problem that we actually have. I am willing to be convinced, though.  I don't believe anyone uses "listadmins" to try to find someone to contact, since we have "vandalism in progress," the "village pump," and "requests for page protection" for those things.  In fact, the idea of contacting a specific admin for help in a particular situation is sort of passe now that the project is much larger.
 * As for activity, if we are really concerned about this sort of thing, we would do better to count only admin-specific activities when calculating the "inactivity period." Many admins rarely if ever delete or protect pages.
 * I agree with Angela that we do need some sort of periodic review of administrators.

uc 19:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to get at the heart of it - alternative proposal
I think all admins should serve fixed terms (perhaps a year) they could reapply at the end of that period if they wanted to. This would solve the problem of absent admins in the medium term. For beurocrats, the 'make this person an admin' page would look much like the block list, with a period of time that automatically expires. Mark Richards 20:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I would support that. It's the idea that adminship must be forever that I object to. Angela. 21:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that's a bad idea. Adminship need not be forever, but there should be a good reason for it to be taken away.  Having admins serve fixed terms would make adminship too political, and I don't think admins should have political positions.  You wouldn't give a janitor a fixed year long term, would you? anthony (see warning) 21:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure you could, they're called contract employees. Fixed adminship terms wouldn't make adminship any more or less political than it is now. It's a yes-or-no, does the community still trust this person, people aren't competing and running against each other for a limited amount of adminship spots. --Michael Snow 21:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You could, but why would you? If someone isn't trusted any more, they should lose their adminship immediately.  It makes no sense to wait until the end of their year.  This would make adminship more political because it would reduce the number of admins.  We need more admins, not fewer (or, alternatively, no admins).  In fact, the more admins we have, the less necessary deadminship becomes. anthony (see warning) 22:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If we need more admins, then by all means go out and find some more candidates and nominate them. I try to do that, but I hardly know everyone who's around. The purpose of a renewal process is not to try and reduce numbers overall, it's to review the question of trust. Trust may be lost gradually just as it is gained gradually, so there's not necessarily a single point where we can say "If someone isn't trusted any more, they should lose their adminship immediately." --Michael Snow 22:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Nominating someone doesn't make them an admin. They have to pass a vote.  With this proposal, they have to pass a vote every year.  I don't see how you could possibly argue that the number of admins would thus go up.  At the most it would stay the same, in which case we've wasted a whole lot of our time.  Yes, trust may be lost gradually, but there's always a single point where that trust level reaches a threshold.  When most people don't trust an admin, I can understand having a request for deadminship.  But automatically deadminning someone every year.  Besides the fact that it's a bad idea, it's way too much work.  There are already way too many things to vote on here at Wikipedia.  You could literally spend your entire time here voting (trust me, I've done it for some parts of my Wikipedia career).  This has got to stop, and this is one place we can stop it.  anthony (see warning) 13:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is pretty normal in a lot of parts of the world to have fixed term contracts that are regularly renewed if all parties agree. Mark Richards 21:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Anthony is right. Remember that admins are (or at least should be) just ordinary users who have passed enough of a probationary period that they can be trusted not to damage Wikipedia by being stupid.  They should only have the admin powers removed if they abuse those powers and thus show that they cannot be trusted.  One should only expect them to have the same grasp of policy as any other long-term user and one should only expect them to be as uncontroversial/argumentative/opinionated as any other long-term user.  No less no more.  At the moment it has become far too difficult to become an administrator.  From what I see, RfA seems to have devolved into a popularity contest based on whether a user "fits in" rather than an appraisal of the likelihood that they will act responsibly.  "Fitting in" is not particularly what the Wikipedia is about. Although the social aspect is nice, the basic objective is the production of good new articles and the maintenance of existing ones and if a user is doing that, they should be an administrator so that they have all the tools that they need to do it. We already have such tools as mediation and arbitration which can be used to remove admin powers from a user who starts acting irresponsibly. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 22:03, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

 * I don't like casting adminship in terms of fixed term contracts. To be honest, I didn't really seek to become an admin and I do not exercise many of the powers all that often--mostly the convenience of the rollback function for vandalism and deleting Rambot-generated redirects and disambigs in order to move place articles to more appropriate names. I'm not sure I would actively seek adminship if my "contract" expired. If there was some sort of automatic renomination, that would be OK by me, a sort of periodic vote of confidence. But I don't like the idea of making adminship some sort of office for which one needs to campaign. older ≠ wiser 22:03, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

