text:
Sigma bond

In chemistry, sigma bonds (σ bonds) are the strongest type of covalent chemical bond. They are formed by head-on overlapping between atomic orbitals. Sigma bonding is most simply defined for diatomic molecules using the language and tools of symmetry groups. In this formal approach, a σ-bond is symmetrical with respect to rotation about the bond axis. By this definition, common forms of sigma bonds are s+s, pz+pz, s+pz and dz2+dz2 (where z is defined as the axis of the bond or the internuclear axis). Quantum theory also indicates that molecular orbitals (MO) of identical symmetry actually mix or hybridize. As a practical consequence of this mixing of diatomic molecules, the wavefunctions s+s and pz+pz molecular orbitals become blended. The extent of this mixing (or hybridization or blending) depends on the relative energies of the MOs of like symmetry.

For homodiatomics (homonuclear diatomic molecules), bonding σ orbitals have no nodal planes at which the wavefunction is zero, either between the bonded atoms or passing through the bonded atoms. The corresponding antibonding, or σ* orbital, is defined by the presence of one nodal plane between the two bonded atoms.

Sigma bonds are the strongest type of covalent bonds due to the direct overlap of orbitals, and the electrons in these bonds are sometimes referred to as sigma electrons.

The symbol σ is the Greek letter sigma. When viewed down the bond axis, a σ MO has a circular symmetry, hence resembling a similarly sounding "s" atomic orbital.

Typically, a single bond is a sigma bond while a multiple bond is composed of one sigma bond together with pi or other bonds. A double bond has one sigma plus one pi bond, and a triple bond has one sigma plus two pi bonds.

Polyatomic molecules
Sigma bonds are obtained by head-on overlapping of atomic orbitals. The concept of sigma bonding is extended to describe bonding interactions involving overlap of a single lobe of one orbital with a single lobe of another. For example, propane is described as consisting of ten sigma bonds, one each for the two C−C bonds and one each for the eight C−H bonds.

Multiple-bonded complexes
Transition metal complexes that feature multiple bonds, such as the dihydrogen complex, have sigma bonds between the multiple bonded atoms. These sigma bonds can be supplemented with other bonding interactions, such as π-back donation, as in the case of W(CO)3(PCy3)2(H2), and even δ-bonds, as in the case of chromium(II) acetate.

Organic molecules
Organic molecules are often cyclic compounds containing one or more rings, such as benzene, and are often made up of many sigma bonds along with pi bonds. According to the sigma bond rule, the number of sigma bonds in a molecule is equivalent to the number of atoms plus the number of rings minus one.

 * Nσ = Natoms + Nrings − 1

This rule is a special-case application of the Euler characteristic of the graph which represents the molecule.

A molecule with no rings can be represented as a tree with a number of bonds equal to the number of atoms minus one (as in dihydrogen, H2, with only one sigma bond, or ammonia, NH3, with 3 sigma bonds). There is no more than 1 sigma bond between any two atoms.

Molecules with rings have additional sigma bonds, such as benzene rings, which have 6 C−C sigma bonds within the ring for 6 carbon atoms. The anthracene molecule, C14H10, has three rings so that the rule gives the number of sigma bonds as 24 + 3 − 1 = 26. In this case there are 16 C−C sigma bonds and 10 C−H bonds.

This rule fails in the case of molecules which, when drawn flat on paper, have a different number of rings than the molecule actually has - for example, Buckminsterfullerene, C60, which has 32 rings, 60 atoms, and 90 sigma bonds, one for each pair of bonded atoms; however, 60 + 32 - 1 = 91, not 90. This is because the sigma rule is a special case of the Euler characteristic, where each ring is considered a face, each sigma bond is an edge, and each atom is a vertex. Ordinarily, one extra face is assigned to the space not inside any ring, but when Buckminsterfullerene is drawn flat without any crossings, one of the rings makes up the outer pentagon; the inside of that ring is the outside of the graph. This rule fails further when considering other shapes - toroidal fullerenes will obey the rule that the number of sigma bonds in a molecule is exactly the number of atoms plus the number of rings, as will nanotubes - which, when drawn flat as if looking through one from the end, will have a face in the middle, corresponding to the far end of the nanotube, which is not a ring, and a face corresponding to the outside.

title: Sigma bond


text:
Van Rensselaer Potter

Van Rensselaer Potter II (12 November, 1911 – September 6, 2001) was an American biochemist, oncologist, and bioethicist. Born in northeast South Dakota, Potter was professor of oncology at the McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research at the University of Wisconsin–Madison for more than five decades.

Potter is known for coining the widely used term bioethics in 1970, however, German theologian Fritz Jahr had previously coined the term in the 1920s. Peter Whitehouse describes Potter's formulation of bioethics as a "wise integration of biology and values", which arose from his work as a cancer researcher and from the influence of faculty member Aldo Leopold at the University of Wisconsin.

Bioethics is linked to environmental ethics and is separate from biomedical ethics. Because of this confusion (and appropriation of the term in medicine), Potter chose to use the term global bioethics in 1988. He was an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, The president of the American Society of Cell Biology in 1965, and the president of the American Association for Cancer Research in 1974.

Awards

 * Bristol-Myers Squibb Awards (1981)
 * Pfizer Award in Enzyme Chemistry (1947)
 * List of Ten Outstanding Young Americans (1945)

Popular

 * Bioethics: Bridge to the Future (Prentice-Hall, 1971)
 * Global Bioethics: Building on the Leopold Legacy (Michigan State Univ Pr 1988) ISBN 0-87013-264-4

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

title: Van Rensselaer Potter


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fire Star

Fire Star
Vote here (19/0/1) ending 04:03 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fire Star is conscientious and skillful, contributing to articles on Asian culture & other topics. Reserved & polite in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. More than 1500 edits since February 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch
 * More like 2850 edits, plus over 175 as an anon. -- Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone, and please know that I accept the nomination (and this time in the correct place!) Fire Star 01:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) ProjeX 04:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) * Sockpuppet, this was their 5th contrib. -- Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 4)  ℛ yan! |  Talk  05:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ffirehorse 05:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) -- Seems to discuss and compromise very well.
 * 7) [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 10:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) 172 13:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Very strong support. Extremely likeable, easy to interact with, articulate editor. Supremely amiable, even regarding differences of opinion on the very most controvercial of subjects. Sam [Spade] 18:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) I get the impression of friendliness and collaboration.. good traits for an admin. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:37, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Sure.   – Andre ( talk )  14:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Sí. --Slowking Man 22:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Flame on! +sj +  08:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I found his interference in the dispute between Sam Spade and me balanced. Andries 08:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Yep --Jiang 08:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes - I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'll vote in favor of Fire Star - ( AWilliamson - Allen Williamson, historian, Joan of Arc Archive ) 18:33, 10 Oct 2004
 * 18) * User has 23 edits. -- Netoholic @ 00:40, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
 * 19) Absolutely. We need more friendly admins. • Benc • 10:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) {Ανάριον} 11:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Sure. JFW |  T@lk  16:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral
 * 1) Well, I haven't looked at him enough, but I've become irked by the amount of double articles he has created (We do not need two of the same kind of article for each romanization system), but other than that, I have no opinion on him. WhisperToMe 03:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I would likely work extensively on the votes for deletion and the votes for undeletion pages. I don't consider myself a deletionist, yet given what we have to work with there it often seems that way. I have an interest in the arbitration process, and (hopefully) a sense of what is fair (for example, I would be willing to recuse myself if it was a person I had worked with or concerned a subject I had actually worked on, etc.). I also enjoy welcoming new editors to Wikipedia.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. The entire cycle of T'ai Chi Ch'uan articles, which are works in progress, of course. Teaching T'ai Chi is what I do for a living, I work for a famous T'ai Chi family currently from Hong Kong who have been in the business for 150 years, so I get a lot of reliable info from them. It is a growing hobby for many, esp. in the West, and people will come to Wikipedia looking for good information on the subject and how it is tradtitionally taught before they shell out their hard earned beans. Chinese martial arts have a long history of strict NPOV in their public statements, of all things (it cuts down on fights between schools), that I have been rigorously trained in, so Wikipedia's emphasis on it in many ways seems natural to me.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. I had a very few when I was newer here. Eventually, if I felt the other editor was intractable, I just walked away for a while. This is only a hobby, after all. As an admin, that won't be as viable an option of course, but I deal with the public quite a bit in the "real world," so that should help. As an example of how I approach conflict people may look up my one request for arbitration over the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article (which ended up being protected for a while) and how I handled it.

