text:
User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 5

Policy changes
I'm largely in agreement with your criticism, although I wouldn't put the proportion of problem users quite so high as your estimate of 30%. What sort of attempts to foster appropriate policy changes are in progress? I'd like to help out, in the hope that matters can be improved before I give up and follow you out the door. JamesMLane 10:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad you let yourself be persuaded. Since you've decided to stick it out, and because I know you're interested in developing ways to deal with disruptive users, I have a case you may want to look at. To deal with this particular situation, I have adopted a new approach that might be able to establish some basis for community-supported blocks in advance of Arbitration Committee action. See Requests for comment/33451. --Michael Snow 22:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Here is one more unto you: how come my serious comments are ignored, while perceiving personal attacks you grab a keyboard? You want a serious talk? Me too. Please comment on my serious remarks. Mikkalai 00:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) And BTW, FUI, it was me who was attacked for a single revert with threats to kick my ass out of wikipedia. Say hello to your buddy. Mikkalai 00:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

...And I could have threatened your buddy to lock *him* out for single-handedly threatening people with administrative actions without proper arbitration. Mikkalai 01:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Again, I didn't start this personal war. This makes me no better, but what about you? Mikkalai 01:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

B-Movie Bandit
I hate to disagree with you, but even Jimbo Wales suggested speedy deleting these ridiculous stubs on sight. Please work with me on this. Thanks much. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IRC Banning
[Courtesy copy of my response on my talk page. -- orthogonal 06:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

IRC has no written policies that I know of. Furthermore, being an op in IRC has nothing to do with being an admin on Wikipedia. Lots of Wikipedia admins are not IRC ops, and, actually, I was an IRC op before I was a Wikipedia admin. But if you want to complain, the three people with the highest level of op status in IRC are Xirzon and Fire. That said, they've both been gone for more than two weeks. I think the next in command is Fennec - he's the freenode group contact. Snowspinner 05:50, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I checked up, and Fennec is definitely the guy who's actually in charge. So I'd talk to him. Snowspinner 05:54, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Snowspinner, I'm delighted that you've abandoned your decision to "not (respond) to posts by User:Orthogonal". But if Fennec is, as you say, "the freenode group contact", then he's the contact for Wikipedia and therefore representing Wikipedia as its agent. In that capacity, his giving you "op" privileges is an act by wikipedia. Similarly, your use of those privileges to ban is a Wikipedia act.

 * Also, you appear to have visited the talk pages of the sysops here that I complained to, in order to explain you were "not amused". As I've tried to explain to you before, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and whether or not you're amused, your opinion does not and should not carry more weight than any else -- despite your attempts to make unilateral changes to policy pages and to instruct other users about what you consider the beliefs of the Wikipedia community. In particular, your unilateral banning and threats to ban, on both Wikipedia and in IRC, are quite simply an abuse of power, no matter how you came by that power. -- orthogonal 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not hold the position that events on IRC are beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee although some arbitrators do. Fred Bauder 12:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I hope that IRC will stay entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the AC (as well as of the Foundation) and that users will be banned on the irc channels based on their behavior on the irc channel and the opinion of irc users only. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Semi-policy
Hiya Snowspinner. I'm trying to understand your reasoning behind the idea of semi policy. What's the point of it? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal Discovery
In order to prepare my defense in the RfC you opened on me, I've been looking for a page named User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal, in which you, Snowspinner, declared that you would "not (respond) to posts by User:Orthogonal". However, this page now appears to be blank.

I know it was there as of 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC), because I linked to it at that time. It hasn't been listed at [wp:VfD] since that time, nor has it been listed at Speedy Deletion, so I'm a bit at a loss.

And I can't even find your creation of it in your user Contributions.

Thanks. -- orthogonal 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * 22:56, 30 Aug 2004 Niteowlneils deleted "User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal" (user page/req--content was: 'This page was silly and immature of me, and I would like to nuke it please.
 * -- Cyrius|✎ 01:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah. Snowspinner, can you provide me with a copy of the deleted page, please? -- orthogonal 02:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The deleted page
[Couresty copy from my talk page. -- orthogonal 15:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

I removed the portion of my complaint about your userpage after you changed it. I would hope that you would also let go the issue of that page once I changed it. If you really want to use as evidence a page I've already admitted was immature and a bad idea though, and which, incidentally, I apologize for as well, let me know. Snowspinner 14:14, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * I accept your apology for that page, and I thank you for the apology.

 * I think your "orthogonal" page is necessary for my response to the whole RfC. It's necessary because my argument will be a bit different from yours: I will not complain that you had that page or that you linked to it (although I think it's only fair to note I linked to words you wrote on my user page, and you linked to words you wrote, which is a big difference: I let you be characterized by your own words, you characterized me by your words).

 * I emphatically do not think you can be sanctioned for having that page or for linking to it, at all. You wrote a page of your opinion about me, and you are entitled to your opinion. It was rude, but rude is not something you should be sanctioned for. (Proponents of "No Personal Attacks" or "Remove Personal Attacks" might disagree. I can't speak for them.)

 * Furthermore, I believe that you are entitled to display that opinion on your user sub-page and to link to that sub-page from wherever you wish (on Wikpedia and talk pages, of course, not from articles themselves). I will also note you argued that User:Plato did not have similar rights as regarded his "red faction" page, so I can't say to you everyone believes you have the right to display that opinion here on Wikipedia, and as with sanctioning, I suspect some would argue the page contravened the "No Personal attacks" policy even if they would not argue for sanctioning you for it.

 * But I'd be quite prepared to argue that you have a right to write any opinion you want on your user or user sub-pages, so long as it's not libelous, and I will not in any way ask that you be sanctioned for having, holding, or giving your opinions.

 * However, according to Request for Comments, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed."

 * I will argue that your "orthogonal" page indicates that you were not trying to resolve the dispute you have with me, because that "orthogonal" page indicted that you would never reply to, or even consider, anything I addressed to you. Further, I will argue that your asking another sysop to remove your "orthogonal" page just hours before you opened the RfC was a deliberate attempt to hide evidence of that.

 * Additionally, I will argue that having seen that page (and I didn't know it was gone until I went to look for it in order to formulate this argument) and understanding that you intended to ignore anything I might say to you, exacerbated the revert war you had with me (and others) in the hours before you opened the RfC, over
 * Wikipedia:Semi-policy,
 * Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks,
 * Wikipedia:What is a troll,
 * Wikipedia:Proposal not accepted by the community,
 * User:Orthogonal/Calvinball,
 * and with Mirv after you filed the RfC over
 * Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and
 * Wikipedia_talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

 * So I hope you will see that it's not a matter of "letting go" of a page you changed, but a matter of whether you opened the RfC under false pretenses or not, and whether therefore your certification was false, making the entire RfC invalid. To show this, I need to be able to quote from your "orthogonal" page and the history of that page.

 * Finally, I think in a discovery process, it's poor form to cavil about requests for information germane to the subject of the dispute. I hope that you'll deliver the requested page as soon as you reasonably can.

 * Thanks. -- orthogonal 15:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trial or way of gathering community comments
[Courtesy copy from my talk page. -- orthogonal 15:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Which is RfC then? If we're in a "discovery" phase and your goal is to show the charge invalid, that's one thing. If this is about getting community comments so we can come to an agreement, that's another. So tell me which one we're doing, please, and I'll respond accordingly. Snowspinner 15:35, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * Whatever it is, it has a stated procedure. The procedure must be followed, as David Vasquez and I both go into at length on the RfC's talk page; you can review that for the arguments if you have specific questions about it. To not follow the procedure, is to create bad precedents that may take away rights from people using the RfC procedure in the future.

 * Directly above, you wrote "If you really want to use as evidence [that] page... let me know", and I let you know that it's key to part of my response. But now your response is to come back and ask more questions, and tell me your response is conditioned on my answers. -- orthogonal 15:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[Courtesy copy from my talk page. -- orthogonal 16:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

And when I thought you were using it to respond to issues and try to reach some agreement with me, that was one thing. If you're going to just use it to continue on the legalistic angle, quite frankly, I think that's counterproductive, and I'm more inclined to sit back and let the RFC die off. Since you appear to be valuing legalism and procedure over an opportunity to actually bridge the gap between us, I've got to say, I'm not that inclined to be helpful. Give me a sign you're looking to use this as anything other than an opportunity to let pedantry and rules lawyering obstruct dealing with real issues and I suspect we could work together to overcome this. Snowspinner 16:13, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll just quote what David Vasquez wrote when you suggested scrapping the RfC for Mediation on 15:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC) and leave it at that.

 * David Vasquez wrote:
 * That would be unfair to orthogonal.

 * The basic fairness of this Request for Comment has been called into dispute, and you now want to conveniently skip past the proper process for considering this matter and escalate it to mediation, which would then tar orthogonal with the additional stigma that comes with being accused in that forum as well.