The contracts discussion is just because Anthony brought up janitors, who in the real world are usually employees. I agree that if we make adminship be for fixed terms, then renewal should be the default position. Maybe have an adminship renewal page where people are listed at their one-year mark, and if over the course of a week nobody objects, they continue until the next year. If a legitimate objection is raised, then the admin can either withdraw or go through requests for adminship again. Maybe require more than one person to endorse the objection, sort of like the certification requirement on Requests for comment, to discourage frivolous objections. --Michael Snow 22:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If we did that admins would not feel safe in dealing with trouble makers and trolls. In my case for example I have clashed with irismiester, mr natural health, lir, (and his sidekick plato) Robert Brookes AKA friends of robert AKA Robert the Bruce, and wik in the last year alone. If these people were to band together (and the first 4 probably would) I'd have to go through VFA again. Now personally I would be happy to do that, but i suspect some other admins would simply give up and let trolls and trouble makers do whatever they want at wikipedia, rather than risk it. Others might leave altogether. The difficulty is how to determine what a "legitimate" objection is. To be honest I don't see what the problem is. We do have methods of dealing with rogue admins, people just don't use them oftn enough, Why aren't people taking admins to the AC if they are behaving badly? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If you're going to make adminship the default, then why not have a requests for deadminship page, and not allow someone to be nominated more than once in a year. Furthermore, require a large quorum for something like this, say at least 20 users, because if one or two people object and no one else notices the page, there's no sense in deadminship. I'm not sure I'd support this proposal, because I haven't decided whether deadminship should require consensus, majority, or a significant minority (under your original proposal it would only require a significant minority), but I'd certainly object a lot less strongly. The best solution (in non-emergency cases, which is all this proposal handles anyway) would be to have the arb committee handle deadminship, though, and let the arb committee take community consensus into consideration.  Because the arb committee is in the best position to "determine what a 'legitimate' objection is."  Arb committee members are chosen for their ability to remain neutral and deliberative.  I trust them a lot more than a random mob of Wikipedians, in this sense. anthony (see warning) 13:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * By the way, I still think the janitor analogy is appropriate, but that might just be my American point of view. Here in the US we even let our supreme court justices serve for life during good behavior.  The idea is that judges should remain apolitical, and that they couldn't possibly do so if they were up for reelection.  Of course, whether or not this works is a subject of dispute, and wiki admins are more like janitors than judges anyway.  They have a few extra keys on their keyring, but their job is to clean up. anthony (see warning) 13:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you appoint your janitor for life? Mark Richards 23:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Nope, I'd appoint her indefinitely. anthony 警告 18:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Organising list of sysops
Surely we can do better than organise the list alphabetically? What are people coming to this page looking for help on? Categorise admins using those headings, i.e. I suggest that sysops are instead listed by what type of request they are most happy to help with. At the minute, with an initial Z in my username, I am somewhat less likely to be called upon for help. Yet I am quite happy to help. I do think that some kind of "will respond to requests within X hours/days" label would also be useful, admins can change this as they are online/offline/busy as required. Of course, there isn't much way to validate this guarantee, apart from disgruntled users complaining that sysop X has not responded within the timescale they labelled themselves as. Just some thoughts. zoney ♣ talk 22:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With al due respect to Angela, I will add my voice to the "solution in search of a problem" camp. Adminship is just a set of useful functions that are potentially destructive. Those functions are useful, and an administrator who only uses those functions rarely, or uses them after a long absence, is more useful than no administrator. I need more evidence of a real and significant problem before support more bureaucratic overhead.

Change in proposal
Per a discussion on IRC, the definition of inactivity has been changed to five months from three months. Also, there are now three reminders sent out from the determination of being inactive and the "grace period" after the temporary desysopping has been doubled to two months. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:21, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea on paper but has little to no connection with reality. silsor 04:35, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