Comments

Wow, I have my own sockpuppet! I wonder what that means? Anyway, thanks everyone for your consideration, I accept the nomination. Fire Star 15:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's basically a user account created for the purposes of voting or disruption. Take a read of Sock puppet. They aren't counted in the final tally of votes. -- Netoholic @ 16:07, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link Netoholic. I'm familiar with the term from the VfD pages, but it is mysterious to me that one would show up here... Fire Star 17:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see any any conclusive evidence that ProjeX is a "sockpuppet." The account was started 4 Oct., while this vote started 5 Oct. I'm finding that the terms "sock puppet" and "troll" are being thrown around in increasingly inaccurate ways around here. ProjeX might just be a new user who's been editing as an anon for a while. I'm not suggesting that his vote should be counted, but I am suggesting that we should be careful about calling people names. func(talk) 02:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Quoted from Sock puppet - "When in doubt, follow the 100-edit rule." That account has far fewer edits to their name.  The note on the talk page (mentioned by Fire Star) from June probably indicates that the previous contributions were deleted for some reason.  In any case, this account won't likely be counted in the tally by the bureaucrat that promotes Fire Star.  This is not meant as an insult, just to flag that vote as probably invalid because "Sock puppets (are) forbidden from voting".  I would like to know what previous content has been posted by that account, in an attempt to perhaps discover who it is.  -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

There is a note on ProjeX's talk page from 13 June asking ProjeX to stop doing something or other, so he or she may have been editing that long ago, but there isn't any record of such activity on the "User contributions" history for that account. Curious... Fire Star 02:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Perry

Michael Perry was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

Michael Perry
There have been several incarnations of this article with variable contents, including pure nonsense generated by troll Haydes. However, present version seems to be about a completely different person than what the previous votes (below) were given for. Therefore I believe this is not a speedy candidate and am listing it here for a new round of voting. jni 15:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable person. jni 15:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company he founded seems quite significant. Perry also sold a domain name, wisdom.com, for $475,000 . Wikiquote has a page about him . (Edited by two registered users and a number of IPs — could be vanity to some extent.) — David Remahl 15:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to cleanup. Seems notable as David Remahl said. But it needs serious expansion. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 16:25, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - just some guy with a computer business. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. So is Bill Gates. Dr Zen 00:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I urge people to read the articles before voting. Some people don't.  There is nothing here except a guy who won an award from a magazine in 1991 and attracts gibberish authors/vandals.  Nothing in the article sets this person apart from 20,000 people.  Geogre 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an actual article would reduce the vandal problem. — David Remahl 09:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article could use some serious refactoring and expansion but the subject appears noteworthy enough.  —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but I would point out that on the basis of what's here, I bet at least 100 Wikipedia contributors could be made to sound at least this important. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 100 out of 140 000 (last I checked). So he's in the top 1/10th percentile, at least. Numbers to which Wikipedia aspires: As of 2003, there are about six billion human beings, each with their own life story. Billions more have lived and died in the past, although most of their lives are lost to history. — David Remahl 09:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Improv 07:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Marginal keep. What are the comments below? --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm just not seeing notability.  He had a company that doesn't even have a wikiarticle? - Lifefeed 21:14, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Old October 2004 discussion
Listed it as speedy delete but that was reverted so I'm putting it up here. Smells much like a vanity page / tissue of lies; I'm guessing that "one of the Internet's most visited websites" would have at least one Google hit?

Edit: I'm also guessing that the writer of this article and the writer of the MC article below are cooperating? Ziggurat 04:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete vanity/unnotable Wolfman 04:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity jni 08:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity, patently false claims, not notable. Average Earthman 09:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above --Ianb 10:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for above reasons. —tregoweth 16:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.   — Gwalla | Talk 19:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above — Bill 22:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that the Perryopolis, Pennsylvania article is a repeated anon vandal target.  More of the same.  RickK 23:30, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Myke MC

Big Myke MC
Non-notable (Google hits for "Big Myke MC": zero). —Tregoweth 04:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Try googling for Big Myke or Myke Reiser ... you get many hits. You can see his film reviews and listen to his songs once you get past the crap that's in Sweedish. -- User:130.49.4.182
 * No, Googling for those brings up less than 200 hits combined. Delete. -- [[User:Bobdoe| Bob Doe ]] 04:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete currently recording debut album, come back when it's actually recorded and selling Wolfman 04:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable jni 08:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.   — Gwalla | Talk 19:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Myke MC is a well-known rapper in Pittsburgh and a legend to anyone who's ever seen him perform. Let him stay. Keep it.wikimaster420 | Talk 20:39, 5 Oct 2004 (EST)
 * Please note that the above user is a repeated vandal who has been blocked for his vandalistic activities. RickK 23:29, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -He's as legit as Eminem was when he started 4.155.120.79 | Talk 20:46, 5 Oct 2004 (EST)
 * Only votes from logged-in users are counted. Also, Eminem (or anyone) would not be eligible for an article when just starting out; by definition, he wasn't notable yet. tregoweth 21:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Gamaliel 20:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Here is proof of his notoriety. This is from an article in the Pitt News. [Quote from  deleted.] bewareofthesteve 20:55, Oct 5, 2004 (EST)
 * I deleted the quote, which points out that Big Myke is performing at a local talent show. Also, there are no edits in bewareofthesteve's history. tregoweth 05:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Note also that Pitt News is a student newspaper for the University of Pittsburgh. --Improv 06:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yo, yo, yo! Delete! --Fastfission 04:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this small Frye. --Improv 19:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable. (Normally, I'd assume that the person taking action would disregard the new accounts and IP's voting.  I no longer have that faith.)  Geogre 20:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 00:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Shake Hands with the Devil (book)

Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda is a book by Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire of the Canadian Forces, with help from Major Brent Beardsley. It was first published by Random House Canada in September 2003. The book chronicles Dallaire's tour as Force Commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) in 1993–1994, during which he witnessed the 1994 Genocide Against Tutsi.

The book won the 2003 Shaughnessy Cohen Award for Political Writing, and 2004 Governor General's Award for nonfiction.

The edition published in French is entitled J'ai serré la main du diable: La faillite de l'humanité au Rwanda.

The documentary film Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire (2004) and a 2007 dramatic feature film are inspired by and in part based on the book. Dallaire was consulted in the making of both films.

Summary
More than 800,000 people are believed to have been killed in 100 days in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire witnessed these massacres. In Shake Hands with the Devil, he describes the dilemmas and atrocities to which he was exposed.

In the book Dallaire explains how, after arriving in Kigali in August 1993, he warned the UN high authorities that he lacked sufficient equipment and manpower to carry out his mission. However, a lack of clarity in the UN's intervention procedures coupled with the international community's apparent lack of interest in Rwanda meant that Dallaire's calls for help went unanswered.

From day to day the situation deteriorates until eventually the general's forces are left on their own, without fuel, money or adequate equipment. Meanwhile, encouraged by the ethnic hate propaganda of the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), Hutu militiamen attack their Tutsi victims while an army of exiles begins a civil war, from the northern border of the country, to take power. In Kigali, corpses of civilians killed by machetes begin piling up and many of the moderate politicians with whom Dallaire had the mandate to negotiate with are also murdered.

title: Shake Hands with the Devil (book)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality 3

Neutrality
(63/16/2) ends 04:06, 13 Oct 2004 '''This nomination is finished. This page is for the record only and shouldn't be changed.''' This is a tough one, with a mountain of votes, but many detailed objections.

 * I'd call this a "popcorn candidacy"—the timer's gone off, but the kernels are still popping.

 * Hopefully, a 24-hour extension may establish clearer consensus.

