text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:15, 5 October 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (IZAK | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Description
IZAK has repeatedly violated user conduct guidelines by accusing several users of anti-Semitism without any evidence and by spamming user and Talk pages in smear campaigns against several users. IZAK was repeatedly warned about the gravity and inappropriateness of his incendiary charges and incessant spamming, but has ignored, and even mocked, warnings. IZAK continues to level baseless and harmful charges against users who disagree with him on edits, and keeps spamming numerous pages with out-of-context quotations, even after this complaint has been opened.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)

1.Anti-Semitism charge example 1:
 * "The big question now arises as to why User:HistoryBuffEr is now resorting to personal rantings rather than contributing facts and staying rational and logical rather then taking on arguments that sound like classical Anti-Semitism. Makes it sound like he would vote for the "Final Solution" if that was possible. IZAK 06:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2. Anti-Semitism charge example 2:
 * "(By the way who is SpaceMonkey and why is he afraid to have a valid Wikipedia User name as there is no word "User" in front of his "signed" name, check it out for yourself by clicking on the "edit" page. It just shows up as --SpaceMonkey ??? Another Anti-Semite afraid to face the truth???) IZAK 12:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

3. Anti-Semitism charge example 3:
 * "User/s": "SpaceMonkey"; "Susvolans"; "HistoryBuffEr"
 * "It should be pretty clear by now that the seemingly "new" "Users": "Spacemonkey"; "Susvolans", and "HistoryBuffEr" (by the way, check their User contributions) (and presumably more to come) are probably all one person out there, obviously very familiar with the world of Wikipedia, making up Wiki-user names at random, wasting everybody's time in good old Internet troll fashion, and playing "mind games" as he/it wages a "shadow war" (or "war from the shadows") against articles relating to Israel, Zionism, or Jews. Until such time as it can be established just who exactly "User/s: 'SpaceMonkey'; 'Susvolans'; 'HistoryBuffEr'" is/are and what he/they is/are up to, beyond having an anti-Israel, and yes, an Anti-Semitic agenda, his/their comments and tactics should be totally ignored, and this entire vote cancelled unless Users who are better known, responsible and reliable are willing to handle this subject. Rather than follow "HistoryBuffEr"'s desire for kangaroo court tactics as evidenced here thus far. It's time to smell the coffee...IZAK 06:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

4. Spamming and smear campaigns.
 * IZAK was involved in a major spamming/smear campaign (see "Sam Spade" section below). IZAK is currently engaged in another major spamming/smear campaing, posting baseless charges and out-of-context quotes all over user and article Talk pages, including this very page and its associated Talk page. See IZAKs contrib log for details.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

 * 1) Avoid Profanity
 * 2) No Personal attacks
 * 3) Wikipedia etiquette

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

1. Warning 1:
 * "I would definately add gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism, and even racist genocide to that list. It's an extremely offensive remark to most people, especially when made gratuitously, and it trivialises anti-Semitism and racism in general. It also qualifies as a personal attack, a violation of Wikipedia policy - pir 12:57, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

2. Warning 2:
 * "IZAK please refrain from gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism. In the absence of any evidence to support that claim you violate a basic Wikipedia policy of personal attacks, and you banalise anti-Semitism. - pir 12:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

3. Warning 3:
 * "You're right, of course. And the next step, if policy violators don't take the hint from Let's not, is to drop a notice on their user talk page. I just hate to do that, because (a) it's so time-consuming and (b) I tend to wander away from compliance with policy myself from time to time (Hi, Jayjg!). --Uncle Ed 13:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

4. Warning 4:
 * "IZAK, I suggest that (with SpaceMonkey's consent) you remove the personal attack from the VFD page. You will also notice that the page is unlikely to survive in its present form... JFW | T@lk 10:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

5. Warning 5:
 * "IZAK, I'm going to very, very strongly suggest that, in the future, you make no accusations that any Wikipedia editors are anti-Semitic. In the past you have thrown that accusation around extremely freely, and it only hurts your cause. If you find your fingers typing such an accusation in the future, please reconsider posting, as many times as it takes until you finally delete the accusation and deal with the articles themselves, and not ad hominems about the editors. Jayjg 19:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

6. Warning 6:
 * "Unfortunately you have displayed a dismaying inability to distinguish ducks from chickens, turkeys, and other domesticated birds. There is no need to call people anti-Semites, regardless of whether or not it is true; these statements are ad hominem and only distract from the actual issues at hand. Stick to editing the articles to NPOV, there's no need to pass judgement on the editors, and it does far more harm than good. I'm trying to help you here, IZAK, not criticise you. Jayjg 21:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

7. IZAK's response:
 * "Yea, lots of chickens and turkeys are also around, that's true... IZAK 21:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

8. Warning 7:
 * "Isaac, much as I sympathize with you, Buff is right about the requirement for you to avoid personal remarks. In the heat of discussion, it's easy for even the best of us to forget the, er, debate rules. I suggest you take the "moral high road" and issue a unilateral apology.
 * Here at Wikipedia, self-justification doesn't win you any points. Just ensure that your future conduct is above reproach, and all else will be well. --Uncle Ed 14:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

9. Warning 8:
 * "It looks like a straight fowards smear campaign to me. I note that a least one person has now voted in favour of adminship for Sam Spade because of it. I doubt that was the result your were looking for? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

10. Warning 9:
 * "This sort of attack campaign is exactly what should NOT be happening here. I find it hypocritical to accuse someone, yet use these tactics. I have added IZAK's action related to this vote to the RFC that already exists against him. Please see Requests for comment/IZAK. -- Netoholic @ 22:20, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)"
 * IZAK subsequently responded, firmly indicating that he was aware of Netoholic's warnings.
 * IZAK continues to attack and insult other users (see Special:Contributions/IZAK) and still uses similar "spamming" methods.