It's true that there is little benefit in having an admin who isn't around to do their job. I have admin status (I don't THINK anyone took it away from me... if they did I haven't noticed yet!) but I've been around very little in the last 18 months. I don't really know what all the rules are any more, so I'm very wary about using said status for anything until I've checked and double-checked that it's still okay. Anyway, if you want to set a blanket period of nonattendence to earn automatic de-adminning that's fair enough, but it has to be a LONG time or it'll just be a hassle for everyone when the admin in question comes back again a week later, and has to ask to get reinstated. I'd say that six months of inactivity would be a suitable period. Being an admin isn't a popularity contest - it's something you do for a reason. KJ 07:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't the list of sysops be edited in a way that either the date/time of last edit could be shown, or have the list ordered by sysop with most recent edit? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 09:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...
I think this proposal is well-meaning, but what is the problem it is addressing? I believe the problem is, that if an editor (esp. a new editor) is looking for admin help, s/he really doesn't know where to turn. The List of Administrators really doesn't do it. On my own entry, I tell people that I welcome queries. AFAIK, I haven't gotten a single query or request for help from it. The editors who contact seem to be ones who know me or have inteacted with me. What is a new user to do, faced with a list of 300 admins?

Now, I don't see that non-performing admins (including those who edit but simply haven't the time to pursue admin chores) are a problem per se except that their presence on a list makes us think we have more admins than we effectively do. The addition of "Currently Online" to List_of_administrators is a noble effort, but I wouldn't list my name there because I am on and off in the course of my work and leisure. It's just too cumbersome.

So about this? Let's ask all our admins to volunteer to be on a "A List" which indicates a special willingness to engage users looking for assistance. No shame if you're not on the list--you just aren't in a position to give requests attention in a reasonable time frame. Anyone could add or remove their names at any time depending on their current circumstance. If you volunteer for the list, and if there are a sufficient number of admins on the list, we could carve out a different 10 (say) admins each day or each week as "duty admins" on a rotating basis. Post these admins at the top of the list with the admonition "contact these admins first." What do you think? == Cecropia | Talk 15:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems a very good idea. I agree that this seems to be the main problem people are attempting to solve (how to contact an admin). I think I too agree that "administrator activity" is not necessarily the problem. Having just an alphabetical list of sysops is a problem. zoney ♣ talk 15:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * What about a "Contact a Sysop" page? Submissions would go to a certain page, like perhaps "Wikipedia:Requests for Assistance" or something.  The admins that are signed up to help out would all recveive a notice (like the "new messages" notice for usertalk page edits) that help was requested on that page.  Then whoever of those admins was online could go help out. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 16:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a very good suggestion, provided that sysops can jump in and out of the A-pool at any time. ✏ Sverdrup 16:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This gets stupider by the week
Well, I am completely unsure what half-baked idiot (or collection of said) cooked this one up. As an admin I spend more than enough time fighting vandals as it is. If this continuous trend towards spurious and nonsensical policy-making for the purpose of policy-making itself continues, the number of active admins will certainly be reduced by one. Never a week goes by without someone coming up with some new time-waste or other. Sjc 04:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Your case wouldn't be damaged by some arguments. I'm sure you have them; let them out! ✏ Sverdrup 18:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Too true. Perhaps there should be a policy in place saying that a new policy can only be added if two old ones are removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:57, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

I completely agree. I read through this entire proposal, and I just do not see any valid justification for desysopping admins who have been away for a while. It's easy to adjust the list of admins page so that newbies will be able to contact recently-active admins, and if a user was once trusted enough by the community to become an admin, I see no reason why a period of inactivity should render the user untrustworthy. Furthermore, what about people who take an annual vacation of a few months, say, every winter? Must they repeatedly request readminship every year? -- —Lowellian | Talk 06:13, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Lowellian (and others). The fact that the list of sysops or admins is full of inactive people is a problem, but since no inactive account has ever caused problems to my knowledge, removing existing admins is no solution in my opinion. I'd prefer the active, inactive, away labeling system. And we should be trying to get more active admins added to the list. That should adress the problems we have. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:29, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Likewise. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

November 3 new proposal
If I wish to contact an admin I will without exception go to their talk page. If this one small change is added, then I would know at a glance if they are an active admin or not, and even be likely to find an admin that is online right now

 * I propose that at the top of every User:Talk page, there be added a feature that tells the time and date of the user's most recent edit.