Great contributor, he's made thousands of great edits, it's about time he gets the job. GeneralPatton 04:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am humbled. Neutrality (talk) 04:10, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) GeneralPatton 04:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) kizzle 04:38, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) *Lots of edits, but an odd history. Take a look before tallying votes. -- Netoholic @ 03:57, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * 5) ℛ yan!  |  Talk  05:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Wolfman 06:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) David Gerard 11:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Strongly. One of the best contributors. 172 12:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Ambi 13:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) —No-One Jones (m) 13:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) BrokenSegue 19:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, but please get a more neutral username JFW | T@lk  20:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) ffirehorse 22:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Without a doubt. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:37, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 3) I support this user on a basis of his kindness and good edits, but I'd also like to make the following statement: a username should have NOTHING to do with one's request for adminship. User:Mydogategodshat, whom I have cited before, had the same problem, and that's quite possibly the most illogical reason (other than a few I've advanced, such as "this vote was disregarded") to oppose a nomination... ugen64 22:42, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Voting against him when your behavior isn't really spotless yourself...and then citing his USERNAME is just cockamamie. Mike H 23:15, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) I whole-heartedly support!! He has got to be one of the hardest working Wikipedians I have ever met!!  Not to mention an excellent writer and actually has tact when dealing with others.  Might I add he's quite the sweetheart once you get to know him.  --Gerald Farinas 23:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) The username criticism is just silly. Gamaliel 23:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Of course I support! He should have been made an administrator back in July. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) By all means. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 00:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Incredibly strong support. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  01:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Antandrus 01:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Mackensen 05:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) zoney ♣ talk 10:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13)  – Andre ( talk )  14:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Fire Star 18:57, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Support -- Neutrality's obviously deserving and dedicated.  I would offer a bit of advice, though -- had Mydogategodshat become an admin, I think he/she would have had to be careful in working with religious issues (I didn't object to the name at all, and supported adminship both times).  For the same reasons, I don't think Neutrality should feel forced to change his/her name, but I hope N. will consider being extra careful when interacting with new users, especially if admin powers are invoked -- despite my firm belief that N. should keep his/her name, I do feel there is a possibility of confusion for new editors.  I trust Neutrality to keep this in mind, and have great faith in N's ability to be a trustworthy admin. Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Of course! -- Emsworth 21:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes. :-) squash 21:10, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Yes, about time! :-) • Benc • 21:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) What? What?! WHAT??!! He is not an admin yet??!! Strongly support.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 02:15, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Have seen some of his great work. An excellent user. Also, I see little reason to be concerned about his username. --Slowking Man 05:06, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Yes, I strongly support this nomination. David Cannon 11:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ  |  ✉  20:05, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Strong support. AlistairMcMillan 23:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) →Raul654 02:16, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Acegikmo1 03:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:16, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Evercat 17:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 21:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Jiang 08:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) Is clearly qualified if Netoholic, Rex, Gzornenplatz and Xed all oppose. Snowspinner 16:13, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? --Lst27 00:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Meelar (talk) 16:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Graham ☺ | Talk 21:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * He welcomed me on arrival and has been friendly. I haven't followed his track record. --CloudSurfer 22:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * After reading some of Neutrality's heated and at times condescending replies to posts here I wish to withdraw my support. Cooler heads are needed for an admin. --CloudSurfer 02:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Danny 10:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I've stumbled across his edits fairly often. Don't see any reason not to vote yes. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞  21:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I've seen him a few times on IRC and on wiki, i've even had some sight problems with Neutrality, but overall he/she should be a sysop--Comrade Nick  @ )---^--  22:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - excellent contributor! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Tεx  τ  urε  02:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Me, I like the name. Names himself after something he (and we) theoretically strive for. That's a good thing. jpgordon {gab} 04:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) -JCarriker 05:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) GuloGuloGulo 08:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) * 140 edits, but please view their contribs when considering this vote. Not sure what to make of it, but shows history of voting on COTW and jumping into very involved discussions with very few article contribs. Pattern isn't typical for a new user. -- Netoholic @ 14:18, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * 4) I see no reason to oppose. {Ανάριον} 08:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) +sj + 10:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Devoted to quality; polite; talk pages no longer blanked.  Definite support.  (And as much as I pride myself on fending off comma-oppression, I hate to see two opposition votes rest on style manual disputes.)
 * 6) Support -- Gregg 11:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. -- Aaron Hill 11:30, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. - RedWordSmith 12:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. See my comment. – Quadell (talk) (help) 15:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, definitely. Jayjg 17:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I also responded to one of the Comments. Elf | Talk 01:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Fishboy 01:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) * Hello. 28 edits -- Netoholic @ 03:57, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * 14) Has done a lot of good work, and I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments. —Stormie 03:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Support -- Chris 73 Talk 03:48, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Support -- has done good work on variety of articles, and seems to be responsible on policy. --Improv 04:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I supported him last time, but he has behaved rather erratic lately. For example, by apologizing to a third party for something I supposedly did (which I didn't actually do, and even if I did, what business would it be for him to apologize for me?). Also turns out to be far from neutral; the flags on his userpage speak for themselves. Gzornenplatz 04:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *Comment: I don't think flags on his user page show a lack of Neutrality. Would you have made that comment if there was only an American flag? or a Chinese one? BrokenSegue 19:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **It's not the flags themselves, they just indicate where his POV lies, and he's pushing it elsewhere. See for example Template talk:Sep11, where he tries to claim a memorial wiki can be neutral. Gzornenplatz 20:44, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ***I think you are challenged in understanding this difference between being neutral on a topic and an encyclopedia presenting something from a NPOV. NPOV has to with presenting accurate information in a neutral voice. I don't think there are many people who challenge the idea that at least the people in the World Trade Center, a civilian facility attacked in peacetime, were innocents and can be described in an historical record. Do you think NPOV means that we have to memorialize the hijackers too? Or do you think we need to dig up evidence that the people in the towers may have deserved to die? -- Cecropia | Talk 02:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ****A "memorial" has nothing to do with a neutral voice. This title implies sympathy right there, it's "honouring the memory", which obviously has nothing to do with presenting accurate information. The decision to set up this wiki was made in the earlier days of Wikipedia and under the direct impression of the attacks, and I'm sure everyone including Jimbo Wales realizes now that it is irreconcilable with NPOV but no one wants to admit this now. An entire wiki being POV is of course something of an embarrassment, but it's still undeniable. Gzornenplatz 03:23, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I think his user name is problematic, it would be ingenuous to expect editors to actually be neutral; we are expected to edit by citing factual material and present it in neutral language. Beyond that, I am expressing no opinion for or against the candidate, and I'm not arguing with your right to support or oppose anyone for any reason whatsoever. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) *You voted for him before you voted against him? -- ℛ yan!  |  Talk  13:17, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) **Yes, yes, I was wrong the first time. It's hard work, you know. But anyone questioning my judgment on those matters may find this interesting. Gzornenplatz 19:05, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Netoholic @ 06:48, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) -- Uncivil. Hypocritically accused me of mis-conduct in removing user page comments, yet does so frequently himself.  Can't see him as being impartial in the future, particularly with those who have had negative interactions with him.  Username is misleading for such a position of responsibility, as expressed in his RFC.
 * 4) * Looking back at Neutrality's behaviour on his previous nomination offers to me an explanation for Neutrality's unusual silence on this page. It's not suprising that his response to User:Noisy was so snide. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * 5) ** You would hope if someone was going to accuse you of plagarism they would actually make sure they know what they are talking about first. The nationbynation site is blatantly thrown together just to stir up some ad revenue. AlistairMcMillan 02:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) ** Sorry for not being clear. I was responding to you.  Neutrality's response is not snide.  He is being accused of something that is blatantly false.  Instead of just voting one way or the other, Noisy is obviously just looking for something/anything to try to attack Neutrality's credibility. Neutrality's response seems perfectly justified. AlistairMcMillan 04:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) This guy is the very antithesis of his user name in my opinion. A competent contributor but not in my opinion an admin for all the reasons already stated.Sjc 05:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) BIG mistake! Pitchka 21:26, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, in light of Neutrality's apparent decision to completely ignore my comment below. RadicalSubversiv E 22:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Noisy | Talk 22:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Quite a turn-around in voting from the votes in Jul and Aug. I decided to see if it was justified, and found the user had made a copyvio in Geography of Bolivia.  Also, not impressed with the lack of use of Show preview, which indicates an overly hasty attitude.
 * EXCUSE ME?! You, sir, should apologize for your patently false claim. I take accusations of plagiarism and copyright violation very seriously. Anyone can see that the materials comes from the public domain Country Studies on the Library of Congress website, which clearly states "With the exception of some photographs, which are clearly marked in the photograph's caption, text and graphics contained in the Country Studies On-Line are not copyrighted. They are considered to be in the public domain and thus available for free and unrestricted use." I am very deeply offended at your hasty accusation; you didn't even bother to contact me before spreading your libelous and defaming accusation. I have never used copyrighted material or plagiarized, and am extraordinary upset at this slander. Do you not have any decency? Neutrality (talk) 00:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have investigated this myself and Neutrality is right. The text is in the public domain.  It is from the Library of Congress website link he supplied, under the "Natural Regions" section of the "Geography" section of "Chapter 2 - The Society and Its Environment".  Noisy, did you even consider the possibility that the website you are accusing him of plagiarising from  may have used public domain text itself?  Anyhow, the accusation you have made is incorrect, and while I'm sure it's nothing more than an honest mistake on your part, I believe you owe Neutrality an apology.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  01:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * In any case, this is still a matter of the content being copied verbatim, without even citing the source. The Library asks this and even offers their preferred citation format (which I added).  Citing sources you use as reference is already policy, but to not do it when you copy and paste full text into an article is poor judgement.  -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * Let's see. Your response to a mistake is a stream of invective ("An idiotic, offensive, and clearly false accusation." - Talk:Geography of Bolivia) and a demand for an apology, rather than an assumption of 'good faith' and some advice on how not to make that mistake next time.  (And no, I was not "just looking for something/anything to try to attack Neutrality's credibility." Someone else's assumption of bad faith!)  Hmm ... shall I change my vote?  Noisy | Talk 21:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to email me privately, leave a message on my talk page, or instant message me, then I would have assumed good faith. You chose to revert the edits, make a public accusation against me, and refuse to apologize. Not the best way to assume good faith. Neutrality (talk) 22:25, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't let Neuter fool you! When he was busy erasing pages that I worked on, I did try to get a dialog going with this guy, and got no response, so I'd revert the page back to an article and several days later this bozo would erase everything again and turn it into an unrelated redirect. He's going to be great! I guess he's kissed enough butts this time. Pitchka 13:59, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oi, don't be so rude and tacky. Mike H 18:06, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I told Neutrality before that I would never support him as a sysop for one reason. This simple reason is the fact his name is confusing to new users. Otherwise, he is OK and has always been civil to me. -- metta ,  T he S unborn   ☸  02:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Ditto #3.  -- η  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]  υωρ  17:19, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Given the importance of the neutral point of view in Wikipedia, I can't support a username of Neutrality, let alone allowing an admin to have it. — siro  χ  o  22:40, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) oppose Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] 06:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) * Since people have asked why I oppose Neutrality, here is an example why: At Lawrence v. Texas Neutrality went out of his way to stoke an edit war and at no time did he dialog on the talk page (see Talk:Lawrence v. Texas/Archive 1). In my opinion Neutrality is a bully and a left wing bigot. He goes out of his way to team up against agaisnt conservtives editors, even when they are 100% right. Also, please look at Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts. On that article, I tried to add important details about the historical significance about Dedham Massachusetts as it relates to the Establishment Clause and frankly, I think that the non-cooperating editor there ("Feldspar") is either Neutrality himself (as an alternative identitity) or another anti-conservative editor who works with him closely to hassle people. And even if I am wrong in that, go back and check my contributions list and you will see that Neutrality has hounded me from article to article (along with JamesMLane) to the point where this wiki has become a real drag. Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] 04:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) oppose - User is likely to become another rogue admin like User:Jayjg --- Xed 11:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) *While I definitely agree that Jayjg is indeed rogue (and should never have been given adminship in the first place), I strongly disagree that Neutrality would take the same path. Neutrality is honourable and trustworthy, and I value him highly as a contributor. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  02:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Strongly oppose, mainly due to his disregard of the Manual of Style and habit of not giving a description of his edits. Likely to ignore consensus and act in his own interests. —Wereon 21:29, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Hasn't shown what I consider to be good judgement in fights, and hasn't been much of a good example. His POV should be irrelevant, his ways is all that matters. ...and then the handle! Tuomas 10:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Seems to be too much stress on deleting stuff, and no one should be proud to have any involvement in driving a user away from the project. Gentgeen 09:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) He seems almost entirely incapable of using edit summaries, by the looks of his contributions. I can't trust someone who doesn't bother to explain themselves at the most simplest of levels. - 22:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee   (talk)
 * 12) uc 23:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC).  This is indeed a tough call.  I am impressed by Neutrality's contributions to articles on a wide variety of topics, by his efforts in securing quality photographs, and by his involvement.  My chief concern is an unwillingness to discuss work towards consensus.  His response citing procedural matters in the RFC regarding his username is a good example of this, since the matter has been on the minds of many in the community for some time and is deserving of discussion.  I am troubled by his unwillingness to at least adopt a different sig in light of the concerns expressed.  The RFC is not the only example, as there are several other legitimate matters where he has declined to respond.
 * I believe he did adopt a different signature recently. Acegikmo1 23:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. His comments here alone show that when confronted by someone of a different viewpoint, he's too excitable and offends easily, for my taste. BeakerK44 01:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *Welcome to WP, Beaker. You have 94 edits, by the way. Neutrality (hopefully!) 02:02, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **Has also been here since Jun 1 2004. I know we have a "100 edit" guideline, but this user's contribs don't show any indication this might be a sock puppet vote. Probably just someone with a legitimate opinion. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * 4) ***One of the points of the 100-edit guideline (IMO), which I think you don't really comprehend, is that users with fewer that 100 edits are unlikely to be familiar enough with a certain user or the project in general to form a "legitimate" opinion as to whether or not someone would make a good admin. blankfaze | (беседа!)  05:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) **** This user has 94 edits. I think you are to literal on the guideline. Are you saying that 6 edits later and you'd not have a problem?  -- Netoholic @ 06:33, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) V V 23:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) I remained concerned with his habits of (a) reverting edits without bothering to look at what they are , just because of the user making the edit (who may be offering a compromise), and (b) altering past comments and survey questions after the fact without making it clear history is being rewritten.  (a), and his general revert-happiness, is particularly worrisome in light of the rollback button.
 * 2) Changing my vote to neutral in recognition of Neutrality's response below. I continue to have concerns about his approach, but I appreciate him taking the time to answer and will defer to the community consensus on this one. Neutrality: I would implore you to always make liberal use of edit summaries and talk pages when using admin powers, regardless of what you think of the personalities involved. RadicalSubversiv E 17:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Unfortunately oppose. Neutrality's deliberate unwillingness to discuss a change despite repeated requests to do so at Talk:Orca leaves me no option but to believe his unwillingness to communicate would make him a poor administrator. Pcb21| Pete 07:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Though Neutrality has been considerably more polite than I managed to contain myself to be in the follow up debate that did eventually start. My vote should probably be discounted. Pcb21| Pete 16:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Pete, this is a close vote. Please don't be ambiguous. Please clearly support, oppose, strike out your vote or vote neutral. Thanks. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not certain that Neutrality is of the "wrong stuff", however I am still a little unsure. Because it is relatively easy to become an admin, but virtually impossible to be de-admined, I think it is appropriate to possibly err on the side of caution and vote against. Mine is the sort of vote that would likely change if there was a revote in a months time and all has gone well - I would write off my initial concerns as getting off on the wrong foot. Regardless of the actual percentages, I think such a cooling off period is probably appropriate in this case - with so many people (albeit a minority) expressing concerns, there is no harm in waiting. Pcb21| Pete 12:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I've moved this to neutral, because I think I was guilty of "assume the worst" before. Pcb21| Pete 07:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Previous nomination of Neutrality - withdrawn by Neutrality on Aug 17 2004
 * Requests for comment/Neutrality (regarding his user name) -- Netoholic @ 06:48, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