11. Warning 10:
 * "I'm not going to revert, but I would appreciate it if you would read ForestFire and then consider replacing the lengthy copied section with a link to the relevant text. If not, well, that's unfortunate; nobody is served by having the debate on HistoryBuffEr's behavior spread out across dozens of user talk: and article talk: pages. Thanks. —No-One Jones (m) 02:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

12. See also "Sam Spade's adminship" section below, where a number of users have warned IZAK about his behavior.

13. This RfC was initally open on Oct 5. This RfC itself is a warning to IZAK, which IZAK has subsequently ignored.

Sam Spade's adminship
Recently, IZAK engaged several user page "spamming" sessions regarding Sam Spade's recent nomination for adminship. Izak considers Sam "pro-Nazi", and has engaged in numberous ad hominem campaigns to garner votes against Sam's bid. Attempts to change this behavior have been tried by multiple users, and all indications show that this user will continue to use these tactics against other users that they view as "anti-Semetic". Whether the accusations are actually founded or not, these character attacks go beyond the bounds of civil behavior, and I recommend firm action be taken, as decided by the Arbitration Committee, against IZAK.

Evidence of disputed behavior is found in the contribution history of IZAK – first on 6 Oct 2004 (from 21:33 to 21:49) and then again on 10 Oct 2004 (from 08:38 to 10:17).

Policies violated in this effort:
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility
 * What Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia is not a soapbox)

Users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Netoholic @ 17:07, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * 2) Simonides 00:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:41, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
 * 4) Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 01:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) 05:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6)   — Kate Turner | Talk 07:40, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
 * 7) irismeister 16:15, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
 * 8) Though I was the first to oppose Spade's adminship, I agree that IZAK's campaign was uncalled-for. —No-One Jones (m) 17:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Spam is bad as a general rule, and this was meanspirited and unfair IMO> Sam [Spade] 22:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) ugen64 21:49, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Xed 13:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) fvw 03:22, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
 * 13) I noticed the messages in quite a few pages when I was thanking people for voting in favour of giving me admin access. Personal attacks like that are just not on. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 14)  Andre  ( talk )A| 19:17, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) I have to endorse this, as HistoryBuffEr isn't the one on trial here, IZAK is. Shane King 04:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )

 * 1) Netoholic @ 18:55, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC) -- On the basis that he posted accusations on multiple user pages relating to Sam Spade's nomination, which is in line with the description of the complaint above.  My previous "Outside View" documented below at Requests for comment/IZAK can be considered an attempt "to resolve a dispute with this user" regarding his personal attacks and user page spam. I also put forth that those efforts have failed and he continues to spam insults about other users, referring to his edits on 13 Oct from 08:26 to 08:40 (see Special:Contributions/IZAK).
 * Netoholic, please post up in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section above your personal attempt to resolve the dispute with IZAK. Otherwise your certification will also be invalid. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to police this RFC to death. My effort was sound, has been turned back, and he continues to spam. He is in the wrong. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
 * First, I am not arguing that IZAK is in the right (or wrong). Second, spamming is not the subject of this RfC. You can bring a different RfC against IZAK for that if you choose. See the guidelines. I checked the other RfCs at the same time I checked this one. They are in compliance except for the one against Chuck F, where I could find on certifiers efforts and I notified the editor. There seeme to be valid complaints here. Why so difficult to follow the guidelines? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The validity of this certification is disputed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have added Netoholics's warning to "Evidence" above. HistoryBuffEr 04:23, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * 1) IZAK, your comments (as quoted above) technically go against Wikipedia guidelines. Rather than protesting that Buff is just as bad or worse, I suggest you simply agree to stop calling Buff "anti-Semitic" and to avoid speculating that he's in favor of the Final Solution (i.e., the Holocaust). Do that, and I'll recommend that this 'case' be closed. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (See 1 For Ed's warning.)
 * I don't see Ed Poor directly engaging IZAK in your example. We can't assume IZAK read a general comment by Ed, and Ed did not mention "anti-semitism," the subject of this RfC. But I have contacted Ed directly, and he can tell us what he has done, rather than speculate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not simply read Ed_Poor's comment, in which he concurred with "Pir" who warned "IZAK" and warned everyone involved (myself, "IZAK", "Jayjg", "Viriditas" ...) Plus, Ed_Poor's sig here should be taken as certifying that. HistoryBuffEr 19:59, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

 * I have added Ed_Poor's warning under "Evidence" above. HistoryBuffEr 04:07, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

 * 3. HistoryBuffEr 01:58, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC).
 * I opened the original RfC on Oct 5 as a warning to IZAK. IZAK has subsequently ignored that warning. The RfC cert has been restarted by Cecropia and includes both old and new issues. My cert now meets the RfC criteria.

 * 4. irismeister 16:04, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
 * As an old experienced subject of RfCs, campaings, debriefings and not only spamming from Securitate and many Wiki admins, I hereby certify that HistoryBuffEr is subject to a classical witch hunt, designed to scare him. Not only this doesn't work, but is counterproductive, only showing the sordid lack of arguments of his would-be accuser and opponent (see for instance Special:Contributions/IZAK passim). If respect for people, values and truth, as well as common sense, decriminalization of thought-ful rejection of thoughtcrimes and quality, evidence-based editing are still issues in Wikipedia, simply forget about smearing campaigns. They simply don't work! Search for truth instead. It's really rewarding, enlighting and, well, even useful. See Israel Shamir, Noam Chomsky and Immanuel Kant for a primer. At the very least do something decently instead of being counterproductive for the cause of rejecting any racism - like against HistoryBuffEr's wit, knowledge and intelligence. Simply throwing dirt in the general direction of a partner in a learned discussion, while writing quality articles in Wikipedia, instead of carefully doing reaserch on facts and building them into rational arguments and using them humbly, as good editors, well - doesn't work either. If progress in the Western Civilization were made, it would be seen in Salem. However, when Gandhi was asked about what he thought about the Western Civilization, he only said this:

''What do I think about the Western Civilization? I think that would be a very good idea!'' - irismeister 16:04, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * fvw 03:26, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
 * Simonides 23:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) - IZAK's nonsensical accusations reminds me of a certain User:RK. HistoryBuffer, there is a huge group of such biased editors on Wikipedia and you will find it hard to get in any word about them edgewise - and as you notice from the above Uncle Ed, one of many apparently neutral editors, is not particularly interested in the facts either.