It's a simple change to make, and I believe it would be relatively inoffensive to the POVs expressed in the previous talk. This would work regardless of the duration of an admin's term, regardless of whether they are 'away' or not. It has the added benefit of allowing all editors, regardless of 'rank' to tell at a glance who is working on the 'pedia at any given time, by consulting their user page.comments? please comment in the section below, reserve this section for revised versions of this proposalPedant 18:47, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

 * This doesn't address all the issues I have concerning inactive admins, but it's a good idea regardless of that. Perhaps it should be submitted as a feature request at . Angela. 02:27, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

comments on Nov. 3 proposals
I believe that the statements about the difficulty of contacting an admin are a red herring and should be removed. People can contact an admin promptly by tagging stuff for speedy deletion, adding things to VfD or VfU, adding things to Requests for page protection, or adding things to WP:VIP. This is well documented. These are the only admin-only activities, and each has its own means of contacting an admin. We have IRC, we have the mailing list. I would go so far as to say that the admins of Wikipedia will respond faster when contacted thusly than will the local police or fire department does when you dial 911 (or 999 for some of you). Contacting an admin simply isn't a real problem.

There are two real problems:

 * 1) If someone leaves the project for, say, three years, and then comes back, they will be out of touch with people and policy, and may have become a POV warrior of some kind due to a Near death experience or being Born again.
 * 2) There is a security problem in that dormant accounts are susceptible to password guessing, and if someone shows up after a year of inactivity we will have no sure way of knowing whether it is the original contributor or not.  This is not a problem with active accounts, because the original contributor will realize what is happening.

I observe that the time periods in this proposal are really too short. Interested Wikipedians occasionally have life changes due to school, work, or travel schedules and leave the project for a period of months. Give people a year. If they've been gone for that long, they are unlikely to return.

Whether anyone admits it or not, short time periods scare people into voting "no" because they become afraid that they themselves may be de-admined for one reason or another. Keep the time periods long, and it becomes more a matter of each of us accepting that sooner or later we are going to move on from the project for various reasons, and that that's ok.

I don't think the "away" status is helpful. It just adds extra work and an incentive to "game" the system. Keep it simple, and revoke admin status after a year of inactivity.

There should be some room for judgement because a few contributors make an edit or two every few months, perhaps when they happen to read an article that they've found through google, but have in fact left the project. In these cases people should still lose their sysop status. Leave it vague so there is no incentive to game the system.

On a final note, I am not aware of any administrator who has returned to the project to make sizable contributions after being gone for more than a year. It is not uncommon, though, to see people who leave but duck their heads in once in a while, e.g. User:Zoe, User:JHK, User:Mbecker.

uc 20:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Bsktcase

Countering systemic bias
We seem to be almost ready to go live with WikiProject countering systemic bias. I know you were interested earlier. Xed seems to have dropped out, so we are back to the broader focus I was advocating. I'd love to have you aboard. Please, sign up as a participant and also, please weigh soon in on anything you'd like to see changed before we really announce this. -- Jmabel 23:42, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for (some) peace in the world of genocide (I hope)
Regarding proposal number one. Definately I would support the creation of such an article on the Americas. Rather than just genocide, ethnocide, etc regarded things however, we need to include the background information, such as the local tribes, the indian removal act and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, etc. From there we can discuss what was genocidal, what was the ethnic-cleansing and how it all fits into the definition of ethnocide.

I also strongly support the second proposal of a seperate article linked off the main page for Israel-Palestine genocide. Mainly a good opportunity to put up all the information we can, as you said, and to form a clear argument as opposed to made up facts from either side, such as Jenin Refugee Camp Massacre, where I can give evidence showing how only a 10th of the camp was destroyed and figures showing how little were injured. I'm happy you decided to address this in a proper manner and I hope we can work together making these two clear articles. Evolver of Borg 18:13, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Got the message. I went a bit fast last night when I first read the proposal so we already have a seperate page for Israel Palestine at Genocide in Israel Palestine. I just put the old info there and linked it off the page. We can move it elsewhere but I already created it, although I do like your title better.

On your idea for Native Americans. I didn't realise you meant all the things leading up to The Removal, but if we're going to do that, then that's swell. I'm not really sure that the title you suggested for that one though is really appropriate. By Jackson's time you already had whites who had been in America for some time. A more appropriate title maybe, Persecution and Pain Suffered By Natives Americans Under Colonial America and the USA, as it is a bit broader and notes both intentional and unintentional stuff. Evolver of Borg 19:05, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I see what your saying regarding the Native Americans regarding the settlers. I'm not a big expert on American Colonial History, but I'd presume that the case would be similar to in Australia, where the natives were provoked, retailiated and then got hit back a lot harder. See Warrigal Creek Massacre in Genocidal Massacre. You can add the stuff but it'd most likely merge in between the provoking event and the European retailiation event.