 * Obviously Neutrality is a hard-working contributor who's done some great things for the project. My limited encounters with him not long after he joined Wikipedia in May were less than positive (see the edit history and talk on Democratic Underground), but the contribs I've noticed from him since look good. I do see some people expressing concerns on his talk page, specifically about his blanking of comments. There's also the matter of the RFC about his username pointed to above. My concern isn't that Neutrality has done anything dangerously inappropriate, but that in my limited research, I don't see him responding to any of these criticisms or working through conflict, which is not desirable for an administrator. I'd like to see a fuller answer to Question 3 (how will you deal with conflict?) before casting a vote. RadicalSubversiv E 08:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair request, and I think that Neutrality should elaborate, rather than being concerned about keeping the vote tally updated . -- Netoholic @ 15:11, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
 * This, sir, is a cheap shot, and I find your tactics to be totally without honour. Why is it that you always seem to immeadiately follow a good, constructive comment with some snide remark or attempt to blacken someone's character? blankfaze |  (беседа!)  20:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Not meant to be a cheap shot, only included the links to show that, since the time Radicalsubversive posted this, Neutrality has at least twice edited this page without responding to it. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
 * Regarding blanking of comments: I put a msg on his talk page asking why he had done so in one article; he in fact responded on my talk page with a valid reason why and also stated that he had no problem if I thought they ought to be replaced. I have had only good encounters with N.; I do think that he overreacts a bit (e.g., response to copyvio accusation above; previous nomination issues) but my impression overall is that his contributions are good. Elf | Talk 01:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Cecropia and I were looking at this vote (see our talk pages), and because some people seem to have very strong feelings, the two of us have informally agreed to defer making a decision for a day. Feedback is of course welcome.  Pakaran. 04:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be more than happy to change my vote if Neutrality responded here to some of the concerns, or even gave some indication of what his approach to handling such criticism as an administrator would be. RadicalSubversiv E

 * Comment: This isn't a vote for Neutrality as Featured Contributer Candidate. This is about whether he would use sysop powers responsibly. As we all know, this should be "no big deal". He may sometimes be rude, and his judgement lapses at times, but looking through his history it seems obvious to me that he would use his sysop powers to improve Wikipedia. Even if I didn't like him personally, I would support his nomination. I also think people are holding him to a higher standard because of his username, which isn't fair. As he says on his userpage, it's not a claim, it's a reminder. (As an asside, Neutrality, if you changed your sig to something like "Neutrality (hopefully)" or "Neutrality (is my goal)" it might be less confusing for people.)
 * Also, looking over the "oppose" votes, these are the primary reasons given. (I apologize in advance if I misunderstand anyone's reasoning.)
 * 6 users opposed primarily because of Neutrality's comments on talk pages that, while not abusive, rubbed them the wrong way. These are Gzornenplatz, Netoholic, sjc (presumably), Noisy, Tuomas, and eequor.
 * 2 users opposed primarily because of his name. These are Sunborn and Siroxo.
 * 2 users opposed primarily because of a lack of communication. RadicalSubversive and pcb1.
 * 2 users opposed for what I consider the only legitimate reason (but that's just my opinion) – concern that he would abuse his sysop powers. Wereon and Xed.
 * 3 users opposed, but did not explain why. Pitchka, Rex071404, and Tuomas.
 * So, Neutrality, if you can address any of these, consensus might be easier. – Quadell (talk) (help) 15:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality is the worst kind of "drive-by" editor I've ever seen on this Wiki. It is common for him to make an edit and then keep on going, without ever stopping to explain himself, even when asked. That accusation he made and his subsequent non-responses (both on the RFC and here) are a symptom of the greater problem. I can't tell you how many of these drive-by edits I personally have reversed. This isn't out of dislike for him, but for the fact that his changes have no regard for the discussions or history of the page involved. He is a very prodigious editor, being bold and all, but has not apparently felt the need to explain his changes or even to defend them. His remarkable silence on this voting page also shows this distain for conversation. No, he is not going to be a good admin, because these abilities will only widen the range of his "drive-by" antics and foster more serious discord. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * I noted in my vote above about a hypocritical accusation on a formal RFC, not some "rubbed me the wrong way" Talk page comment, as Quadell has characterized it. I see no honor in that sort of double-standard and band-wagoning.