 * -- orthogonal 16:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * My remark that orthogonal quoted above is now obsolete, as several other Admins and community members took the time to explain some common sense for how the policies around here should be applied. Snowspinner, if you are the voice of calm, maturity, and experience, I'm puzzled why you didn't set me straight, given that I am a new contributor.

 * Now that a few days have elapsed, it would appear the community has now spoken, and the community's answer (thanks Michael Snow) to the Rfc appears to be "mediation could have been the first step", without pasting this scarlet letter onto orthogonal's chest in the first place.

 * Also, Ambi was gracious enough to inform me that Mediation is not really an escalation of Request for Comment.

 * Snowspinner, as an experienced Admin, why didn't you know all of this?

 * If you are the calm, mature, and more experienced contributor to Wikipedia, and especially if you are interested in helping to drive new policy initiatives, why didn't you abandon the back and forth with orthogonal at the first sign you two wouldn't hit it off, and find another neutral contributor who could look at the situation and find the bridges that have eluded the both of you? (Or agree to give each other a wide berth and find other contributors to collaborate with?)

 * Snowspinner, if Wikipedia is more important to you than "winning" over orthogonal, as a good faith gesture, why not find a neutral third party (does it have to be an Admin?) to help this discussion along, even before it lands in Mediation?

 * It is obviously too difficult for either of you to work this out by addressing each other directly, so even if orthogonal keeps flailing about for a while, why don't you take the high road as an Admin and reach out to others for some direct assistance, (without relying on any new policy initiatives)?

 * After having it explained to me, this whole Rfc is just embarassing and silly given that the Mediation option was always a first option and never really an escalation, right?

 * orthogonal is not claiming to be a leader. He's working as an individual contributor for now. But Snowspinner, if you aspire to lead others in this great endeavor, why not set the tone and start thinking outside of the box you and orthogonal find yourselves in?

 * If you really want to "win" over orthogonal, and show how your disdain of "WikiLawyering" is justified, the best way you could do so would be to take a more hands on approach to resolving this situation, instead of proposing stricter policy and looking for ways to boot orthogonal out of here.

 * Indeed, it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best, if you do manage to get an individual contributor booted, because of the coercive environment such an action will create for other dissenting voices who sometimes heatedly contribute to the richness of Wikipedia.

 * I've been mighty impressed how folks in this community step up if you just ask them man-to-man for help. Am I just overly optimistic to expect that you could do the same thing here?

 * Snowspinner, it's time for someone to show leadership, not their policing abilities. I encourage you to step up to the plate and show orthogonal and the rest of us what you're really made of.

 * Even orthogonal will have no choice but to follow if you will only lead the way.

 * Peace,

 * --DV 07:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution
Hi Snowspinner. Your request for edit attribution from an IP was rejected. Please see Changing attribution for an edit/Rejected requests. Thanks  — Kate Turner | Talk 11:04, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
 * Ah, then I shall abuse Tim for not removing the old request. :-) Regards  — Kate Turner | Talk 22:44, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Blocked user
Thanks for the blocking of (period). Where did he impersonate me? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:29, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Could have been worse, then. Thanks for the quick reply. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
Good addition to the policy - Tεx  τ  urε  16:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

unauthorized bots
Then help me and tell me what the proper procedure for running an unauthorized bot is? -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Not the template itself, but all the articles which are using it. See Special:Contributions/Jdforrester. No human can edit that fast.  Look deeper in his history for more examples.  Obvious bot-tery. -- Netoholic @ 19:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * In the exact order as Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox Biography?? As an admin, please tell me how to report this, even if you think I'm wrong, I can't imagine such a perfect string of edits in so short a time. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner: I noticed the accidental deletion just before I received your message, although I'm still not sure how it happened. Thanks for the quick reversion, in any event. CJCurrie

Xed block
I unblocked him: though he appears to be no more than a common troll, he at least deserves the courtesy of a warning, just in case he's an honest but misguided user. —No-One Jones (mail) 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * His warning came in the form of his previous block by no fewer than five users for this exact behavior a few days ago. Snowspinner 23:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I see. In that case, block away. —No-One Jones (mail) 23:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche
I agree that both the LaRouche articles have problems, and I would welcome someone else working on them - I am sick of the whole subject and have other things to do. But Herschelkrustofsy is not a bona fide editor, he is a LaRouche propagandist, a proved liar and a disgusting slanderer (of me among many others). Any serious encyclopaedia project would ban him outright, but the best that can be done here is to revert his edits, which I will go on doing. Adam 06:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:WikiWatch and RfA
Why will I be blocked for simply listing myself for a nomination? Isn't that the purpose of the RfA page? — WikiWatch 15:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic
Ok Mintguy (T) 18:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much. I know we disagree sometimes, but some admins need to go read the policies a little closer. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I really thought the poll was doomed too, but there have only been 11 votes and 4-7 is hardly clear. It can stand to remain for one more week - especially since Mintguy's proposed poll is still just a skeleton. I am already assuming the first poll will fail, and am putting efforts to a better one (see User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll). I do intend to restore the survey in progress. Removing it is a slap-in-the-face to the survey guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Edits of Lyndon LaRouche article
Regarding your message on my talk page: there are basically two competing versions of the article now. I am editing the one that I consider to be more in keeping with NPOV. Everytime someone reverts to the other one, they are deleting information that I and others have added, so it's a two way street. Weed Harper 21:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept the case. Can we start tomorrow. I am too tired today. Danny 00:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you think the article is a POV mess, then you or any other bona fide editor is free to fix it, with my blessings. But (to repeat) Herschelkrustofsky is not a bona fide editor, he is a LaRouche propagandist, a liar and a slanderer. I certainly have no intention of "debating" with him. See also my note at the Talk page. Adam 01:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When I say "not a bona fide editor I am not referring to the pusillanimous verdict of the Arbcom, I am making a comment on his motives (and Weed Harper's too, although he is not as obnoxious). He, like all LaRouche cultists, acts only to spread LaRouche propaganda, and anyone editing these articles has to take this into account. Adam 01:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I have said at the Talk page, I am refraining from reverting - for now. Adam 02:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Attn Snowspinner, please note that I have attempted edits of Lyndon LaRouche according to your guidelines, and Adam and Andy have gone back to edit war. Weed Harper 15:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RFA
I'll remove it myself, but thanks. I was thinking of removing it anyway, because I am thoroughly sick of the politics involved in doing almost anything new or different on Wikipedia (because so many people seem to hate me for creating Substub and Template:Substub). [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞ Storm]] 01:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sexist language in Wikipedia
Recently, I stumbled across in Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style a section about a user who wants Wikipedia to use sexist language. How common are Wikipedians of this kind?? 66.245.100.121 19:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You wrote "Not very common". Look at what I wrote at the bottom of Talk:Non-sexist language. Any comments about that?? 66.245.100.121 19:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User talk:66.167.235.16
Re: User talk:66.167.235.16 there have been no edits to that page for about the last seven hours so if you want to add it to lamest edit wars ever go right ahead. Even if it carries on once added it's a case of example in action so to speak... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Self promotion?
I notice you have deleted a link to a non-commercial online catalogue of micronatioon and secessionist states coinage (authored by me) on the Micronation page noting it as "self promotional". Please explain how a reference site that has been quoted at length by multiple specialist publications, and is recognised by them as the only comprehensive, credible source of data on this subject - including Stamp News (Aust), Australasian Coin & Banknote Magazine (Aust), The Cinderella Philatelist (UK) and Krause Publications (US) - can possibly represent an instance of "self promotion". --Gene_poole 03:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you restored the link just after I posted this. Thanks. --Gene_poole 07:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * My only comment on this is that I think Snowspinner is doing an excellent job trying to resolve a dispute between three editors which is quickly becoming a peeing match. As I pointed out in the edit summary, it is against Wikiquette to link to one's own website from a Wikipedia article, in light of item 18 of what Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia is not "A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion".  If this link is truly relevent, I am sure that other editors will add it back in due course. Samboy 23:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Old NASA image templates
Thanks for your heads-up. I've put Template:NASA photos and Template:NASA-image up for speedy deletion. --Ardonik.talk 17:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

No Prayer for the Dying
Hi. Why did you delete this page? This is a valid article. RedWolf 02:32, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Odd Jodeci revert
What was the reason for this revert? The reverted edit looks valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jodeci&curid=239452&diff=0&oldid=0 --dreish 14:53, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