I know what you're trying to get at with "effects", but it isn't really specific enough. I could say several effects of colonization include the construction of the Empire State Building, the American Civil War, etc. We need a more accurate title.Evolver of Borg 22:04, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I like that title better, but maybe we need a bit more accuracy. Native Americans Under Colonial North America maybe. Problem with both though is that they doesn't absorb US into the picture. Maybe History of Native American-Colonial American Tensions? Evolver of Borg 18:05, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
For reviewing H.D. and Djuna Barnes and for the kind words about the former. Filiocht 09:08, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Great work on the list of current and historical women's universities and colleges and the women's college article (and category, etc.). -- Rbellin 04:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good Job
Smith College nice work on this, it's much more complete nowPedant 18:25, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

U.S. embargo against Cuba
You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Countering systemic bias (redux)
I'm really interested in trying to bring WikiProject Countering systemic bias back to life, but I'm really not interested in getting back into wars with Xed over efforts at administering the project page, etc. As you may know, about 7 weeks ago I dropped out of any role in the project except editing articles, because I didn't feel like constantly fighting with his and he seemed intent on running the project page, etc., without (or even against) consensus.

 * Show me where I did this. Was it putting numbers and not bullet points in somewhere? - Xed 13:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the project page now, (1) I see specific suggestions to add templates to articles when I know these templates were discussed on the Village Pump and strongly rejected there by a broad consensus, (2) it's hard even to work out what pages to watchlist to keep track of the project, (3...) etc. I fixed one thing (how the main project page & the participants page link to one another) and I may do a little more this evening, but I'm afraid to wade in deeply because I just plain don't want a third round of conflict with Xed over how to make a project go.

 * 1. If you're referring to the CSB CotW template, this wasn't "strongly rejected by a broad consensus". What was rejected, by a not particularly broad consensus, was putting a template on every article mentioned in the big open tasks list. - Xed 13:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd really like to help this project succeed. I was honestly hoping I could just get out of Xed's way and he would carry forward a vision, even if it didn't quite match my vision, but it looks to me like nothing of the sort has happened. Instead, it seems he's just pissing off other people the same way he pissed off Brian Corr and myself, and he's doing little to actually build a project. I know he's well-intentioned, so I don't get as angry at him as at (for example) POV warriors, but I'm finding this frustrating.

 * doing little to actually build a project: I've spent many, many hours helping to build it. For that, I've recieved nothing but abuse and paranoid accusations from you - Xed 13:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? Even on whom I might confer with on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:38, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

GldF page
As a note, the diffs seem to show adding the copyvio material, not. MSJapan 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheBigBreakIII.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TheBigBreakIII.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheBigBreakIV.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TheBigBreakIV.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheBigBreakVI.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TheBigBreakVI.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheBigBreakV.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:TheBigBreakV.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheBigBreakII.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TheBigBreakII.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Research survey invitation
Greetings Bsktcase-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox television The Big Break
Template:Infobox television The Big Break has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Better source request for File:JoyceChiang.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:JoyceChiang.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bsktcase


text:
Charlton

Charlton may refer to:

People

 * Charlton (surname)
 * Charlton (given name)

Australia

 * Charlton, Queensland
 * Charlton, Victoria
 * Division of Charlton, an electoral district in the Australian House of Representatives, in New South Wales

Canada

 * Charlton, Ontario
 * Charlton Island, Nunavut

England

 * Hundred of Charlton, a hundred in the Wokingham area of Berkshire
 * Charlton, Bristol, a village in Gloucestershire near Bristol, demolished in 1949
 * Charlton, Hampshire
 * Charlton, Hertfordshire
 * Charlton, London, formerly a village, now a district
 * Charlton, Northamptonshire
 * Charlton, Northumberland
 * Charlton, Oxfordshire, a location in Wantage
 * Charlton, Shropshire, a location
 * Charlton, Kilmersdon, Mendip district, Somerset
 * Charlton, Shepton Mallet, Mendip district, Somerset
 * Charlton, Taunton Deane, Somerset
 * Charlton, Surrey (formerly Middlesex)
 * Charlton, West Sussex
 * Charlton, Brinkworth, Wiltshire
 * Charlton, Donhead St Mary, South Wiltshire
 * Charlton St Peter, Pewsey Vale, Wiltshire
 * Charlton, Worcestershire, near Fladbury
 * Charlton, Hartlebury, a location in Worcestershire