 * No, this is not my reason for voting as I did. My reasons are three-fold: 1) I do have a problem with the argumentative style that Neutrality displays, which seems to involve an assumption of bad faith as the first port of call.  2) From some of the edits that I reviewed, it seems that the edits are piece-meal, un-previewed, rather than thought out prior to submission.  3) There are gaps in the application of policy, such as that on the Geography of Bolivia page (as identified by Netoholic), where an attribution of the copied text on the talk page would have alerted me to the fact that the text that I found on the web through a Google text search was itself an (unattributed) copy from the U.S. Federal site.  Any one of these might have been something to be forgiven, and susceptible to pursuasion that the habits could be modified.  Unfortunately, the opportunity slipped through the net when my mistake was met with an assumption of bad faith and a demand for an apology.  I've got a poor track record of responding to demands, I'm afraid: I'm more likely to respond to pursuasion.  This user just needs a few more months on Wikipedia to learn how to deal with conflict and consider responses for just that little bit longer before jumping in.  (This is particularly relevant with a sysop having the revert button.)  My assessment remains unchanged.  Noisy | Talk 18:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Xed and I have had some bad blood between us, and it's mostly my fault. I said some things I shouldn't have, and regret this now. As a side note, I fully support Xed's CROSSBOW and CSB programs, and plan to contribute some myself (mainly expanding historically black colleges/university stubs) and some country-related articles. Also note blankfaze’s comments above.
 * We haven't any bad blood. I was just amazed someone so unsuitable should be up for admin. Perhaps they fall for the Uriah Heep act. Also, the CSB project isn't mine. --- Xed 22:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Gz and I also have had a few differences of opinion. While I don’t think everything Gz does is correct, I think he’s a good person. His opposition, I believe, stems from a particular disagreement over Template:9/11, as well as the flags on my userpage (the latter I certainly make no apologies for).
 * I never had any problems with Noisy until this nomination, so I have no idea what the opposition vote is for. I think Noisy was extremely rude when s/he reverted my changes as a “copyvio” and publicly made an accusation that I had “made a copyvio,” when that indisputably false. As a side note, h/she has not apologized.
 * I like Eequor. Don’t know why he voted against me. Haven’t had much contact with sjc, or Tuomas.
 * Sunborn and Siroxo’s objections should be somewhat mollified by my new signature.
 * Pete is a nice guy and a good user. He objected over a minor dispute on an article about, of all things, killer whales. I’m hoping he’ll change his mind.
 * Wereon I have very little respect for, as he seems bent on changing every article to British English style. Just today he reverted a change from “AD” to “CE” without any logical reason. To be honest, I consider him a very rude user.
 * Rex071404 has had multiple issues in dealing with the community (see the multiple Arbitration Committee proceedings). He left Wikipedia, but apparently came back to vote against me. He then disappeared again. Pitchka… well, look through his edit history.
 * Finally, the most complex case, RadicalSubversive. To answer your question, I would have to say this: the best way to deal with conflict is not to get into it at all. Some pages have “bad karma” and are best avoided. Sometimes conflict is inevitable and must be faced. In these cases, it is my belief that problems are worked out multilaterally and with wider community input.
 * I don’t understand Gentgeen’s comments at all, particularly the part about “proud to have any involvement in driving a user away from the project.” I suppose s/he is referring to Rex071404, but don’t understand exactly how I had any involment in “driving him away” or had previously expressed any “pride” in doing so.” I hope Gentgeen will have a change of heart on this. Neutrality (hopefully!) 16:42, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * To be honest, all of this seems more like you're just placating. Whatever their reasons, the bureaucrats extended this vote for one day. You spent it trying to garner votes by contacting users on their Talk pages, rather than responding to these concerns here. Had you responded early on, you may have earned some respect from many involved.  At this point though, I hope the bureaucrats see this for what it is.  P.S. How come haven't responded to my concerns above? -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
 * I don't think Neutrality is trying to "garner" votes; rather, I think he's just trying to make a few SANE people aware that he's up for adminship. A LOT of problem users and/or sockpuppets have voted against him, and most of the other people voting against him have wholly ridiculous reasons for doing so (manual of style and username concerns).  Thus, even IF Neutrality WAS trying to shore up some support votes, I think he's entitled to.  Additionally, I think it's a really lousy of you to chastise Neutrality for his "unusual silence" and then, when he attempts to address issues and respond to people, call him "placating". blankfaze |  (беседа!)  21:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * He contacted three users - big deal. Does anyone else find it a little odd that the same user who tried to bend the rules in order to make Sam Spade a sysop is so keen to block Neutrality's promotion? At the least, it shows very poor judgement of character. (Anon comment.)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Speedy deletion, new page patrol, and the severely neglected WP:IFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, and WP:TFD.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. It's difficult to pick just one- my Wikipedia experiences have been very positive. I'm very proud of having categorized hundreds of images by copyright status, and of subcategorizing U.S. Government images by agency. I'm also proud of being involved in WP:LI and doing lots of tagging as far as stubs and categories.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. At various times I may have incurred the anger of various users - both right-wing and left-wing. I apologize for my lapses of judgement that I - as have us all – have done. The only serious conflict I've had was with a user that was severely disruptive. In the end the user was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee and left Wikipedia.


text:
Peruvian Air Force

The Peruvian Air Force (Fuerza Aérea del Perú, FAP) is the branch of the Peruvian Armed Forces tasked with defending the nation and its interests through the use of air power. Additional missions include assistance in safeguarding internal security, conducting disaster relief operations and participating in international peacekeeping operations.

20th century
On 20 May 1929, the aviation divisions of the Peruvian Army and Navy were merged into the Cuerpo de Aviación del Perú (Peruvian Aviation Corps, abbreviated CAP). During the Colombia-Peru War of 1933, its Vought O2U Corsair and Curtiss F11C Hawk planes fought in the Amazon region. The CAP lost three aircraft to the Colombian Air Force. The corps was renamed Cuerpo Aeronáutico del Perú (Peruvian Aeronautical Corps, also abbreviated CAP) on 12 March 1936.

Ecuadorian–Peruvian War
In 1941, the CAP participated in the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War. At that time, the CAP were equipped with Caproni Ca.114 and North American NA.50 Torito fighters, Douglas DB-8A-3P attack aircraft, and Caproni Ca.135 Tipo Peru and Caproni Ca.310 Libeccio bombers, among others.

The Peruvian Air Force had also established a paratroop unit during the war and used it to great effect by seizing the strategic Ecuadorian port city of Puerto Bolívar, on 27 July 1941, marking the first time in the Americas that airborne troops were used in combat.

Lieutenant José Quiñones Gonzales was a Peruvian pilot during the war. On 23 July 1941, his plane, a North American NA-50 fighter, was hit while performing a low-level attack on an Ecuadorian border post on the banks of the Zarumilla river. According to traditional Peruvian accounts, Quiñones, upon being hit by ground fire, crashed his damaged aircraft deliberately into the Ecuadorian anti-aircraft position, destroying it. He was promoted posthumously to captain, and is today considered a National Hero of Peru.

In 1942, an aerial photography service was annexed to the air force.

Cold War
During the 1950s presidency of General Manuel A. Odría, the Peruvian Air Force was reorganized and on 18 July 1950, had its name changed to the Fuerza Aérea del Perú (Air Force of Peru, or FAP). Peru was an ally of the United States during this period, and was predominantly equipped with aircraft built in the US and Great Britain. By the end of General Odria's presidency, the FAP ushered in the Jet Age with the introduction of English Electric Canberra bombers and Hawker Hunter, Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star and North American F-86 Sabre fighters.