 * I'm interested in the facts. I'm just more interested in quick closure. Izak should just apologize and stop making personal remarks. ----Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 19:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response by HistoryBuffEr

 * User:IZAK refuses to admit that he violated Wikipedia policy, even though this is obvious.
 * User:IZAK has not explained why he called User:SpaceMonkey and User:Susvolans anti-Semites.
 * User:IZAK's response does not prove he was justified in calling any of users anti-Semites.
 * User:IZAK has failed to apologize for his flagrant violations.
 * User:IZAK has failed to promise that he will not violate Wikipedia policy in future.
 * Even worse, User:IZAK has now called User:HistoryBuffEr a Nazi.
 * Several users endorsing User:IZAK have violated policy themselves in their posts.
 * This RfC should be kept open until User:IZAK acknowledges his mistakes and promises not to repeat them. -- HistoryBuffEr 20:24, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

RfC Status update
The main objective of this RfC is to change udesirable behavior. On the positive side, IZAK, while loudly insisting that he was in the right, had at first toned down his heated rhetoric. This commendable improvement in behavior had kept this RfC in the state of hibernation and the RfC appeared to be on its way out. However, for some reason (perhaps Cecropia's attempt to try to kill the sleeping RfC with legalese), IZAK has now relapsed.

IZAK continues posting baseless charges, and is spreading lengthy tracts of out-of-context quotes with his highly POV interpretations (in bold letters) seemingly anywhere he can get to (see Evidence 11 above.)

The fact that IZAK, unlike Alberuni on his RfC, refuses to admit obvious mistakes and apologize is less important, it's a matter of personal views of morality and integrity. What is important is that he modifies his behaviour in face of numerous complaints, so Wikipedians can get to the task of writing articles, rather than wasting time on fruitless debates about behavior.

The proposed intermediate verdict:
 * This RfC should be kept open until IZAK tones down his rhetoric and ceases unsolicited promotion of his POV about several users all over Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) HistoryBuffEr 02:31, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC).

Response by User:IZAK
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

 * See(HistoryBuffEr | talk | contributions)

 * Hi, I am User:IZAK. This is not about "edits" that I am disputing, as I have not focused on minor edits by User:HistoryBuffEr. What I am opposed to is User:HistoryBuffEr's mocking, degrading, and negative attitude on Wikipedia and to the State of Israel, Jews, and Zionism related articles, which simply put amounts to Anti-Semitism for lack of any other clearer definition. (I have NOT, yet, called him a Nazi, but maybe it's what he is).

Furthermore, by reading HistoryBuffer's own words you will see that he has repeatedly violated the three things he accuses others of doing, namely:

 * 1) Avoid Profanity
 * 2) No Personal attacks
 * 3) Wikipedia etiquette

See:

Talk:Occupation of Palestine:

 * 1) Talk:Occupation of Palestine: "...Not to mention the fact that a country that treats its minorities as dirt cannot be called democratic at all. HistoryBuffEr 07:12, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)"
 * 2) Talk:Occupation of Palestine: "We have a handful of pro-Israeli extremists here holding entire sections of Wikipedia hostage to their whims. ...does not mean anything to these crybabies -- they want articles titled and written exactly as they say, or else this gang will incessantly mutilate, delete, redirect or revert articles until they get their way."
 * 3) Talk:Occupation of Palestine: "...Case closed, try peddling your hypocrisy elsewhere. HistoryBuffEr 22:55, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)"
 * 4) Talk:Occupation of Palestine: "...My point is: Views of some extremists are here presented as views of (all or most) Israelis, which is both inaccurate and POV. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...And because this highly POV version was written by the resident Zionists they should disqualify themselves from further editing of this article and limit themselves to suggestions in Talk in the interest of Wikipedia. HistoryBuffEr 06:37, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)"
 * 5) Talk:Occupation of Palestine: "...Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a geographical society, any map they post is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 19:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...Judea was never a purely geo term, as it means "where Jews live". Using this ancient ethnicity based term today is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 20:28, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)"
 * 6) Talk:Occupation of Palestine: Israel is also disputed by some, so what about terms "Israel" and "Israeli areas", aren't these terms POV as well? HistoryBuffEr 19:47, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...(In what sense is the term "Israel" disputed? --Uncle Ed 19:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).) Ever heard of "Hamas" et al? HistoryBuffEr
 * 7) Talk:Occupation of Palestine: "...Stating that terms Palestine/Palestinians are disputed in the very first sentence but omitting that Israel is also disputed is neither fair nor it represents all sides...Object violently" implies that most Arabs and their allies are attacking Israel, which is not true...It mimicks a favorite canard of Zionist extremists who call anyone supporting the Palestinian cause an Arab-lover or a Jew-hater. It is not mirrored with "Jews and their allies", but with "Israel and their allies". "Arabs" is an ethno/racial term so a fair mirror term should be "Jews", not "Israel"....HistoryBuffEr 18:58, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)"
 * 8) Talk:Occupation of Palestine: "I've taken a break from this article to let others move the article towards a neutral POV, or at least some consensus (meaning text acceptable to those outside of the pro-Israel extremist gang who have made a joke of this article), but I haven't seen any major outside edits and the gang keeps littering on and on...HistoryBuffEr 03:20, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)"

Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict:

 * 1) Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict: "Jayjg, you've been already told that Wikipedia is not your private sandbox and that no one needs your permission to edit here. Now you have (again) shown your immaturity by repeated reverts with no good reason (other than that NPOV edits obviously hurt your pro-Israeli POV). You should be aware that you have violated Wikipedia's policy of "No 3 reverts within 24 hours". If you do not grow up and leave this page alone I'll have no choice but to refer you to adult supervision. HistoryBuffEr 05:42, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)"

Talk:Israel:

 * 1) Talk:Israel: "Who do you think you are to repeatedly revert my edits without any reason? And why did you remove the NPOV notice? If you have issues discuss them here; and keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself. HistoryBuffEr 03:50, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)"
 * 2) Talk:Israel: Jayjg, despite what your mom may have told you, this and other Israel related pages are NOT your personal property. And no one needs your permission to edit this or any other page on Wikipedia. So, instead of whining ask mom to get you your very own private sandbox where you can dictate who can do what. Meanwhile, leave Wikipedia editing to adults. HistoryBuffEr 04:48, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)(I encourage you to restrict your comments to discussions of proposed edits, rather than the continued ad hominem statements. Jayjg 04:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC).) Have you learned to read yet? I said that no one needs your approval to edit. Now, go back to reading "Pet Goat" and leave this page alone. HistoryBuffEr 05:04, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)."

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons:

 * 1) "...The user archives any critical remarks and newcomer guidance to this page in violation of Talk etiquette. The user was notified that this is a violation and moved the notification to this page. The user continues to engage in uncivil behavior and other etiquette/policy violations, and his summary rejection of criticism makes any progress on these problems impossible. Delete. Gazpacho 04:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis:

 * 1) Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis: (HistoryBuffer tries to close off a vote that goes against him.): "...Notwithstanding HistoryBuffEr's strange math, a VfD is live and can continue being voted on until an admin gets around to ruling on consensus. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

User:HistoryBuffEr:

Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 06:01, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
 * 1) User:HistoryBuffEr: (Negative Attitude): "Leave rants and unsolicited advice messages here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons&action=edit&section=new).

User talk:HistoryBuffEr:

 * 1) User talk:HistoryBuffEr: (More negatives): "...General Rants and Unsolicited Advices will be promptly moved to subpage User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. If your message is of this type, please post it directly there..."

User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons:

 * 1) User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons: "...We seem to be talking in vain. Each of your posts looks almost identical to each other. Also, I don't see how putting "alleged" in every sentence is helpful when I had already put in a disclamer in the first paragraph. And I have already shown you that the term "occupation" is well settled (eg: Iraq was bombed twice on much less evidence). This and all other points are well supported by documents and history books (including Israel's). HistoryBuffEr 07:43, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)"
 * 2) User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons: "That's four reverts in one day on Arab anti-Semitism, HistoryBuffEr. You know this is a violation of guidelines. Jayjg 05:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)Having problems with simple counting? How did 3 become 4 for you? HistoryBuffEr 05:40, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) Read the edit history again; you first reverted RK, then me 3 times. Jayjg 05:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) You read history again, I didn't revert RK, I NPOVified the article (compare to prev versions.) HistoryBuffEr 05:45, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) Actually, you POVd the article, RK reverted, and then you POVd it again. Jayjg 06:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) Reread the above until you understand it. This discussion is over as far as I am concerned. HistoryBuffEr 06:05, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons"."

Arab anti-Semitism:

 * 1) HistoryBuffer attempts to remove: "Genuine anti-Semitism exists in the Arab world."
 * 2) HistoryBuffer attemtps to insert: "This article is about views of some Arabs considered by some Jews or their supporters to be anti-Semitic. Most Arabs dispute anti-Semitism charges, stating that their views are merely reciprocal to Jewish hostility towards Arabs, and based solely on Israel's Occupation of Palestine and neighboring lands and Israel's oppression of Palestinians. Some Jews and their supporters consider any opposition to the existence of the State of Israel and any criticism of Israel's actions to be anti-Semitic. Moderates on all sides point to the need to separate legitimate criticism from irrational hatred..."
 * 3) History tries to insert: "...This article discusses Jewish allegations of anti-Semitism within the Arab world. These allegations are disputed by Arabs, stating that the only cause for hostility towards Israel is Israel's Occupation of Palestine and Israel's hostility towards Palestinians and Arabs...Some people claim that the Palestinian Authority's hostility to Israel constitutes anti-Semitism in itself; others regard this claim as absurd, noting that hostility to an enemy nation need not imply hostility to the associated ethnicity..."
 * 4) HistoryBuffer tries to delete: "...Articles in many official Arab government newspapers (notably those of the Palestinian Authority, Libya and Saudi Arabia) claim that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous anti-Semitic forgery, reflects actual facts, and thus points to an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world... Zionist conspiracy theories regarding the (September 11, 2001 attacks) Across the Arab world, a fair number of Arab media outlets, some government-sponsored (such as those of Libya and Saudi Arabia, and some of those of the Palestinian Authority),...and therefore believed that people perceived to be enemies of the Arabs must really be to blame; many others disagreed. After Al Qaeda acknowledged their role publicly, these claims lost credibility, and came to be widely seen as a conspiracy theory."