New Zealand

 * Charlton, New Zealand

United States

 * Charlton, Massachusetts
 * Charlton, New York
 * Charlton County, Georgia
 * Charlton Township, Michigan

Buildings in England

 * Charlton Castle, Shropshire
 * Charlton House, London
 * Charlton House, Charlton Mackrell, Somerset
 * Charlton House, Wraxall, Somerset

Other uses

 * Charlton (ship), two ships
 * Charlton Athletic F.C., an English football team based in the London district of that name
 * Charlton Avenue (Hamilton, Ontario), Canada
 * Charlton Comics, American comic book company (1946–1986)
 * Charlton Down, a village in Dorset, England
 * Charlton Press, a Canadian book publishing company which produces price guides and other books on collectibles
 * Charlton School, a coeducational secondary school in Telford, Shropshire, England
 * Charlton College of Business, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

title: Charlton


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teacher resources

Teacher resources
Big ol' advertisement for a website. Joyous 23:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC) Also Teachers resources, which is a duplicate. Joyous 23:53, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Advert, Wikipedia is not a web guide.   — Gwalla | Talk 00:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been speedily deleted. --Goobergunch 01:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Confirmed: "00:09, 5 Oct 2004 Geogre deleted "Teacher resources" (content was: ' --TEACHER RESOURCES--This is a great website for teachers and early childhood educators to get information on things such as jobs, less...')" --Goobergunch 01:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think this qualifies for any of the specific cases for speedy deletion. Regular delete both versions as adverts. (Comment: I would appreciate it if someone would formally propose a standard under which we could discuss speedy deletes for adverts.) Rossami 01:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete both. One already gone I see, probably not validly but quite reasonably IMO. Andrewa 12:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious advert. — Bill 23:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I speedy deleted it for having no content but advertising. I was pushing the definition, intentionally, of "spam."  Sorry to do that, but my cause was noble.  As for whether we can get policies by which this sort of thing is covered, all I can say is that I will support anyone who tries.  I did my part, and it didn't work, and I doubt very seriously that anyone else's efforts will be more successful, if they're held in the open.  Come on, Wikipedians, though, and prove me wrong, please. Geogre 17:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Chuq/WPM

Testing:

title: User:Chuq/WPM


text:
Talk:List of mayors of Salt Lake City

Untitled
Apparently there is no comprehensive list of Salt Lake mayors...until now...I went to the main Library, they had nothing, so I walked across the street to the City/County building and stood up on the 3rd floor and copied the names and dates from the paintings there. Very interesting, I encourage everyone to have a look-see. Anyways, whoever was mayor from 1935-38 doesnt have a painting, so thus, not in the list... Alas...if anyone can find it out, well, then put it in... Ugh, the things I do for wiki... -Jon 23:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * After some more research, apparently that mayor was disgraced in scandal, thus apparently no painting... -Jon 00:10, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Wow! This is great. I wanted to add it in when I put the city councilors in (imitating other cities like Las Vegas), but wasn't able to. There was no concise list of the mayors, just as you said. I have a couple of books on the history of Salt Lake City and they don't have a list either, so this is very useful.
 * Incidentally, the City-County building is great. I've been there several times to take photos and other nonsense because a friend of mine claims that it's haunted. She says taking a skeptic makes any findings more believable. Cool Hand Luke  02:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Harold B. Lee
The wiki article on Harold B. Lee says that he was mayor of Salt Lake City at one time, although it does not say when. He is not on the list of mayors. Is the article on Lee in error? Alanraywiki 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. --TrustTruth 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you happen to have what years he was mayor? He is not on this list of mayors.  I removed the phrase on the Harold B. Lee page about him being mayor until a source can be found.  Thanks, Alanraywiki 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes as in "the article on Lee [is] in error." He was not mayor. --TrustTruth 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I misread my own posting. Thanks for the information. Alanraywiki 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Erin Mendenhall
Suggest checking party affiliation, and add reference to source that Mendenhall is a Democrat. Voterrecords.com has two historical voter registration entries for Erin C. Mendenhall. Both are "unaffiliated", not Democrat. ,

Fisherka (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Erin Mendenhall Mayoral Headshot (2020).jpg

title: Talk:List of mayors of Salt Lake City