However, on 3 October 1968, a military junta led by pro-Soviet Peruvian Army General Juan Velasco Alvarado organized a swift and bloodless coup d'état against president Fernando Belaúnde Terry. Velasco aligned Peru more closely with the Soviet Bloc and relations with the United States deteriorated. The US declared an arms embargo in 1969, making it difficult to obtain spare parts for Peru's American weaponry. In the 1970s and 1980s, Peru turned to the Soviet Union for its military hardware. During this time, the FAP acquired several Soviet-made aircraft, including Sukhoi Su-22 fighters, Antonov An-26 and An-32 transport aircraft, as well as Mil Mi-8, Mi-17, Mi-25 and Mi-26 helicopters. Soviet advisors were also dispatched to Peru.

Velasco was overthrown by other military officers in 1975 and Belaúnde returned to power as a civilian president in 1980. The FAP purchased the French-made Mirage 5P and 5DP and the Mirage 2000 in 1984. Relations improved with the United States and the FAP obtained American aircraft like the Cessna A-37B Dragonfly attack aircraft, as well as Lockheed C-130 and L-100-20 Hercules transport aircraft.

Stagnation
The stagnation of the Peruvian economy during the late 1980s and early 1990s forced cost reductions and the downsizing of the fleet size. Budget cuts in training meant Peruvian pilots had a low number of annual flying hours (AFH) per pilot if compared to the 1970s. The number of annual flying hours is of course very important in estimating the individual skill and experience of the pilots of an air force: more annual flying hours suggests better trained pilots and general readiness. There are also a number of possible explanations for FAP's low AFH: concern over the aging of equipment, scarcity of spare parts – especially for the older aircraft – difficulties with worn airframes and the scarcity of fuel are all contributing factors. It is very likely however that some 'elite' pilots and regiments such as those based in Talara AFB and La Joya AFB received considerably more flying hours. Especially since those regiments until today are equipped with modern aircraft and tasked with homeland defence.

Cenepa War
The Peruvian Air Force participated in the 1995 Cenepa War against Ecuador's Air Force in the Amazon Basin. It provided aerial support to the Peruvian army, carrying out bombings with Mi-25 helicopters, Canberra bombers, A-37 and Su-22 aircraft. Due to a lack of reliable roads, troops were transported by Mi-17 helicopters, as well as L-100 Hercules, An-28 and An-32 aircraft. During the course of the war, at least two helicopters were shot down.

Fujimori government
In 1997 and 1998, the FAP's outlook started to change for the better. In order to achieve president Alberto Fujimori's militarily bold plans, it meant that FAP required a much-needed general overhaul and new purchases.

In 1997, the FAP acquired 21 MiG-29 fighters and 18 Su-25 attack fighters from Belarus. In 1998, an additional three MiG-29 fighters were bought from Russia, which, along with the 12 Mirage 2000 fighters purchased from France's Dassault Aviation in 1984, made a total of 54 fighters in Peru's inventory.

These purchases were expensive and a number of observers questioned their usefulness against more pressing security concerns at the time such as the Marxist guerillas, the Sendero Luminoso group (translated as Shining Path). On the other hand, the FAP still remembered the 1995 Cenepa War with Ecuador, and stationed its MiG-29s close to the border at Chiclayo AFB and Talara AFB.

21st century
Peru's Mirage 2000C/B and MiG-29S fighters form the backbone of its current multirole fighter fleet, alongside specialized Su-25 close air support jets. Its Mirage 2000Ps sit at La Joya AFB near the border with Bolivia and Chile; the 3 Andean countries have a minor 3-way maritime borders dispute, and residual tensions with historical foe Chile have been a long-running issue in Peru.

RAC MiG began the upgrade of FAP's MiG fleet to the MiG-29SMT external link standard in 2008. In 2009, Dassault began working with Peru on a comprehensive inspection of the Mirage fleet, coupled with some electronics modernization.

Since 2013, Peru is in talks with European suppliers as part of a long-term plan of replacing FAP's aging air force aircraft with second-hand Su-35s, Rafales or Eurofighters. Hitherto, FAP was exploring the possibility of buying as many as sixty Eurofighter Typhoon EF-2000 from Spain and sixty Sukhoi Su-35 from Russia. Cost was a major issue for Peruvian President Ollanta Humala, who was looking at competitively priced fighter jets that would fit the national budget. In 2014, Peru began to update the operations and mechanical equipment of its Cessna A-37 aircraft, replacing analog controls with new digital hardware. Peru has been evaluating multiple helicopters to modernize, replace previous utility helicopters and search and rescue operations with the Italian made, AW139. The purchase would consist of 12 helicopters for a total of $193 million.

Following the unveiling of the KAI KF-21 Boramae in April 2021, The National Interest reported that Peru may be a potential customer for the 4.5 generation fighter.

Air Wing Nº 1

 * Air Group Nº 6 – headquarters: Chiclayo
 * Air Squadron 612 ("Fighting Roosters" combat squadron operating MiG-29S | MiG-29SE | MiG-29SMP | MiG-29UBP)
 * Air Group Nº 7 – headquarters: Piura
 * Air Squadron 711 ("Scorpions" combat squadron operating Cessna A-37 Dragonfly)
 * Air Group Nº 11 – headquarters: Talara
 * Air Squadron 112 ("Tigers" combat squadron operating Su-25UB)

Air Wing Nº 2

 * Air Group Nº 3 – headquarters: Callao
 * 315 Helicopter Squadron (operating MBB Bo 105)
 * Helicopter Squadron 332 (operating Bell 212, Agusta-Bell AB-412SP)
 * Helicopter Squadron 341 (operating Mi-8 MTV-1, Mi-17 H/1B | Mi-171Sh)
 * Air Group Nº 8 – headquarters: Callao
 * Transport Squadron 841 (operating Boeing B-737-200, Boeing 737-500)
 * Transport Squadron 842 (operating L-100-20 Hercules)
 * Transport Squadron 843 (operating An-32B)
 * Transport Squadron 844 (operating C-27J Spartan)
 * Directorate of Air Surveillance and Recognition (DIVRA) & National Aerial Photography Service (SAN) – Headquarters: Lima
 * Air Squadron 330 (operating UAS FAP Mk1, Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Drone FAP Mk5 and Mk6)
 * Air Squadron 331 (operating Learjet 35 equipped with metric aerial cameras Leica RC-30 and GPS Trimble R7 GNSS)
 * Air Squadron 334 (operating Fairchild C-26 Metroliner, Twin Commander 690B)
 * EFOPI – Pilot Training School (former Air Group Nº 51) – Headquarters: PiscoKAI KT-1 Woongbi Peru.jpg]]
 * Air Squadron 510 (basic training operating Schweizer S-300C)
 * Air Squadron 511 (basic training operating Zlin Z-242)
 * Air Squadron 512 (basic training operating KAI KT-1P)
 * Air Squadron 513 (advanced training operating KAI KT-1P)

Air Wing Nº 3

 * Grupo Aéreo Nº 2 – headquarters: Vítor (Arequipa)
 * Air Squadron 211 (Attack Helicopter Squadron "Dragons of the Air" operating Mi-25 D/DU and Mi-35 P)
 * Grupo Aéreo Nº 4 – headquarters: La Joya (Arequipa)
 * Air Squadron 412 ("Hawks" combat squadron operating Mirage 2000 P/DP)
 * Command School FAP – headquarters: La Joya (Arequipa)
 * Puerto Maldonado Air Base
 * Tacna Air Detachment

Air Wing Nº 4

 * Air Group Nº 42 – headquarters: Iquitos
 * Air Squadron 421 (operating DHC-6 and Y-12)
 * Air Squadron 422 (operating PC-6)
 * Santa Clara Air Base – headquarters: Iquitos

Ranks

 * Commissioned officers

 * NCOs and enlisted

title: Peruvian Air Force


text:
G7 Welcoming Committee Records

G7 Welcoming Committee Records was a Canadian independent record label based in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The label mostly released material by artists and speakers with a radical left-wing point of view.

History
G7 Welcoming Committee Records was founded by Chris Hannah and Jord Samolesky of punk band, Propagandhi, and their friend, Regal, in 1997. The label operated out of Winnipeg's The Old Market Autonomous Zone. During its years of operation about 50 albums were released.

The label ceased operations in April 2008 although it did briefly come out of hibernation in 2010 to release a 3-track EP of Propagandhi songs from 1993 to 1996 as a benefit for Partners In Health.

In early 2015, it was announced on the G7 website that none of their previous releases were available for purchase as either physical copies or downloadable albums, but that most of their catalog was available on music streaming sites.

Political aspect
According to the G7 website, when the label was established, the founders hoped "to create a label that politically radical bands and speakers could unflinchingly support and call home; where the driving force behind the label's output was social change and radical thought; and where the structure of the organization didn't contradict itself by mimicking the structures of unbalanced power and hierarchy in the profit-driven corporate world." To this end the label incorporates the economic structure Parecon proposed by Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert.