State of limbo
I'm confused by the continuing existence of Requests_for_comment/Xed. Since your edit, it seems to have been put into limbo. I feel like Terence Stamp in a Superman film.--Xed 16:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Block of User:NetBot
Your block of that bot is not motivated by anything other than dislike of me personally. The bot is working flawlessly from a technical perspective, and I have followed all provisions in the Bot policy. I ask you to remove the block, since it was imposed during the required "test and demonstration" phase of the bot authorization request process. I have further replied at Wikipedia talk:Bots. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

"Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark"
Hello, I'd like to ask the reason you removed the tag I had inserted on top of Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark. Please reply on the article's talk page. Thank you. Etz Haim 02:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calistean
Would you care to write something about the notability of this on Talk:Calistean? Charles Matthews 12:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Admin help requested
This redirect was today pointed to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and eminated from Stolen Honor Documentary. I deleted the Wiki link from Stolen Honor and edited the redirect to the creator of it. I did this because it was vandalism, I did not know how else to deal with it. Please advise me of your opinion on this and make any corrections you see fit. 02:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

dumb article creation
sorry :) I thought i could delete it immediately after, my bad. won't happen again. --kizzle 03:06, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

D6
Please check Wikipedia talk:People by year/Delete and Wikipedia talk:Bots. Obviously, I'd appreciate if you'd deblock the bot. -- User:Docu

Guanaco
Welcome to the wonderful world of dealing with Guanaco. You might want to consider taking up banging your head against a wall, you'll get more satisfaction. RickK 21:50, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Ack! That picture is creeping me out for some reason. RickK 22:37, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Departure
I'm on an indefinite Wikivacation due to my inability to perform simple tasks without being disrupted by trolls.

If you're wondering why I'm gone, please direct your concerns to User:Orthogonal or User:Netoholic. Snowspinner 00:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please do not vandalize Wikipedia pages, especially a page as important as Requests for Arbitration. If you continue, you may be hit in the head by a sock puppet and placed on Requests for comment. ugen64 01:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sad that you have left. Take a wikivacation and please come back soon! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ack. Come back soon! And I wouldn't worry about Netoholic too much - he may have escaped a hardban by stopping vandalising VFD, but he's not exacting winning friends and influencing people at the moment. Ambi 05:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * This is stupid, I refuse to allow you or anyone else to continue defaming me openly like this. A "hardban" was NEVER an option, and your definition of "vandalism" needs to checked against Vandalism.  Do you realize that just by making these statements and saying that I'm not making friends, you are making it impossible for me to do that?  I spent a couple hours trying to work out things with Snowspinner on IRC, but he refused to end this stupid fight.  All I want is for you to assume good faith (or maybe even stupidity) for the actions you accuse me of, and to stop with this rhetoric. -- Netoholic @ 05:37, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

 * How long is one supposed to assume good faith before finally giving up because of the trolling? Well, there we go ... another good editor driven out by the trolls and vandals.  Come back when you've had a good vacation, Snowspinner.  RickK 19:10, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

When you return, could you direct me to the consensus of support for your addition to the user page policy? Thanks. — Kate Turner | Talk 21:56, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I hope you check here on occasion. It would help me greatly to determine my vote as an arbitrator to be informed if there are any cases where Netoholic personally attacked any user (you included) at Wikipedia proper. Jurisdiction over IRC is very confused right now, and if the only instances in which Netoholic made personal attacks occurred in IRC, I don't know if there's enough other evidence to warrant accepting arbitration (although I will reconsider the other complaints to be certain of this). Any diffs you can provide would be very helpful. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 22:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) P.S. I will also consider carefully how I think IRC evidence should be viewed -- I'm not certain it can't be used. But I want to make sure I'm consistent about this, and in the meantime, any other evidence would be helpful. Thanks.

He's back, right? w00t! - Nat Krause 05:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RickK just told me what happened. If anyone can relate with your frustration, it's yours truly. Take a vacation...you deserve it...but please check in every so often. Don't be another fine editor who blew up over the dregs. - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 5


text:
Oak Bay, British Columbia

Oak Bay is a municipality incorporated in 1906 that is located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island, in the Canadian province of British Columbia. It is one of thirteen member municipalities of the Capital Regional District, and is bordered to the west by the city of Victoria and to the north by the district of Saanich. It is an eastern residential suburb of Victoria.

History
Oak Bay is part of the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people of the Songhees First Nation. The people that came and went in the millennia before are unknown. Evidence of their ancient settlements has been found along local shores, including Willows Beach, where an ancient Lkwungen seaport known as Sitchanalth was centred around the mouth of the river commonly known as Bowker Creek. Sitchanalth is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the great Tsunami of 930 AD. Much of this neighbourhood is built upon an Indigenous burial ground.

Oak Bay takes its name from the Garry oak tree, which is found throughout the region, and also the name of the large bay on the eastern shore of the municipality, fronting onto Willows Beach.

John Tod, in 1850, built on a 109 acre farm that is today the oldest continuously-occupied home in Western Canada. Tod was the Chief Fur Trader for the Hudson's Bay Company for Kamloops, one of the original appointed members of BC's Legislative Council. Originally developed as a middle class streetcar suburb of Victoria, Oak Bay was incorporated as a municipality in 1906. Its first Council included Francis Rattenbury, the architect who designed the Legislative Buildings and Empress Hotel located on the inner harbour in Victoria. Rattenbury's own home on Beach Drive is now used as the junior campus for Glenlyon Norfolk School. In 1912, the former farm lands of the Hudson's Bay Company were subdivided to create the Uplands area, but development was hampered by the outbreak of World War I. After the war, development of expensive homes in the Uplands was accompanied by the construction of many more single-family dwellings in the Estevan, Willows and South Oak Bay neighbourhoods.

The Victoria Golf Club is located in South Oak Bay. It was founded in 1893, and is the second oldest golf course west of the Great Lakes. It is a 6,120 yard links course on the ocean side, and claims to be the oldest golf course in Canada still on its original site. The course is reported to be haunted.

The Royal Victoria Yacht Club was formed on June 8, 1892, and moved in 1912 to its current location, at the location of the old Hudson's Bay Company cattle wharf.

In 1925, the Victoria Cougars won the Stanley Cup at the Patrick Arena in Oak Bay, defeating the Montreal Canadiens in four games. The arena was soon after destroyed by fire in 1929. Nowadays, the Victoria Cougars are the Detroit Red Wings of the National Hockey League.

The Oak Bay Marina, built in 1962, was officially opened in April 1964. It replaced the Oak Bay Boat House built in 1893. The breakwater was built in 1959 and funded by the federal government.

There have reportedly been sightings of a sea monster known as the Cadborosaurus off Oak Bay, with both reports dating back to before European settlement in the area.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Oak Bay had a population of 17,990 living in 7,807 of its 8,168 total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of 18,094. With a land area of 10.52 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

Religion
According to the 2021 census, religious groups in Oak Bay included:
 * Irreligion (10,250 persons or 58.1%)
 * Christianity (6,430 persons or 36.5%)
 * Judaism (260 persons or 1.5%)
 * Buddhism (170 persons or 1.0%)
 * Sikhism (120 persons or 0.7%)
 * Islam (85 persons or 0.5%)
 * Hinduism (50 persons or 0.3%)
 * Other (280 persons or 1.6%)

Film studio
During the 1930s, Oak Bay, British Columbia was the original "Hollywood North" where fourteen films were produced in Greater Victoria between 1933 and 1938. In 1932 Kenneth James Bishop leased an off-season exhibition building on the Willows Fairgrounds that was converted to a film sound stage to produce films for the British film quota system under the Cinematograph Films Act 1927 and films were produced with Hollywood stars such as Lillian Gish, Paul Muni, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Edith Fellows, Charles Starrett and Rin Tin Tin Jr. Film production was curtailed when the Cinematograph Films Act 1938 specified only British made films would be included in the quota. The Willows Park Studio films include: 1933
 * The Crimson Paradise ("Fighting Playboy" in the US) (The first all talking motion picture in Canada.)

1935
 * Secrets of Chinatown (Production Company was Commonwealth Productions Ltd. based on the out of print book The Black Robe by Guy Morton. Kathleen Dunsmuir invested $50,000 in the film. Before completion of the film Commonwealth Productions went bankrupt, Northern Films Ltd. completed post production of the film, Kathleen Dunsmuir lost all $50,000. The film is technically British it received British film registration number br. 11391. The film was seized by the police at request of the Chinese Consul with the claim it was offensive, the film was altered before its release. In Victoria Harry Hewitson the actor playing Chan Tow Ling would remind the audience with the warning it was fictional. In addition to Chinatown and surrounding downtown Victoria the Gonzales area is used in outdoor shots of the film.  )

1936 1937 1938 1942
 * Fury and the Woman (aka Lucky Corrigan)
 * Lucky Fugitives
 * Secret Patrol
 * Stampede
 * Tugboat Princess
 * What Price Vengeance?
 * Manhattan Shakedown
 * Murder is News
 * Woman Against the World
 * Death Goes North
 * Convicted
 * Special Inspector
 * Commandos Strike at Dawn

Education
Oak Bay is the home of the University of Victoria, a public research institution in the Capital Region District. While much of the University of Victoria campus is located within the District of Oak Bay, parts of it are also located in the adjacent municipality of Saanich.