Calling a spade a spade: Counter response by User:IZAK
It seems that HistoryBuffEr is unaware of the scope of his own very serious Anti-Semitism even though it has been laid out for him above. It is outrageous that HistoryBuffEr can:
 * Praise Hamas: :"...Israel is also disputed by some, so what about terms "Israel" and "Israeli areas", aren't these terms POV as well? Ever heard of "Hamas" et al?" HistoryBuffEr SeeTalk:Occupation of Palestine.
 * Calls for the bombing of Israel: "...And I have already shown you that the term "occupation" is well settled (eg: Iraq was bombed twice on much less evidence). This and all other points are well supported by documents and history books (including Israel's)..." See User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons.
 * Attempts to remove mention of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion  See
 * Hurls personal insults at admins: Talk:Israel: "...keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself. HistoryBuffEr 03:50, 2004 Sep 26" (UTC)". "Talk:Israel: Jayjg, despite what your mom may have told you, this and other Israel related pages are NOT your personal property. ...Have you learned to read yet? I said that no one needs your approval to edit. Now, go back to reading "Pet Goat" and leave this page alone. HistoryBuffEr 05:04, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)."
 * Constantly hurls the terms Zionist or Zionists and "Israel or Israelis", as insulting PEJORATIVES as in Talk:Occupation of Palestine and Talk:Occupation of Palestine.
 * Seeks to close off a vote on Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis even though at least FIFTEEN users oppose his move. (Which is where this dispute started).

User:IZAK's response Re:"SamSpade"
Hello, I am User:IZAK, in the case of "SamSpade" the evidence he has provided himself is that he (i.e. "SamSpade") is an Anti-Semite especially as exhibited by his views about the Holocaust of Europe's Jews under the Nazis, and he is certainly not worthy of any admin role on Wikipedia as it would be an outrageous disgrace! Please see User:Spleeman/Sam Spade especially:

User:Spleeman/Sam Spade:
 * "Thinks Holocaust deniers should be treated as equally credible to mainstream historians, whom he refers to as "Jewish organizations". (Talk:Jew)
 * "The term "Holocaust" is always POV." (Sam Spade 22:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC), Talk:Jew) Really? I didn't know that!
 * "It would almost never apply in an NPOV, encyclopedic sense, but might in cases of people being vigorously hacked apart, which is not what the nazi's generally did. They mainly worked people to death in reletively unhealthful conditions, gassing the weak (young, old, disabled, etc...). I don't find "slaughter" much more relevent in an encyclopedic sense here than it would be in describing... say the slave ships carrying africans to the new world." (Sam Spade 23:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Jew)
 * Sam uses edit wars and other tactics, such as placing warnings at the tops of articles, to bully his opponents into accepting his POV. Recently, on the Jew page, he placed a "totally disputed" warning on the page because of two sentences he didn't like (Talk:Jew). When another editor removed the warning, Sam reverted the page  and added an "attention" warning . Another editor put it best when reverting this silliness: "An article doesn't become totally disputed and in need of attention because someone stumbles across it and doesn't like one sentence."

User:Spleeman/Sam Spade:
 * Constantly chides others for breaking wiki policy, yet often breaks same policies, especially when it comes to civility issues and missing edit summaries ,
 * Seeks out controversial articles, especially ones that relate in some way to his moral, political, and/or religious beliefs
 * Makes changes to articles in accordance with his POV, , , ,
 * Frequently engages ideological opponents in online debates; provokes frustration and anger in opponents; starts/participates in edit wars
 * Is convinced other users are out to get him ,
 * For instance, he believes a group of "rabidly pro-homosexual editors" are trying to prevent him from editing gay-related pages due to their "pro-gay POV slant" (User_talk:Raul654/archive)

User:Spleeman/Sam Spade:
 * User:172:
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004
 * User:AndyL
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004_2
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004_2
 * User:Hyacinth
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004
 * User:Nat Krause
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_June_2004_2
 * User:GrazingshipIV
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004
 * User:Viajero
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004
 * User:Bcorr
 * Talk:Pantheism/Archive_2
 * User_talk:Bcorr/Archive_200403
 * User_talk:Bcorr/Archive_200403
 * User:David Gerard
 * Talk:Pantheism/Archive_2
 * User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_1
 * User:Mirv
 * User_talk:Mirv
 * User:Sunray
 * User_talk:Sunray

Finally from the above multitudinous examples it should be amply clear that "SamSpade" himself is fully guilty of:

Policies violated by "SamSpade"s activities:
 * 1) No personal attacks
 * 2) Civility
 * 3) What Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia is not a soapbox)

User:IZAK asks: Is "SamSpade" also "HistoryBuffEr"?
Hi all, I am curious if "SamSpade" is also "HistoryBuffEr" because their Anti-Semitism is identical. Is this a case of Sock puppet/s? Is there any way to certify that they are two different Wikipedia users, and not just the same Internet troll hiding behind different user names? IZAK 22:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IZAK is ranked 72nd top User: False accusations about "Spamming"
Hi, HistoryBuffer continues to falsely label my attempts at communicating with other users as "spamming".

Since I am ranked as the 79th (out of 1000) most active Wikipidians see List of Wikipedians by number of edits I have come across many users.

It is true that in the case of SamSpade's quest for adminship I contacted about thirty to forty other fellow-Wikipedians. 30 to 40 out of thousands of Wikipedia users is NOT spamming (by the way, has Wikipedia ever expressed a clear definition of how and what constitutes spamming and how many "messages" equals a "Spam session"?)

If you live in an apartment with about 50 other tenants and you wanted to discuss something of importance to all of them, and you sent most of them a note or knocked on their door about a problem of importance, would that also be "spamming"? Obviously not!

I firmly believe that any user has the right to contact a reasonable amount of users over issues important to the Wikipedia community (after all I am not selling ink cartridges etc) and not "sit in solitude" and has the right to contact other users who share his interests and concerns within reason.

Anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and Neo-Nazi activities are a scourge that is surely of concern to all users (except those who are "proud" of those abominations).

In my definition, spamming is when you try to reach hundreds, perhaps thousands, (millions?), of Wikipedidians. (I am certain we ALL know what real spamming is, and can differentiate between a false charge and a concerned citizen). In any case, leaving messages on another eight fellow users or a handful of interlinked pages is not "spamming".

But now HistoryyBuffer looks at my activities and sees me trying to contact about eight other users he deems this "spamming". Please consider that as a very active user with over 8000 (eight thousand edits at least) "official" edits (again see my ranking as 79th top editor with an official count of edits on List of Wikipedians by number of edits) its actually more as when my comp. sometimes does not get logged in and when many of my early edits were not even attributed to me. Let's get some perspective and sense of proportion here and NOT fall victim to HistoryBuffer's own war against this Jew. IZAK 09:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Buffer keeps moving the goalposts
For some odd idiosyncratic reason best known to himself User:HistoryBuffer keeps on changing the times and dates of old posts in this discussion (if you could even call it that) making it seem that what was discussed and lapsed weeks ago is still "on the front burner", a very sneaky "tactic", and he adds out of context quotations concerning me to make it appear that I am an unreasonable person or that I have "relapsed" recently (which in itself is a loaded and disgusting word for one who aspires to such "civility" and he should apologize and avoid using degrading personal terms)...Be that as it may, Wikipedins sould carefully look at 'Buffer's edits here via the "history" page. His latest "proposed verdict" is a thinly-disguised attempt to cover-up his own agenda of insulting Israelis, Jews, and Zionists and then keeping them "on trial" for defending themselves, a notorious and nefarious tactic. I really feel sorry that 'Buffer does not have the nerve to address me directly and instead relies on edited second-hand quotes from third parties through which he covers his own tracks in the hope that people forget that he thinks he can imply that Israel should be bombed, its own suffering forgotten, or that Hamas is somehow legit, or be a defender of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or back Holocaust denial and expect that no-one will call him an Anti-Semite at some point for disparaging Israel, Zionism, and Jews (see above), a tall order indeed. So the question is, when will he wake up and smell the Wikipedia coffee and make CONSTRUCTIVE contributions instead of harassing the Jewish and Judaism-related editors who work hard at NPOV articles in spite of pressures they are put under by dubious users and editors on Wikipedia. IZAK 08:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IZAK & Sam Spade talk to each other
See User talk:IZAK for the rest of this communication:

Hi IZAK
I think its mean when you call me names. Please don't do that. Have you seen Civility, Wikiquette, or Dispute resolution? Please do!! Feel free to talk to me about whatever, I welcome your thoughts. May God bring you peace, Sam [Spade] 23:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response (by User:IZAK)
Dear Sam: Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your concerns. However, I have found that in spite of your efforts and outward civility, there have been times when your actions and writings on Wikipedia have hurt my feelings as a Jew and as a human being. In particular, I found your harsh behavior and unsympathetic manner during your edit wars at the Jew article extremely disturbing, to say the least. At that time I was contacted by User:Spleeman see User talk:IZAK/archive 2 where he consoles me: "Don't let Sam get you angry. Trust me, he's not worth your time. If you do have any trouble with him in the future, however, let me know. I've been compiling data on his activities: User:Spleeman/Sam_Spade. Happy edits! -- Spleeman 08:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)." In conclusion, I have no real "personal" grudge/s against you, as I have no idea who you really are. I do happen to admire your battles on behalf of "God", although I am not sure who your God is or if that God is my God...but that is not the issue now. I am sorry if you have misunderstood me and I certainly do not mean to hurt your feelngs. But you must understand, that the same things you ask of me to observe Civility, Wikiquette, or Dispute resolution must and do apply to you and your allies equally, and that your words and actions have frequently contravened the same things you want me and others to keep. So try to be reasonable, and treat others as you would like them to treat you and all will be well. Again, thank you for contacting me. Yours sincerely, IZAK 01:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary by IZAK

 * 1) Xtra 05:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) This entire exersise is a rediculous waste of time.
 * 2) While I don't always agree with User:IZAK, here I do. I would insist that User:HistoryBuffEr be reprimanded first. From the outset he created User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons, a black hole replacement for his discussion page, an evidence that he is not here to cooperate in creating a serious encyclopedia. His math is skewed (to put it mildly): see e.g. Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Denying the Jewish state the right to exist (rather than criticizing its policies), justifying HAMAS, alleging "Zionist conspiracy", distorting even the definition of Zionism, the political movement that he attempts to dispute, borders on or constitutes modern anti-Semitism.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree here with User:IZAK. There is a growing pheonmena of antisemitism among Arab, and while some of them do deny it or claim they are only anti-Israeli, many Arab publicists admit that Arab antisemitism exists and debunk Arabs and Muslims for using such an ugly tool to promote the political or religious goals. So HisBuff attempts to replace "Arab antisemitism" with "allegation of some Jews about Arab antisemitism" is futile and not approperiate. His attempts to delete facts from the article is also foul. MathKnight 11:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with User:IZAK. But maybe he should have refrained from accusing anybody, and instead presented his case about User:HistoryBuffEr (like it is done here), so User:IZAK would be in a much better position in a discussion like this.  I do believe User:HistoryBuffEr should be reprimanded first.  Undoubtedly, there has been and there is anti-semitism in the world.  I think everybody would agree that there will still be.  The existence of Israel is now considered the culprit of that anti-semitism (although many anti-semites try to deny this), but even without Israel it's easy to see that there still was (Nazis, Holocaust, Pogroms, Inquisition, etc).  History "revisionists" always try to minimize (or eliminate) the truth for different reasons.  It seems to me that User:HistoryBuffEr is highly influenced by his own political views, and in his way he is trying to create a "Buffer" (as his ID implies) between the real truth and what he considers the truth.  I think User:HistoryBuffEr is a kind of "revisionist", his views are DEFINITELY anti-Israel and "by-proxy" many of his edits have been directly or indirectly anti-semitic.  The hard part is that it would seem that he doesn't even know it and this is why he is complaining about the anti-semitism accusation (If he knew he was, he would not be complaining).  Many Nazis sincerely thought they were doing the "right" thing by killing Millions of the "inferior" Jews.  Many Nazis today still think so.  I think Wikipedia should have the NAKED and RAW truth.  No "buffers" should be accepted here.--AAAAA 12:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) GeneralPatton 00:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Viriditas 04:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) IZAK 22:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) If there are bigots in Wikipedia, and they want to promote merely their POV, and decide to make anti-Semitic and other racist, religionist, sexist, (insert your own category here)ist, etc. remarks, then they are using Wikipedia as a soapbox and not being NPOV. If a bigot wants to participate, he or she should do so only by writing from a NPOV on encyclopedia articles, while relegating the POV to the talk pages. Moreover, there IS a lot of Arab antisemitism making the rounds, much of it likely the Nazis' fault (IMHO). Rickyrab 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Evolver of Borg 20:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) YUL89YYZ 13:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) 172 10:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Jfdwolff
There is a subgroup of users on the project who are on the verge of trolling in their bias against Israel and the coverage of this country on Wikipedia.