The name is a reference to the G7 which brings together the world's richest and most powerful countries in yearly summits to discuss the global political and economic society and to make collective decisions. The label's website explains, "The G7 Welcoming Committee is an idea of resistance [...] A 'Welcoming Committee' to tell them, with words and actions, what we think of their power and neo-colonialism, around the world and at home, and that people are willing to fight back ..."

Associated bands
The following artists have released albums on G7:

 * Bakunin's Bum
 * ...But Alive
 * Che: Chapter 127
 * Clann Zú
 * Consolidated
 * GFK
 * Giant Sons
 * Head Hits Concrete
 * Hiretsukan
 * The (International) Noise Conspiracy
 * I Spy
 * Jamaica Plain
 * Greg MacPherson
 * Malefaction
 * Mico
 * Painted Thin
 * Propagandhi
 * Randy
 * The Rebel Spell
 * Red Fisher
 * Rhythm Activism
 * John K. Samson
 * Subhumans
 * Submission Hold
 * Swallowing Shit
 * warsawpack
 * The Weakerthans

It also carries spoken word material by Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Ann Hansen, and Howard Zinn.

Compilation albums

 * Return of the Read Menace (1999)
 * Take Penacilin Now (2005)

title: G7 Welcoming Committee Records


text:
Template talk:WikiProjectCSBTasks

Archive 1

The following are guidelines for the tasks template:
 * Everyone is invited to add articles that they feel would benefit from the attention to the invisible queue in the template. If an article has been on the template for a while, feel free to rotate it with an article from the queue, and either delete the old item or move it the bottom of the queue.
 * Any item on the template must also be on CSB Open Tasks, so that when items are rotated out the article doesn't disappear from CSB view.
 * The template should be relatively succint. When putting a new item on the template, it is preferable to replace an old article rather than simply tacking on another article.  Be bold about this; if someone feels the replaced article still needs help, it will make its way back on the template eventually.
 * There should be a balance of different CSB areas on the template. If one topic area, such as Africa or Women's Studies, appears to dominate, please replace some articles with those from an under-represented field.

Redundant link

 * Hey, what's up with the redundant link back to the template on the period?--Dmcdevit 21:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. It was an artifact from an earlier version of the template.  I've removed it. -   Banyan Tree  21:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Process problem
So, seeing the article request for African American literature I write what I openly admit was little more than a cursory stub, and (because an article now exists) it is removed from the visible portion of the template, rather than, say, moved to the expansion list? So, by writing a stubby article, I end up decreasing its visiblity as something that needs to be attended to? This seems wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that looks like a process problem indeed. I'm of the opinion that every link should stay at 'Article requests' for some time, even if the link has become blue. A blue link at that line signals a very fresh article that definitely needs to be looked at (something I actually did when it was still listed there). I've pulled out the request for Tense (linguistics) for now because there is already some work slowly in progress at Grammatical tense/multilingual sources; and I've moved African American literature back in to get it the attention it deserves. Thanks for giving it a flying start!  — mark ✎ 23:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I see what you mean, but creating a stub allows another needed article to be visible, and anyway, it can now go to the "expand" section. "Requests" is for nonexsistent articles, so while it still needs to be expanded, it just doesn't belong there. Maybe you should rotate out something in "expand" for AAL.--Dmcdevit 23:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (Wow, edit conflict madness.) The obvious way to spread the attention around is to rotate articles from the top of the queue into the visible section regularly so articles don't languish in the commented out portions. Requested articles are listed exactly so that anybody with a bit of relevant knowledge or enough time to do a bit of research can get the ball rolling.  If there was a fantastically knowledgeable editor who was eager to start the article, it wouldn't be on the template in the first place.  The fact that you saw the article request on the template and made a great start on the article that allows further item rotation seems to me to be exactly the way an open tasks template should work.  -   BanyanTree 23:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pullman Company
Recent edit summary asks why the Pullman Company is here. A century ago, it was the single largest employer of African Americans (as Pullman porters) and is generally credited the most important economic engine in the creation of the African American middle class (partly because a lot of those porters put their sons and daughters through college, etc., not to mentions some fortunes made on overheard insider stock tips). I could go on—the story is complicated, and includes a none-too-glorious role for Robert Todd Lincoln, son of the Emancipator—but I presume that is enough to explain why it's here. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the effect of the Pullman strike on labor relations and socialism in the US. --Dmcdevit 01:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm the writer of the original query. Thanks for everyone's responses.  But after looking at it a bit more closely, I have a different question.  The objections of the original request for attention seem to have been largely met - too short, no mention of Robert Todd Lincoln.  A new article, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, has also since been created with much more detail on the role of Pullman among African Americans.  I see that much more could be written and perhaps the article could be slightly restructured to emphasize the impact of African Americans, but in general I find the article to be decently well-rounded with no unforgiveable flaws.  I had a similar reaction to Desmond Tutu, which was on the template recently.  (Admittedly, I spend a decent amount of time looking at Africa geo stubs so I find anything beyond three paragraphs to be epic.)

 * The question is: When is an article good enough to be taken off the open tasks list? nixie seems to be making a similar observation on CSB talk.  Right now there seems to be a reluctance to move articles off for fear of offending the user who put it on.  In cases like Pullman Company and Desmond Tutu, where the initial objections appear to have been addressed, someone may have to jump into the line of fire and start pulling articles into "Done".  At least it might result in a tidying of the page, some updated objections (which are incredibly important with requests for attention), and hopefully clarify what the consensus "still needs work/good enough" line is.  nixie's proposal may be a good start.  Anyone else as confused as me? -   BanyanTree 02:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (hmm... right now I'm not convinced anyone is fulfilling these tasks because of this template; perhaps it needs more publicity) but in any case, I'm in favor of moving the articles past as quickly as possible. In my mind the idea is to get at least one user interested who will sustain edits even if it is taken off. The more articles filtered past (assuming others are seeing this) the more likelyhood something will catch someone's eye. If something is not being edited for a while, it would be better to move it to standby and rotate in something else that might pique someone else's interest. Otherwise it will stagnate with non-interest-inspiring articles forever. So I would say rotate as soon as we see a (content) change in the article, (or any kind of creation for requests). This is the philosophy I follow for the main Open Tasks template. --Dmcdevit 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I certainly eventually reach a breaking point with Requested articles for Great Lakes (Africa) conflicts. The red words taunt me every time I go to my talk page, and then I give in and have to click on the link.  I'm in a twelve-step program to get over it.

 * Anyway, perhaps my comments belong on the open tasks page talk as most of my comments were addressing its structure, though it of course ends up reflecting in the template. The Pullman discussion sparked some thoughts so I responded here.  Sorry for the confusion. -   BanyanTree 03:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * BanyanTree: I didn't go look at the present state of the article before posting my initial comment above; I assumed the implicit question was "why would this corporation qualify for CSB", not "why would someone say this article needs improvement". I believe that when I put it on the list some time last year, it was barely a stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * That actually was my initial question, and thanks for the quick response. The follow-on question popped up after your and Dmcdevit's response, when I actually read the article and started wondering what was wrong with it. -   BanyanTree 14:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Publicity
In an effort to get this more publicity, I've changed the box and background so I could put it on the Community Portal. Perhaps we'll want to create a second one to keep the old design. But then again I'm also afraid the backlash on Comm. Portal will change it back. See if you can make it look nicer for the big time. In any case, it's an easily revertible move if you all don't like it. I'm just Being Bold! --Dmcdevit 04:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out why the <> > characters appear in the upper left of the box now. Can someone who knows how please fix it. -   BanyanTree 15:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Been fixed :) --Dmcdevit 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, that one was tricky. It took me a while before I found it. I randomly commented out parts untill I found it. Jeltz talk  10:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Odd request
A request (ie. red) is entitled Women's history? First of all, I do not know what is meant by this to be able to make it correct. History of women sounds odd (though it could be done). Alternative titles: History of women's rights or Social history of women? Any ideas? --Oldak Quill 09:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The request on the actual open tasks page states: History of women or Women's history or whatever, we don't seem to have one (though we do have History of women in the United States), if that helps. The first line of History of women in the U.S. is "This is a history of feminism and the role of women throughout the history of the United States." so maybe a global article is requested. -   BanyanTree 12:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand the aim, I was mainly querying the naming. I will rename to "History of women" now. --Oldak Quill 17:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