Oak Bay also hosts a number of academically focused public and private secondary schools which are part of School District 61. There is one public elementary school, Willows Elementary, one public middle school, Monterey Middle School, and one public high school, Oak Bay High School, with the largest student population in the Greater Victoria School District. Residents in the South Oak Bay area may also register their children at the nearby Margaret Jenkins Elementary (in Victoria). In addition to public schools, there are two private schools located in Oak Bay, Glenlyon Norfolk School and St. Michael's University School.

Neighbourhoods

 * North Oak Bay
 * South Oak Bay
 * Uplands
 * Henderson
 * Gonzales
 * Estevan

Parks and recreation centres
Parks
 * Anderson Hill Park - The Vancouver Island Trail's southern terminus is located here
 * Uplands Park / Cattle Point (a Garry oak ecosystem).
 * Willows Beach

Public safety

 * Oak Bay Emergency Program
 * Oak Bay Fire Department - The Oak Bay Fire Department was formed in 1937.
 * Oak Bay Police Department - The Oak Bay Police Department was formed in 1906.
 * Oak Bay Sea Rescue (OBSR) - Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue Station 33 (RCM-SAR) - Oak Bay Sea Rescue was formed in 1977, and is a volunteer organisation. The Unit's Boats are based out of Oak Bay Marina

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

title: Oak Bay, British Columbia


text:
Coverture

Coverture was a legal doctrine in English common law originating from the French word couverture, meaning "covering," in which a married woman's legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband. Upon marriage, she had no independent legal existence of her own, in keeping with society's expectation that her husband was to provide for and protect her. Under coverture a woman became a feme covert, whose legal rights and obligations were mostly subsumed by those of her husband. An unmarried woman, or feme sole, retained the right to own property and make contracts in her own name.

Coverture was well established in the common law for several centuries and was inherited by many other common law jurisdictions, including the United States. According to historian Arianne Chernock, coverture did not apply in Scotland, but whether it applied in Wales is unclear.

After the rise of the women's rights movement in the mid-19th century, coverture was increasingly criticised as oppressive, hindering women from exercising ordinary property rights and entering professions. Coverture was first substantially modified by late-19th-century Married Women's Property Acts passed in various common-law jurisdictions, and was weakened and eventually eliminated by later reforms. Certain aspects of coverture (mainly concerned with preventing a wife from unilaterally incurring major financial obligations for which her husband would be liable) survived as late as the 1960s in some states of the United States.

Principle
Under traditional English common law, an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. These terms are English spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be femme seule "single woman" and femme couverte, literally "covered woman").

The principle of coverture was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage."

A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name, while a feme covert was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own. As expressed in Hugo Black's dissent in United States v. Yazell, "This rule [coverture] has worked out in reality to mean that though the husband and wife are one, the one is the husband." A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. On the other hand, a feme couvert could not be sued or sue in her own name. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.

A queen of England, whether she was a queen consort or a queen regnant, was generally exempted from the legal requirements of coverture, as understood by Blackstone.

History
The system of feme sole and feme covert developed in England in the High and Late Middle Ages as part of the common law system, which had its origins in the legal reforms of Henry II and other medieval English kings. Medieval legal treatises, such as that famously known as Bracton, described the nature of coverture and its impact on married women's legal actions. Bracton states that husband and wife were a single person, being one flesh and one blood, a principle known as 'unity of person'. Husbands also wielded power over their wives, being their rulers and custodians of their property.

While it was once assumed that married women had little or no access to legal recourse, as a result of coverture, historians have more recently complicated our knowledge of coverture in the Middle Ages through various studies of married women's legal status across different courts and jurisdictions. Collectively, many of these studies have argued that 'there has been a tendency to overplay the extent to which coverture applied', as legal records reveal that married women could possess rights over property, could take part in business transactions, and interact with the courts. In medieval post-conquest Wales, it has been suggested that coverture only applied in certain situations. Married women were responsible for their own actions in criminal presentments and defamation, but their husbands represented them in litigation for abduction and in interpersonal pleas.

The extent of coverture in medieval England has also been qualified by the existence of femme sole customs that existed in some medieval English towns. This granted them independent commercial and legal rights as if they were single. This practice is outlined in the custumal of Henry Darcy, Lord Mayor of London in the 1330s, allowing married women working independently of their husband to act as a single woman in all matters concerning her craft, such as renting a shop and suing and being sued for debt. The custom is known to have been adopted in a number of other towns, including Bristol, Lincoln, York, Sandwich, Rye, Carlisle, Chester and Exeter. Some North American British colonies also adopted this custom in the eighteenth century. However, it is unclear how many women took up this status, the extent to which it was legally enforced, or whether the legal and commercial independence it offered were advantageous.

According to Chernock, "coverture, ... [a 1777] author ... concluded, was the product of foreign Norman invasion in the eleventh century—not, as Blackstone would have it, a time-tested 'English' legal practice. This was a reading of British history, then, that put a decidedly feminist twist on the idea of the 'Norman yoke. Also according to Chernock, "the Saxons, ... [Calidore] boasted, had encouraged women to 'retain separate property'— ... a clear blow to coverture." Chernock claims that "as the historical accounts of the laws regarding women had indicated, coverture was a policy not just foreign in its origins but also suited to particular and now remote historical conditions." Coverture may not have existed in "the Anglo-Saxon constitution".

Coverture also held sway in English-speaking colonies because of the influence of the English common law there. The way in which coverture operated across the common law world has been the subject of recent studies examining the subordinating effects of marriage for women across medieval and early modern England and North America, in a variety of legal contexts. It has been argued that in practice, most of the rules of coverture "served not to guide every transaction but rather to provide clarity and direction in times of crisis or death." Despite this flexibility, coverture remained a powerful tool of marital inequality for many centuries.

Criticism
Early feminist historian Mary Ritter Beard held the view that much of the severity of the doctrine of coverture was actually due to Blackstone and other late systematizers rather than due to a genuine old common-law tradition.

In March 1776, Abigail Adams saw an opportunity in the language of natural rights, and wrote to her husband, John Adams:

"In the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could."

She was not writing generally about women's rights, nor specifically about the right to vote. She was asking for relief from coverture. John responded, "I cannot but laugh."

According to Chernock, "late Enlightenment radicals .... argued ... [that "coverture" and other "principles"] did not reflect the 'advancements' of a modern, civilized society. Rather, they were markers of past human errors and inconsistencies, and thus in need of further revision." Chernock claimed that "as the editor of Blackstone's Commentaries, [Edward] Christian used his popular thirteenth edition, published in 1800, to highlight the ways in which the practice of coverture might be modified." Chernock wrote that "Christian .... proceeded to recommend that a husband cease to be 'absolutely master of the profits of the wife's lands during the coverture. Chernock reported that other men sought for coverture to be modified or eliminated.

According to Ellen Carol DuBois, "the initial target of women's rights protest was the legal doctrine of 'coverture... The earliest American women's right lecturer, John Neal attacked coverture in speeches and public debates as early as 1823, but most prominently in the 1840s, asking "how long [women] shall be rendered by law incapable of acquiring, holding, or transmitting property, except under special conditions, like the slave?" In the 1850s, according to DuBois, Lucy Stone criticized "the common law of marriage because it 'gives the "custody" of the wife's person to her husband, so that he has a right to her even against herself. Stone kept her premarital family name after marriage as a protest "against all manifestations of coverture". DuBois continued, "in the 1850s, .... [t]he primarily legal goal [of "the American women's rights movement"] was the establishment of basic property rights for women once they were married, which went to the core of the deprivations of coverture." Chernock continued, "for those who determined that legal reforms were the key to achieving a more enlightened relationship between the sexes, coverture was a primary object of attention."

DuBois wrote that coverture, because of property restrictions with the vote, "played a major role in" influencing the effort to secure women's right to vote in the U.S., because one view was that the right should be limited to women who owned property when coverture excluded most women (relatively few were unmarried or widowed), while another view was for the right to be available for all women.

In the mid-19th century, according to Melissa J. Homestead, coverture was criticized as depriving married women authors of the financial benefits of their copyrights, including analogizing to slavery; one woman poet "explicitly analogized her legal status as a married woman author to that of an American slave." According to Homestead, feminists also criticized the effect of coverture on rights under patents held by married women.

Hendrik Hartog counter-criticized that coverture was only a legal fiction and not descriptive of social reality and that courts applying equity jurisdiction had developed many exceptions to coverture, but, according to Norma Basch, the exceptions themselves still required that the woman be dependent on someone and not all agreements between spouses to let wives control their property were enforceable in court.