I dispute the allegation of anti-Semitism as leveled by User:IZAK, but (without mentioning names or casting direct accusations) there is a lot of ad hominem, demonisation of politicians and leaders, insulting and faux moralism that makes involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian issue an almost impossible task. I do not pretend to know enough about the issue, and neither do I involve myself in these pages, but I'm repeatedly called upon by trusted contributors to control the wildfire of anti-Israel bias on the project.

Other users have landed themselves in trouble, and I maintain that the words anti-Semite, fundamentalist and ultra-something should be scrupulously avoided, but I contest that the debate can spin out of control sufficiently to prompt these kind of reactions.

Instead of censuring IZAK, I recommend the appointment of a full-time arbitrator (User:Ed Poor comes to mind) as a first port of call for all problems related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, whether it is VfD, RFC, RFM or even RFA. I also feel mediation should be used more often over article content, instead of VfD-ing every contested page. JFW | T@lk  08:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Viriditas 11:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Frikle 12:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jayjg 17:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * --AAAAA 22:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * GeneralPatton 00:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Xtra 08:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) With the exception that I strongly agree with deleting rant pages, on any subject. Just because it is created doesn't mean that it makes sense to keep it there in any form.
 * (Partially endorsing summary) 1) I am not ready to dispute the charges of anti-Semitism leveled by IZAK; I am only familiar with his charges against one particular user, and those seem to carry some weight, given the evidence IZAK has brought to light above. 2) I do not if Ed Poor is qualified to be an arbiter of neutrality on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (I will elaborate on my partial defense of IZAK later; right now I have to make it to a meeting.) 172 14:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Josiah
 * As I see it, the only remark HistoryBuffEr said that could in any way be interpreted as antisemitic is his call to a specific group of Zionists to disqualify themselves from editing a specific article. Criticism of Israel's treatment of minorities, for example, does not necessarily constitute antisemitism. At best, HistoryBuffEr deserves a reprimand. IZAK, I appreciate your repeated requests for my opinion on this issue and others, but as I see it, all you've managed to do is create a big hooplah with very weak evidence. The detrimental effects of this action could include a banalization of antisemitism and, in general, a "cry wolf" effect. Even if you maintain that HistoryBuffEr or others hold antisemitic views, IZAK, I recommend that you seek alternative ways with deal with them. Arbitration seems like the best way out of this. Jeru 14:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Leifern 11:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) I don't endorse any kind of ad hominem attack, but I also think that IZAK is right to be upset about some of the historical revisionisn, accusations, etc., that are leveled against Israel and Jews. Sure, a charge of antisemitism must be substantiated, but we have to face the reality that it exists.
 * I agree with every word by Jfdwolff. I have been contacted countless times already to vote/intervene in the Wikipedia "wars" on the Israeli-Arab conflict, and initially I was inclinded to do so, because I really do agree that there is a very serious problem here. The only reason I didn't actually get much involved was simply lack of time, but more recently I have come to the same conclusion as Jfdwolff: it is an "impossible task" and the "wildfire" really cannot be controlled within the stardard wiki process. What we need is an overall solution to the entire problem and all of its related articles, not haphazard efforts, and perhaps a full-time administrator could help. Any other ideas? In any case, I don't think censuring users on either side is the right way to do it (others will always follow quickly in their footsteps anyways). Dovi 17:16, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * IZAK should attempt more to reduce the heat in arguments, but I guess at least he does not heat it up on purpose. Gady 19:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response to the biased responses
Much of this page is representative of the omnipresent, brainwashed, ignorant, persistent and biased contingent that dominates any Israel-related article on Wikipedia. Any criticism directed against Israel is sooner or later interpreted as anti-Semitism, and any criticism directed against Arabs, no matter how incredulous, is trumpeted as much as possible so that any attempt to alleviate or balance it is also construed as anti-Semitism, or some offshoot thereof. Historybuffer is just one of many objective editors, Jewish/Israeli or not, who have tried (and eventually, in most cases, given up) to contribute a disillusioned perspective to political articles without much success - editors who come under scathing group attacks for minor transgressions but have to face baseless accusations and ridiculous propaganda everyday on Wikipedia, about which nothing is done by the larger Wikipedia body (Ed Poor, being a Conservative, appeases some of the reactionaries, is usually present where they are, appears to bring a balanced approach, raps a few knuckles, and effectively allows the trash to continue heaping.)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * -- Simonides 00:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BakuninXL 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Second RfC Status update
Unfortunately, IZAK continues with his questionable behavior. He has posted yet another Anti-Semitism charge (against me) on an Arbitration case.