image
I notice that Image:Anti-systemic flag geog.jpg has been re-added for the template. Any reason for this? It's about enough to put me entirely off of the project, and I doubt I'm alone in that. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that strongly about it, however, the 'todo' picture was far better. — mark ✎ 08:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This symbol seems to practically announce "We are POV warriors, and maybe not very ethical". I will have no part of that. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was "put in CSB pic, clipboard is redundant on CP". I've changed it back since people seem to like the clipboard graphic better. -   BanyanTree 16:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Jmabel, I agree that that's the impression the flag gives, with the pirate feeling and all (although when looking closer it becomes apparent that it is actually a rather clever way of visualizing the systemic bias; I think the pirate association was not intended). — mark ✎ 17:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to put me entirely off the project, but I'd rather we didn't have it. It looks like the flag of the United Nations Pirate Agency or something. If we need to have a little logo even a globe or something would be better, to emphasise our aim of achieving balanced coverage of the whole world, but really we don't need our own symbol, the clipboard will do fine. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmph, I'm the one that put it in, but I had no idea it would be controversial. I just noticed that The main Open Tasks has the clipboard, so I thought this one should have a different picture, it is redundant. So, with this thought in mind, I looked through the CSB and saw this pic (which had also been on the old CSBCOTW template). I don't mind if you want it changed, but I still think we should have a different one. I hadn't even thought on the pirate association. We could go with this one... Thoughts? --Dmcdevit 22:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) [[Image:Anti-systemic flag orange.jpg|100px|right]]
 * That would be harmless. But what's wrong with the clipboard? This is a template, the fact that there is one context in which it is used that there is another clipboard... so what? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not a big deal, but the main formatting concern for this should be for the Community Portal, as that's where most see it. After all, we vary line length, color, etc. to fit on CP, so why not picture. Plus, contrasted with the ordinary clipboard, I thought this would draw the eye's attention. Or something. --Dmcdevit 04:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know where it says "do not make the line too long"...
Hi, in the template it says "do not make the line too long", well... I've moved the blue links into this section and it's now 2 very long lines. Should we trim a few? Addhoc 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved the second line into standby, hope that's ok... Addhoc 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11
I added the 9/11 attacks to the list. It is perhaps the most systemically biased article on wikipedia. The section on conspiracy theories omits to mention several things that raise THE most serious questions about the validity of the official story. One of the things that isn't mentioned is that two police officers who were at the CITGO gas station near the pentagon at the moment of the attack saw the plane come in from a completely different angle than the one required by the physical damage recorded afterwards. They both said on camera they would be willing to testify in front of a court of law. Lots of people have attempted to include this fact into the article, and someone (a moderator, I guess) keeps editing it back and threatening that wikipedia is not a soap-box, and you will be banned if you do this again. I have no idea who is doing this but I urge anyone and everyone to attempt to include the missing information to the 9/11 attacks article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppk55 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Template talk:WikiProjectCSBTasks


text:
Recuperator

A recuperator is a special purpose counter-flow energy recovery heat exchanger positioned within the supply and exhaust air streams of an air handling system, or in the exhaust gases of an industrial process, in order to recover the waste heat. Generally, they are used to extract heat from the exhaust and use it to preheat air entering the combustion system. In this way they use waste energy to heat the air, offsetting some of the fuel, and thereby improve the energy efficiency of the system as a whole.

Description
In many types of processes, combustion is used to generate heat, and the recuperator serves to recuperate, or reclaim this heat, in order to reuse or recycle it. The term recuperator refers as well to liquid-liquid counterflow heat exchangers used for heat recovery in the chemical and refinery industries and in closed processes such as ammonia-water or LiBr-water absorption refrigeration cycle.

Recuperators are often used in association with the burner portion of a heat engine, to increase the overall efficiency. For example, in a gas turbine engine, air is compressed, mixed with fuel, which is then burned and used to drive a turbine. The recuperator transfers some of the waste heat in the exhaust to the compressed air, thus preheating it before entering the fuel burner stage. Since the gases have been pre-heated, less fuel is needed to heat the gases up to the turbine inlet temperature. By recovering some of the energy usually lost as waste heat, the recuperator can make a heat engine or gas turbine significantly more efficient.

Energy transfer process
Normally the heat transfer between airstreams provided by the device is termed as "sensible heat", which is the exchange of energy, or enthalpy, resulting in a change in temperature of the medium (air in this case), but with no change in moisture content. However, if moisture or relative humidity levels in the return air stream are high enough to allow condensation to take place in the device, then this will cause "latent heat" to be released and the heat transfer material will be covered with a film of water. Despite a corresponding absorption of latent heat, as some of the water film is evaporated in the opposite airstream, the water will reduce the thermal resistance of the boundary layer of the heat exchanger material and thus improve the heat transfer coefficient of the device, and hence increase efficiency. The energy exchange of such devices now comprises both sensible and latent heat transfer; in addition to a change in temperature, there is also a change in moisture content of the exhaust air stream.

However, the film of condensation will also slightly increase pressure drop through the device, and depending upon the spacing of the matrix material, this can increase resistance by up to 30%. If the unit is not laid to falls, and the condensate not allowed to drain properly, this will increase fan energy consumption and reduce the seasonal efficiency of the device.

Use in ventilation systems
In heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, HVAC, recuperators are commonly used to re-use waste heat from exhaust air normally expelled to atmosphere. Devices typically comprises a series of parallel plates of aluminium, plastic, stainless steel, or synthetic fiber, copper alternate pairs of which are enclosed on two sides to form twin sets of ducts at right angles to each other, and which contain the supply and extract air streams. In this manner heat from the exhaust air stream is transferred through the separating plates, and into the supply air stream. Manufacturers claim gross efficiencies of up to 95% depending upon the specification of the unit.

The characteristics of this device are attributable to the relationship between the physical size of the unit, in particular the air path distance, and the spacing of the plates. For an equal air pressure drop through the device, a small unit will have a narrower plate spacing and a lower air velocity than a larger unit, but both units may be just as efficient. Because of the cross-flow design of the unit, its physical size will dictate the air path length, and as this increases, heat transfer will increase but pressure drop will also increase, and so plate spacing is increased to reduce pressure drop, but this in turn will reduce heat transfer.

As a general rule a recuperator selected for a pressure drop of between 150 - 250 Pa will have a good efficiency, while having a small effect on fan power consumption, but will have in turn a higher seasonal efficiency than that for physically smaller, but higher pressure drop recuperator.

When heat recovery is not required, it is typical for the device to be bypassed by use of dampers arranged within the ventilation distribution system. Assuming the fans are fitted with inverter speed controls, set to maintain a constant pressure in the ventilation system, then the reduced pressure drop leads to a slowing of the fan motor and thus reducing power consumption, and in turn improves the seasonal efficiency of the system.

Use in metallurgical furnaces
Recuperators have also been used to recover heat from waste gasses to preheat combustion air and fuel for many years by metallic recuperators to reduce energy costs and carbon footprint of operation. Compared to alternatives such as regenerative furnaces, initial costs are lesser, there are no valves to be switching back and forth, there are no induced-draft fans and it does not require a web of gas ducts spread up all over the furnace.

Historically the recovery ratios of recuperators compared to regenerative burners were low. However, recent improvements to technology have allowed recuperators to recover 70-80% of the waste heat and pre-heated air up to 850 - 900 °C is now possible.

Gas turbines

Recuperators can be used to increase the efficiency of gas turbines for power generation, provided the exhaust gas is hotter than the compressor outlet temperature. The exhaust heat from the turbine is used to pre-heat the air from the compressor before further heating in the combustor, reducing the fuel input required. The larger the temperature difference between turbine out and compressor out, the greater the benefit from the recuperator. Therefore, microturbines (<1 MW), which typically have low pressure ratios, have the most to gain from the use of a recuperator. In practice, a doubling of efficiency is possible through the use of a recuperator. The major practical challenge for a recuperator in microturbine applications is coping with the exhaust gas temperature, which can exceed 750 °C.

Other types of gas-to-gas heat exchangers

 * Heat pipe
 * Run-around coil
 * Thermal wheel, or rotary heat exchanger (including enthalpy wheel and desiccant wheel)
 * Convection recuperator
 * Radiation recuperator

title: Recuperator


text:
Epidosite

Epidosite is a highly altered epidote and quartz bearing rock. It is the result of slow hydrothermal alteration or metasomatism of the basaltic sheeted dike complex and associated plagiogranites that occurs below the massive sulfide ore deposits which occur in ophiolites. Most epidosites represent the zone of intense metal leaching below and lateral to the sulfide deposits which is the result of convection of heated ocean water through the fractured basalts of the sheeted dikes.

title: Epidosite


text:
Derek Clayton

Derek James Clayton (born 17 November 1942) is a former Australian long-distance runner, born in Cumbria, England and raised in Northern Ireland.

Clayton set a marathon world best in the Fukuoka Marathon, Japan on 3 December 1967 in 2:09:36.4, in what is considered a classic race, the first marathon race ever run in less than two hours and ten minutes.

He went on to break this time at the Antwerp Marathon on 30 May 1969 by more than a minute; this time stood as the world best for nearly another 12 years. His personal best time of 2:08:33.6 is still a world-class marathon time. Clayton represented Australia at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, finishing in 7th place (2:27:23). Four years later he finished in 13th place (2:19:49) in the same event.

At the 1971 Australian Athletics Championships, he won the marathon in 2:11:08.8. Two years later, in 1973, he won the Australian Athletics Championships marathon again in 2:12:07.6. He also won the marathon in this event in 1967 and 1968. Clayton won 14 marathons in his career.

Clayton was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 1999.

title: Derek Clayton