In 1869, coverture was criticized when Myra Bradwell was refused permission to practice as a lawyer in Illinois specifically because of coverture. In 1871, Bradwell argued to the Supreme Court that coverture violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment. According to Margot Canaday, "coverture's main purpose ... was the legal subordination of women." Canaday continued, "women's legal subordination through marriage ... was maintained in fact across [coverture]".

According to Canaday, "coverture was diminished ... in the 1970s, as part of a broader feminist revolution in law that further weakened the principle that a husband owned a wife's labor (including her person).... The regime of coverture ... was coming undone [in the mid-20th century]". In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court said "the institution of coverture is ... obsolete" even while acknowledging coverture's existence in 1–11 states. In a separate opinion in the same case, Hugo Black and two others of the nine justices said the "fiction that the husband and wife are one... in reality ... mean[ing] that though the husband and wife are one, the one is the husband....[,] rested on ... a ... notion that a married woman, being a female, is without capacity to make her own contracts and do her own business", a notion that Black "had supposed is ... completely discredited". Black described modern (as of 1966) coverture as an "archaic remnant of a primitive caste system". Canaday wrote, "the application of equal protection law to marital relations finally eviscerated the law of coverture" and "coverture unraveled with accelerating speed [in the late 20th century]". "Coverture's demise blunted (even if it did not eliminate) male privilege within marriage", according to Canaday.

Abolition
This situation continued until the mid-to-late 19th century, when married women's property acts started to be passed in many English-speaking jurisdictions, setting the stage for further reforms.

In the United States, many states passed Married Women's Property Acts to eliminate or reduce the effects of coverture. Nineteenth-century courts in the United States also enforced state privy examination laws. A privy examination was an American legal practice in which a married woman who wished to sell her property had to be separately examined by a judge or justice of the peace outside of the presence of her husband and asked if her husband was pressuring her into signing the document. This practice was seen as a means to protect married women's property from overbearing husbands. Other states abolished the concept through court cases, for example: California in Follansbee v. Benzenberg (1954). The abolition of coverture has been seen as "one of the greatest extensions of property rights in human history", and one that led to a number of positive financial and economic impacts. Specifically, it led to shifts in household portfolios, a positive shock to the supply of credit, and a reallocation of labor towards non-agriculture and capital intensive industries.

As recently as 1972, two US states allowed a wife accused in criminal court to offer as a legal defense that she was obeying her husband's orders.

Analogous concepts outside the common law system
In the Roman-Dutch law, the marital power was a doctrine very similar to the doctrine of coverture in the English common law. Under the marital power doctrine, a wife was legally a minor under the guardianship of her husband.

Under the Napoleonic Code – which was very influential both inside and outside of Europe – married women and children were subordinated to the husband's/father's authority. Married French women obtained the right to work without their husband's consent in 1965. In France, the paternal authority of a man over his family was ended in 1970 (before that parental responsibilities belonged solely to the father who made all legal decisions concerning the children); and a new reform in 1985 abolished the stipulation that the father had the sole power to administer the children's property. Neighboring Switzerland was one of the last European countries to establish gender equality in marriage: married women's rights were severely restricted until 1988, when legal reforms providing gender equality in marriage, abolishing the legal authority of the husband, came into force (these reforms had been approved in 1985 in a referendum, with 54.7% votes in favor).

In 1979, Louisiana became the last of the states of the U.S. to have its Head and Master law struck down. An appeal made it to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1980, and in the following year the high court's decision in Kirchberg v. Feenstra effectively declared the practice of male-rule in marriage unconstitutional, generally favoring instead a co-administration model.

Outside the legal realm
The doctrine of coverture carried over into British heraldry, in which there were established traditional methods of displaying the coat of arms of an unmarried woman, displaying the coat of arms of a widow, or displaying the combined coat of arms of a couple jointly, but no accepted method of displaying the coat of arms of a married woman separately as an individual.

The traditional practice by which a woman relinquished her name and adopted her husband's name (e.g., "Mrs. John Smith") is similarly a representation of coverture, although usually symbolic rather than legal in form.

In some cultures, particularly in the Anglophone West, wives often change their surnames to that of their husbands upon getting married. Although this procedure is today optional, for some it remains a controversial practice due to its tie to the historical doctrine of coverture or to other similar doctrines in civil law systems, and to the historically subordinated roles of wives; while others argue that today this is merely a harmless tradition that should be accepted as a free choice. Some jurisdictions consider this practice as discriminatory and contrary to women's rights, and have restricted or banned it; for example, since 1983, when Greece adopted a new marriage law which guaranteed gender equality between the spouses, people in Greece are required to keep their birth names for their whole life, although they may add their spouse's name to their own, and they may petition for a name change for "serious" reasons.

Cultural references
The phrase "the law is an ass" was popularized by Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, when the character Mr. Bumble is informed that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction". Mr. Bumble replies, "if the law supposes that ... the law is a [sic] ass – a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience – by experience."

The television show Frontier House follows three families who are trying to survive six months in the Montana countryside, including growing their own crops and surviving the winter. It takes place during presidency of Abraham Lincoln, who was president when the Homestead Act of 1862 became law. During the show it is noted that coverture was still in effect, so only single women could claim land under the Homestead Act, because married women lost most of their rights.

title: Coverture


text:
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District

The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District is a quasi-municipal administrative area in British Columbia, Canada. It stretches from Britannia Beach in the south to Pavilion in the north. Lillooet, Pemberton, Whistler and Squamish are the four municipalities in the regional district. Its administrative offices are in the Village of Pemberton, although the district municipalities of Squamish and Whistler are larger population centres. The district covers 16,353.68 km2 (6,314.19 sq mi) of land area.

The southern end of the regional district comprises the northern part of the traditional territory of the Squamish people, and the northern half constitutes the traditional homeland of the St'at'imc people.

Demographics
As a census division in the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District had a population of $50,496$ living in $20,012$ of its $26,330$ total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of $42,665$. With a land area of 16296.34 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

 * Note: Totals greater than 100% due to multiple origin responses.

Squamish-Lillooet Electoral Area A, British Columbia
Electoral Area A comprises the basin of the Bridge River valley above its confluence with the Yalakom River at Moha. The only towns in the area are Bralorne, Gold Bridge and Brexton. Other communities or localities include Gun Lake, Tyaughton Lake and Gun Creek Road.

Population as of 2016 Canadian Census: 186

Squamish-Lillooet Electoral Area B, British Columbia
Electoral Area B comprises the basin of the Bridge River below its confluence with the Yalakom River at Moha, the valley of Seton and Anderson Lakes (excepting D'Arcy), and the rest of the upper portion of the SLRD surrounding Lillooet and adjoining parts of the Fraser Canyon. Communities include McGillivray Falls, Seton Portage, Shalalth, Texas Creek, Bridge River (meaning Moha and the lower Bridge River communities), West Pavilion, Pavilion and Fountain and Fountain Valley.

Population as of 2016 Canadian census: 363

Squamish-Lillooet Electoral Area C, British Columbia
Electoral Area C comprises the Pemberton and Gates Valleys and the valley of the Green River north of Whistler. Communities include Pemberton Meadows, Mount Currie, Owl Creek, Birken, Devine, D'Arcy, and McGillivray (formerly McGillivray Falls).

Population as of 2016 Canadian Census: 1663

Squamish-Lillooet Electoral Area D, British Columbia
Electoral Area D comprises the valleys of the Cheakamus and Squamish Rivers and the Sea-to-Sky Corridor south to the SLRD boundary on Howe Sound. Communities include Britannia Beach, Woodfibre, Furry Creek, the Pinecrest and Black Tusk subdivisions nearer Whistler and the uninhabited former recreational settlement of Garibaldi.

Population as of 2016 Canada Census: 1057

title: Squamish-Lillooet Regional District


text:
File:Little Feat - Down on the Farm.jpg

Summary
Little Feat - Down on the Farm album cover

title: File:Little Feat - Down on the Farm.jpg


text:
Fournier RF-9

The Fournier RF-9 is a two-seat motorglider of conventional sailplane configuration. Originally produced in France, manufacturing was later taken over by ABS Aircraft in Switzerland, and then by Gomolzig in Germany. The pilot and passenger are accommodated side-by-side, and the aircraft's wings are foldable for ease of storage. It first flew in 1977. The licence-built example was known as the Fournier RF-9 ABS but only one, registration D-KHGO (w/nr.9021) was ever constructed. In 1994, ABS Aircraft GmbH left the development of ABS RF-9 though two further kits had been built, and were later constructed by the Polish Aircraft company Polavia.

title: Fournier RF-9


text: Category:French sailplanes

title: Category:French sailplanes


text:
Zoomusicology

Zoomusicology is the study of the musical aspects of sound and communication as produced and perceived by animals. It is a field of musicology and zoology, and is a type of zoosemiotics. Zoomusicology as a field dates to François-Bernard Mâche's 1983 book Music, Myth, and Nature, or the Dolphins of Arion (published in English in 1992), and has been developed more recently by scholars such as Dario Martinelli, David Rothenberg, Hollis Taylor, David Teie, and Emily Doolittle.

Zoomusicology is a separate field from ethnomusicology, the study of human music.

Zoomusicologists in a wide range of fields including music, semiotics, philosophy and biology conduct zoomusicology research. This is because the field of zoomusicology is so broad and reaches many disciplines. Musician and zoomusicologist Hollis Taylor has conducted an extensive study of the Pied Butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis) over the past 15 years, including interdisciplinary research with philosophers and scientists. Clarinetist, and philosopher David Rothenberg plays music with animals, and has written books on the relationship between bird, insect, and whale song and human music. Composer Emily Doolittle has written numerous pieces based on animal songs, and has published interdisciplinary music-science research on the hermit thrush and the musician wren. Heavy metal bands such as Hatebeak, Caninus, Naegleria Fowleri, and Boar Glue have released music fronted by a grey parrot, a pit bull, an Amazon parrot, and a guinea pig, respectively. Susan Belanger has also contributed to the field of zoomusicology, with her work on soft song in the Asian corn borer moth (Ostrinia furnacalis) and its relationship to the initiation of mating behaviour. Researcher Patricia Gray has examined the music that can be seen in whales and songbirds. This list is by no means all encompassing, but simply lists some notable members of the zoomusicology research community.

Human-animal interactions
There have been several musicians over the years who have performed with or for animals, hoping to elicit responses. Examples include: the song "Seamus" from Pink Floyd's 1971 album Meddle featuring Steve Marriott's Border Collie Seamus howling along to an acoustic blues song. The performance was repeated in "Mademoiselle Nobs" for the film Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii (1972) with a different dog, Nobs. Paul Horn played flute to Haida, an orca living at Sealand of the Pacific in Victoria, British Columbia on his album Inside II (1972), though the response was merely spyhopping. Paul Winter played his saxophone for both wolves (who howled) and gray whales (who did not) on his album Common Ground (1978). Composer Jim Nollman plays guitar and wooden flute to such species as whales, wolves and turkeys. David Rothenberg, a clarinetist, has played to humpback whales, cicadas and birds (2005-2013) with no apparent response.

Composer David Sulzer, under the name David Soldier and the Thai Elephant Orchestra, built giant percussion instruments for the elephants at the National Elephant Institute at Lampang to play, with minimal human direction.

Composers have long evoked or imitated animal sounds in compositions, including Antonio Vivaldi's The Four Seasons (Vivaldi) (1720), Jean-Philippe Rameau's The Hen (1728), Camille Saint-Saëns's The Carnival of the Animals (1886), Jean Sibelius's The Swan of Tuonela (1895), Frederick Delius's On Hearing the First Cuckoo in Spring (1912), Ralph Vaughan Williams's The Lark Ascending (Vaughan Williams) (1914), Ottorino Respighi's Pines of Rome (1924) and The Birds (1928), Ferde Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite (1931), Olivier Messiaen's Catalogue of the Birds (1956–58), George Crumb's Vox Balaenae (Voice of the Whale) (1971), and Pauline Oliveros's El Relicario de los Animales (1977).

Some modern composers have included recordings of animals in their scores, including Alan Hovhaness's And God Created Great Whales (1970), Einojuhani Rautavaara's Cantus Arcticus (1972), Gabriel Pareyon's Invention over the song of the Vireo atriccapillus (1999) and Kha Pijpichtli Kuikatl (2003).

In 1960 American engineer Jim Fassett put together an album of slowed-down and re-arranged bird songs called Symphony of the Birds. Novelty songs pieced together from the sounds of dogs (The Singing Dogs) or cats (Jingle Cats) enjoyed brief popularity in the 1950s and 1960s. Field recording expert Bernie Krause in 1988 released a single ("Jungle Shoes"/"Fish Wrap") and an album (Gorillas in the Mix) of songs composed of animal and nature sounds. The Indian zoomusicologist, A. J. Mithra composed music using bird, animal and frog sounds from 2008 until his death in 2014. In that same year, New York beatboxing artist Ben Mirin began incorporating animal sounds into his beats.

Birds
The most well-known form of music found in non-human animals is birdsong. Birdsong is different from normal calls. For example, a call will usually simply function to communicate a direct message. For instance, a bird call could be used to direct attention that a predator is near. Meanwhile, a song contains more repetition and usually will have distinct structure to it, with a specific beginning, middle, and end. In many species of songbirds, songs seem to be used both as a way to attract potential mates, as well as to mark and defend one's territory. It has been observed that young songbirds acquire their ability to produce song from imitation of adult birds. There seems to be a critical period for song learning. In one experiment, they compared birds raised in isolation, (this involved isolation from other birds as well as the vocalizations of other birds), with those raised in a colony, without these forms of isolation. Using an fMRI scan and the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) as a measurement of brain activity, it was found that birds raised in the isolation condition did not appear to show a preference between their own songs and a repetitive song. Meanwhile, colony-raised birds showed a stronger reaction to their own song being played back.

Mimicry
Several species of birds can mimic the songs of other birds, or even mechanical sounds. These include, with varying degrees of success, starlings, mockingbirds, thrashers, crows and ravens, parrots, myna birds, blue jays, lyrebirds, Lawrence's thrushes, Acrocephalus, marsh warblers, and others. Mozart kept a starling that could mimic some of his music.

Mammals
Snowden and Teie performed an experiment on Cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) to determine if music would lead to behavioural changes, and whether music made by other species would elicit similar behavioural responses as the music of one's own species. This experiment involved two separate categories of music - one was affiliation-based, the other was fear/threat-based music. Within the two categories, the experimenter varied whether the music was produced by humans or tamarins. During the experiment, a baseline behaviour measurement was established, proceeded by the experimental condition, which was a piece of music that was played for 30 seconds. Following this, behaviour was analyzed for a total of five minutes. This analysis was made by an observer who was unaware of the true hypothesis of the experiment, and simply noted different behaviours which they had witnessed. The experimenters found that the tamarins altered their behaviour specifically when listening to tamarin music. For example, when music from the affiliation condition was played, the behavioural response of the tamarins involved a decrease in overall movement and an increase in both social and foraging behaviour. This contrasted the behaviour observed when the fear/threat based music was played. During this condition, the tamarins were more likely to move around and show anxiety-based behaviour, as well as, an increase in social behaviour similar to that seen in the affiliation condition. Although the tamarins did not show behavioural changes to human music as clearly as they did to their species-specific music, there was some behavioural change. The tamarins showed decreased movement when listening to human fear/threat based music and a decrease in anxious behaviour when listening to human affiliation music.

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) are capable of the production of complex songs. These songs are amongst some of the longest measured in animals. Only male humpback whales perform these vocalizations; it was initially hypothesized that these songs may be a part of the sexual selection process. This point however, is unclear. It has been found that males only began their song after joining a group where pairs of mother and calf were present. Although the reason behind this behaviour is uncertain, some have hypothesized that the songs produced by male humpback whales may be a part of escorting, or accompanying females. Singing can be a costly behaviour, because it can lead to more attention being drawn. In the humpback whales' situation, their singing can attract other competing males. Yet, the singing behaviour continues and therefore, it is assumed that the songs are critical to the courtship behaviour of the humpback whales.

Insects
One potential barrier in the study of zoomusicology is that there are some forms of music produced by various animals that humans are incapable of hearing. This music is very low in amplitude and is known as quiet song, whisper communication, or soft song. This low amplitude music has been shown in birds, as well as insects and is linked to behaviour. Moth species have been shown to have developed the ability to communicate using ultrasonic sounds, and this ability has transferred over to their production of soft songs. In the Asian corn borer moth (Ostrinia furnacalis) males produce an ultrasonic soft song to initiate courtship behaviour. The song that the male produces is so quiet that the female must be within a range of three centimeters in order to hear the song. In hearing the song, the female stays in one place and is completely still; this allows the male to initiate mating behaviour. The reason that the female remains still is because the song sounds very similar to sounds that a bat would produce. The female therefore remains still in order to avoid potential predation. There is another added benefit to this soft song produced by the male Asian corn borer moth, and that is that the song is so quiet that it decreases the males' predation risk. Although these soft songs are far less well known to the general public, they are an important aspect of zoomusicology and the further understanding of animal behaviour.

Cats
David Teie has created two albums of music for cats. Researchers Snowdon and Savage found that domestic cats that showed little interest in human music are more interested in and responsive to Teie's music that was composed with species-appropriate features relevant to cats. The authors of a clinical study of Teie's music for cats in veterinary physical examinations concluded that cat-specific music may benefit cats by decreasing the stress levels and increasing the quality of care in veterinary clinical settings. They found that tranquil behaviors can be achieved in a veterinary clinical setting with the introduction of cat-specific music.

Cows
In an unpublished study at the University of Leicester, Liam MacKenzie and Adrian North found that playing music for dairy cows had an effect on the amount of milk that they produced. Over a nine-week period, dairy cows were exposed to fast (> 120 BPM), slow (< 100 BPM), and no music. Music was played for the cows 12 hours a day from 5 AM to 5 PM. The study found that cows exposed to slow music, like R.E.M.'s "Everybody Hurts" or Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, produced 3% more milk than cows that were exposed to fast music, like "Pumping on your Stereo" by Supergrass and "Size of a Cow" by Wonderstuff. Bovine milk production has long been thought to be affected by exposure to music. Some farmers expose their cows to music to aid in milk production.

Dogs
Decreased stress levels have been observed in kennelled dogs that were exposed to classical music, but rapid habituation was also observed. In a 2017 follow up study, kennelled dogs were exposed to five different genres of music including soft rock, Motown, pop, reggae, and classical in order to determine whether or not increased variety of music could reduce habituation. The study found the heart rate variability, which indicates a decreased stress level, was significantly higher when the dogs were played reggae and soft rock, but the other three genres had a similar but less pronounced effect. In addition, the dogs were much more likely to lie down rather than stand while the music was being played. The study suggested that the increased variety of music decreased habituation that was present when playing exclusively classical music, though the dogs responded best when exposed to reggae and soft rock.

title: Zoomusicology


text:
Down on the Farm (album)

Down on the Farm is the seventh studio album by the American rock band Little Feat. The album was completed and released shortly after the death of the band's founder and frontman, Lowell George, in 1979. It was their last original work for nine years. The band had announced their break-up in June 1979 during the making of the album. Little Feat would reform in 1987.

The cover shows one of Neon Park's several duck-girls—an allusion to "The Finishing Touch" by painter Gil Elvgren.

Critical reception
The New York Times wrote that "it's very much an album of songs, with none of the longish solos and other experiments that often seemed out of place on Little Feat albums in the past."

Track listing
Side One
 * 1) "Down on the Farm" (Paul Barrère) – 4:16 (lead singer: Paul Barrère)
 * 2) "Six Feet of Snow" (Lowell George, Keith Godchaux) – 2:30 (lead singer: Lowell George)
 * 3) "Perfect Imperfection" (Barrère, Tom Snow) – 3:46 (lead singer: Lowell George)
 * 4) "Kokomo" (George) – 2:58 (lead singer: Lowell George)
 * 5) "Be One Now" (George, Fred Tackett) – 4:05 (lead singer: Lowell George)

Side Two
 * 1) "Straight from the Heart" (George, Payne) – 4:59 (lead singer: Lowell George)
 * 2) "Front Page News" (George, Payne) – 5:57 (lead singer: Lowell George)
 * 3) "Wake up Dreaming" (Payne, Fran Payne) – 4:09 (lead singer: Bill Payne)
 * 4) "Feel the Groove" (Clayton, Gordon DeWitty) – 4:49 (lead singer: Sam Clayton)

Band Members

 * Paul Barrère - guitar, vocals
 * Sam Clayton – congas, vocals
 * Lowell George – guitar, vocals (last album with group)
 * Kenny Gradney – bass
 * Richie Hayward – drums, vocals
 * Bill Payne – keyboards, synthesizer, vocals

Additional personnel

 * Rosemary Butler – backing vocals
 * Gordon DeWitty – keyboards
 * Robben Ford – guitar
 * Jerry Jumonville – saxophone
 * Sneaky Pete Kleinow – pedal steel guitar
 * David Lindley – guitar
 * Earl Palmer – drums ("Feel the Groove")
 * Fran Payne – backing vocals
 * Bonnie Raitt – backing vocals
 * Dan Smith – backing vocals
 * Fred Tackett – guitar (solo on "Kokomo")
 * Lee Thornburg – trumpet, trombone
 * Julia Waters – backing vocals
 * Luther Waters – backing vocals
 * Oren Waters – backing vocals
 * Maxine Willard Waters – backing vocals

title: Down on the Farm (album)


text:
Template talk:Test4

Non-sysops?
Can/should this template be used by non-sysops? The threat is rather hollow, coming from someone who doesn't have the power to carry out the actions threatened. Still, I used the template once or twice before I became a sysop, when I felt it warranted... — David Remahl 03:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. It's just a threat. If they do keep vandalizing, you can usually get a hold of an admin at Vandalism in progress or in the chat room. - Vague Rant 09:56, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Using these templates to track vandals
It would be very useful if the addition of, etc. were automatically to put the User in a category of "Vandals to be tracked", so as to generate a list of these people. What happens often enough is that the warnings are ineffectual.

I tried doing this, on the model of, but it doesn't seem to work, maybe because these are User Talk pages that  is applied to. Is this worth pursuing?

I'm posting this here as well to get maximum visibility, but please centralize responses to the Test Template Talk page.Bill 13:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop hand
Jtdirl added the "stop hand" image to this template. My initial reaction is to remove it since it hasn't been discussed here. I use the test templates often and personally, I don't want to put big red stop hands on people's talk pages. Others may want the hand, of course. Maybe we should explore other ways to make test4 an "attention-getter", since it's a very important warning. I don't think this is the proper solution. We should at least discuss it beforehand. Rhobite 00:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Your reversion was wrong. The hand is a must IMHO. The whole point of that message is that it is the ultimate and most serious warning. I have spoken to users who were banned and who said later they did not see the message among other messages and did not understand that it is was a serious 'this is your final warning' message. After discussing it with them (two emailed me afterwards asking why I had blocked them without warning. I explained that I had warned them.) I added in the hand to make it abundantly clear that this is not just another 'stop it' warning. This is a 'you are one step away from being banned' warning. It has to have visual impact or it is worthless.

 * As it stands, given what I have been told it is worthless because it is all too invisible to someone who doesn't spot it among their messages. The hand, the classic stop sign, makes sure they see it and get the message - if you repeat what you are doing you will be banned. This is your final warning. With the hand they cannot but see the message and so it may actually stop vandalism and remove the need for a block. (The current tests really aren't adequate and need a graphic impact to draw attention to them.) FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint) 01:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I just wish you had discussed this change before implementing it. You didn't even use an edit summary to explain why you were making the change. This template is widely used and it's a little presumptuous to modify it without any discussion. I (and some other users) don't like using images as decoration on talk pages. They're superfluous. As I said I use this template a lot, but I will not use a version with an image in it. What if we put the text inside a highlighted box instead, similar to Template:idw-pui? There are better solutions than a giant stop hand. Rhobite 01:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually there aren't. Fancy boxes communicate nothing. A stop hand is a clear graphic representation of the message. It also covers cases where the user may have poor english and not grasp the full import of the message. No matter what culture on his from, a stop hand has only one meaning — stop now. And frankly I find the suggestion that images are used as decoration and are superfluous quite frankly ludicrous. This is a standard visual image of the message and leaves the receiver in no doubt as to its importance. But since (in my view mindbogglingly) you seem to have a problem with a visual representation of a message — remind me again? We are using computers with graphic abilities, not typewriters? — I suggest simply having two test pages; template:test4i (the one with the image) and template:test4ni (the one with no image) so those with a phobia about images can use the plain text version. But I guarantee that the one with no image will prove next to worthless and will lead to people being blocked, whereas the one with the image will stop vandalism before people are blocked in a lot of cases. FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint) 01:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I find images on talk pages - including in signatures - to be obnoxious. No offense. It's true that these fancy computers can display graphics. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. I don't want Wikipedia to turn into one of those forums with huge signatures and a million spinny little things everywhere. As for your claim that the stop hand would reduce vandalism: I've blocked a lot of people but I've never gotten an e-mail from someone claiming they overlooked the message. I think the stop hand is a solution seeking a problem. Anyway I've created a possible alternate template, available here. I subst'd them below. If we do decide to keep the one with the hand, we should at least fix the problems with text wrapping and reduce the size of the hand. Rhobite 01:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, yes, but by the way.. just because these fancy computers can display text does not mean they should -- a picture or audio warning would often the more natural method of communicating (granted, background audio on a talk page would be too surprising for the web), when pictures help gather attention and identify the message and its severity more clearly, like here, they should be used in favor to a few lines of dull text. A highlighted box is one thing, but as a substed template it would add code-clutter to the talk pages and make it hard to add more to the message [specific to the situation] if needed (since there's no option to subst and then customize text before saving an edit), (or at least that which was added would not wind up being in the box) Images in signatures, spinny things, etc, would be undesirable, but that point is also irrelevent to the matter of an image on test4: this is an important standard message and not a personal signature, and so far, noone has seriously suggested an animated image. --Mysidia (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of templates
Test4 with hand:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing.

Template:Test4/Alternate with highlighted box instead of graphics (feel free to tweak, it's just an example):

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing.

Rhobite 01:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is a lot better than what was there. The principal reason I think the hand is important is because it communicates the message to those who either don't read message — something like that is more likely to make them stop, notice it and see what it is about, whereas text, even in a good box like the one you have created, is not something everyone will read — and also because some people come to Wikipedia with poor English and don't get messages. (One recently kept adding in weird English stuff all over the places. Messages were left telling him to stop, but I could not help wondering if he was really able to understand them. A hand image has a universal meaning — stop.

re the messages, I was surprised to get not merely one but two. One guy said that while he was getting warning messages he didn't think Wikipedia actually did block people. "I was just messing" was the way he described his edits. He said that if he had known he was going to be blocked he would have "of course" stopped. (He emailed me to ask me to unblock him, which I did.) Another guy 4 days later emailed me in a furious mood asking how dare I block him without warning him. When I said I had done he insisted I hadn't. I ended up cutting and pasting comments from his page onto the email to show him that I had left a message. His response was "how was I supposed to see that?"

That got me thinking about how weak the actual message was in terms of communicating that this was an urgent message that cannot afford to be missed. Then the guy with the bad English came on and again I found myself wondering whether he would understand a text message. A combination of them all made me think that the solution was to attach a universally recognised symbol to the message, and the universally recognised symbol for stop is a hand. And it so happened that Wikipedia had such an image which it uses on many pages already to send the message stop and read this when it comes to disputes, etc. I do think that the hand is a very powerful symbol that makes this message stand out from all the others. The others range from the 'please stop' to 'stop'. Test 4 is the 'stop it or else' message and needs a visual impact that makes it stand out and the final warning. (Plus also the image is in red, the standard stop colour, from traffic lights to red cards in sports. So again, image-wise, it promotes the message of 'stop now or else'.) Sorry if I annoyed you by doing it, BTW. I was simply trying to find a way to maximise the impact of this message for Wikipedia's benefit. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I must say that I did not, initially, like the hand. However having read Jtdir's comments, I can see that it's probably a good idea, so I'd support it being in the template (but don't make it too big). Dan100 (Talk) 16:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, I like the hand, too. Deb 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I like the hand too. Possibly add this to the other test templates and possibly have it start out faded and have it get darker each time.  Also, important words should be bold-ed, I think. --michael180 22:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oops, I removed the hand without noticing this discussion first. Anyway, I think that images on talk pages are excessively distracting.  Also, since this template is subst:'ed on talk pages, it makes cleanup even harder if we decide that we want to cut down on server load by removing the image later on.  JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Header
I added the header Test warn 4 to make the test distinguishable from other text on the discussion page, as well as a count for easy reference of the last test used. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 04:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Header caused problem with editing. I'm trying a hard line and bold text for seperation. Example:

Final warning

∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Often, I don't go straight through test, test2, 3, 4, and then 5. If the vandalism has been particularly egregious, I might start with test2, or jump from test2 to test4.  Do you think that would cause a problem if the warnings are numbered?  Joyous  (talk) 17:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good question. I think if serious vandalism is happening that it may warrant using the next test. Since I'm not an admin, I try to follow the "rule" on warning the user through all 4, although I think 4 times takes awhile.  I don't think it needs the numbers as much as the header, but they give a clear answer to where the user was last warned.  I guess they could be labeled with a related word, rather than a number.  Other than that, I'm sure everyone would understand if someone did skip 2 or 3.  Lemme play around with the wording and see if I can replace the numbers.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Changed the numbering to "type of warning".
 * Test2 - Polite warning or Please stop
 * Test2a - Polite warning
 * Test3 - Discontinue warning or Please Discontinue
 * Test4 - Final warning

I think these maybe better than numbering, and can be easily skipped depending on the severity of the warning. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 19:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Please see updated proposal on Test 2 talk. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  08:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Alteration
Please see Alteration.

Possible wording change
(cross-posted to Template talk:test4-n, you should probably reply there as it's more popular) For non-admins using this template, there is often a problem in that it loses all credibility very quickly. A test4 is placed on a user's page. They vandalize again, and are reported to AIV. If there's a backlog or no admins around, it may be quite a while before they are blocked, in which time other users can do nothing but repeat test4, each one saying they will be blocked next time, and the vandal by now not believing it at all. So, perhaps a better wording would be "If you vandalize again, you may be blocked without further warning". This still conveys the message that 1 more attack can mean a block, but it doesn't instantly lose credibility if they aren't blocked after their next attack, due to the above reasons. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning: change warning templates
No editor would vandalize. Template user needs to be more honest with self. Just disagrees with the other editor. Foundation could be sued with templates calling people vandals. Here is a better idea for this template:

I still disagree with you edit, so you may as well discuss the edit on the article's talk page:

--Chuck Marean 04:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Chuck, lots of vandalism occurs on Wikipedia. These templates aren't for disputes over content, but actual vandalism as defined in WP:VAND. See, for example, . These warnings are necessary to help police and manage this reality of allowing anyone to make edits to pages. --mtz206 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

lb equiv
lb:Template:Test4

--Briséis 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

zh equiv
zh:Template:Test4--Jusjih 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. --CBD 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to template
Could an admin add TestTemplatesNotice to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Test0-Test2 have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized. EVula 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. —Centrx→talk • 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks. EVula 18:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved documentation
Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Test4/doc subpage, as recommended in Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to: This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Thanks. +mwtoews 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Luna Santin 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Uw-vandalism4
This template is redundant and should be redirected to the recently created Template:Uw-vandalism4. Squirepants101 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should be uw-test4 I think. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I'm a dumbass. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. Proto ::  ►  16:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

can we not redirect this, why do you want this redirected? dvd rw  16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject user warnings. Please discuss before blindly reverting.  Proto ::  ►  18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, i read it, i just don't see the point. it's like renaming every wikiproject to wikipediaproject. i still don't see why, dvd  rw  20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject user warnings does not wish for the templates to be redirected — see Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Please revert the redirection.  Λυδ α cιτγ  20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. -- JLaTondre 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Last Warning?
Why is it that after having gone through all four steps, and we place You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at SOME PAGE. on the user's talk page, and when they vandalize again, we do nothing? They saw the warning, and they did it again. They should be blocked. This is not the current policy on Wikipedia, so something (either the text of this message or the policy) needs to be changed (crossposted to WP:AIV) McKay 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retarget
editprotected

Please retarget back to Template:Test4, which is no longer a double redirect. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget what? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Oops, wrong talk page! Sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"last warning" vs "may be blocked"
I don't think these make a very good match. Palosirkka (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Test4


text:
Category talk:Albania

I'm boycotting categories on principle, but if anyone cares, I have maintained the following page for a while (mostly to keep track of new articles): List of Albania-related articles. Dori | Talk 03:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * When the category links were removed from the main page on an experimental basis usage of Wikipedia slumped by a third. CalJW 22:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Albania


text:
RAIKO (satellite)

RAIKO (雷鼓, literally thunder drum) is a Japanese satellite which was built and operated by Tohoku and Wakayama Universities. A two-unit CubeSat, RAIKO was deployed from the International Space Station (ISS) on 4 October 2012, having been launched on 21 July 2012.

RAIKO was launched aboard the Kounotori 3 (HTV-3) spacecraft, atop an H-IIB launch vehicle flying from pad LC-Y2 of the Yoshinobu Launch Complex at the Tanegashima Space Center. The launch occurred at 02:06:18 UTC on 21 July 2012. Four other CubeSats were launched with RAIKO; WE WISH, FITSAT-1, TechEdSat-1 and F-1. The five CubeSats was delivered to the International Space Station for deployment. CubeSats were deployed from Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) Kibō via the J-SSOD system on 4 October 2012.

Named after a Japanese god of thunder, RAIKO is a 2 kg spacecraft, which was used for technology demonstration. It carries a camera with a fish-eye lens for Earth imaging, a prototype star tracker, a deployable membrane to slow the satellite, lowering its orbit, a photographic system to measure the satellite's movement relative to the International Space Station, and a Ku-band antenna for communications and Doppler ranging experiments.

WE WISH, RAIKO, FITSat 1, F-1, and TechEdSat-1 travelled to orbit aboard Kounotori 3 (HTV-3).

title: RAIKO (satellite)


text:
Raikoh

Raikoh may refer to:
 * Raikou (Pokémon)
 * Minamoto no Yoritomo

title: Raikoh