There is now an Arbitration case against IZAK on similar charges. This RfC should be kept open until it is resolved.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) HistoryBuffEr 04:08, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

title: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK


text: User talk:145.229.156.40

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

title: User talk:145.229.156.40


text:
Louder Than Bombs

Louder Than Bombs is a compilation album by English rock band the Smiths, released as a double album in March 1987 by their American record company, Sire Records. It peaked at number 62 on the US Billboard 200 album chart. Popular demand prompted their British record company, Rough Trade, to issue the album domestically as well. Upon its release in the UK in May 1987, it reached No. 38 on the British charts. In 2003, the album was ranked No. 365 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, and ranked No. 369 on a 2012 revised list. The album was certified Gold by the RIAA in 1990.

Release
The album was released as the American counterpart to their recent British compilation The World Won't Listen and consisted of all singles and nearly all B-sides that had not at that point been available in the United States, either on single or album, with a few other tracks added. The title is borrowed from a line in Elizabeth Smart's extended prose poem By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept.

The album was intended to be a substitute for both The World Won't Listen and their 1984 compilation Hatful of Hollow, as these had not been released in the United States. This is why the non-single track "This Night Has Opened My Eyes" from Hatful of Hollow was included. Single A-sides "This Charming Man" and "How Soon Is Now?" had already been released in the US as bonus cuts on the LPs The Smiths and Meat Is Murder, respectively.

As with The World Won't Listen, this compilation includes the scrapped single "You Just Haven't Earned It Yet, Baby" (passed over in favour of "Shoplifters of the World Unite"), albeit in a different, shorter mix. However, this shorter version of the song was replaced when Bombs was reissued in 2011. Additionally, the Louder Than Bombs version of "Stretch Out and Wait" is the version from the B-side of "Shakespeare's Sister", which features slightly different lyrics. Also of note is the fact that "Ask" appears on both Louder Than Bombs and The World Won't Listen in a slightly different and longer mix than its single version.

Due to the album offering several B-sides (as well as the band's then-latest single "Sheila Take a Bow") that had never been collected onto an album before, Louder Than Bombs became very popular on import with fans in the UK. To avoid high import prices being paid, the Smiths' UK record company, Rough Trade, decided to release the album as well. The double album retailed at single album price, to help soften criticism from some fans who had already purchased The World Won't Listen three months earlier.

After WEA acquired the Smiths' back catalogue in 1992, all Smiths albums were re-released at mid price, including Louder Than Bombs.

Packaging
The cover art for Louder Than Bombs, designed by Morrissey, features British playwright Shelagh Delaney of Salford, Greater Manchester. The photograph was originally published in the Saturday Evening Post after Delaney, at the age of 19, made her literary debut with the play A Taste of Honey. The play inspired many early lyrics written by Morrissey, and the song "This Night Has Opened My Eyes" (included here) is based on the plight of the play's heroine, Jo, an unwed mother.

Personnel

 * Morrissey – vocals
 * Johnny Marr – guitars, piano, harmonica, slide guitar on "Panic", mandolin on "Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want" and "Golden Lights",
 * Andy Rourke – bass guitar, cello on "Shakespeare's Sister" and "Oscillate Wildly"
 * Mike Joyce – drums, tambourine on "Hand in Glove" and "Stretch Out and Wait"

Additional musicians

 * Craig Gannon – rhythm guitar on "Half a Person", "London", "Panic", "You Just Haven't Earned It Yet, Baby", "Ask" and "Golden Lights", lead guitar on outro of "London", mandolin on "Golden Lights"
 * Kirsty MacColl – backing vocals on "Ask" and "Golden Lights"
 * John Porter – slide guitar on "Sheila Take a Bow", sound effects on "Ask", drum machine and bass guitar on "Golden Lights"
 * Stephen Street – additional drum machine programming on "London", sampling on "Rubber Ring", sound effects on "Asleep"

Production

 * Johnny Marr – producer (A3)
 * Johnny Marr, Morrissey and Stephen Street – producers (A5–6)
 * Morrissey and Marr – producers (A2, C5, D5–6)
 * John Porter – producer (A1, A4, B1–2, B4–6, C1-2, C4, C6, D3)
 * Roger Pusey – producer (D4)
 * The Smiths – producers (B3, C3, D1–2)

title: Louder Than Bombs


text:
User talk:Tk31337

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

-- Netoholic @ 08:20, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dave Merrick Indigo.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dave Merrick Indigo.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Myles Pinkney Astronomer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Myles Pinkney Astronomer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium
Please note that Wikipedia is not a promotional medium and edits and articles which attempt to use it as such are subject to deletion or reduction, as I have done to Dave Merrick. Also, if you have a connection with this subject, you should read our rules on editing with a conflict of interest. BMK (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tk31337


text:
Targeting (politics)

Targeting in politics is widely used in determining the resources of time, money, and manpower to be deployed in political campaigns. Political parties, campaign committees and political action committees prefer to place their resources disproportionately in constituencies where victory is possible, but not assured.

In the US
A given constituency may be targeted for one purpose, but not for another. In the US, inner city neighborhoods, with heavy Democratic populations, may not be targeted for legislative seats because the districts are safely Democratic, but will be targeted for Presidential elections to offset strong Republican areas elsewhere.

Targeting has had important side effects. Heavily Democratic or Republican states tend to get little resources because of the emphasis on targeted states. Similarly, heavily Democratic or Republican legislative or Congressional districts are downplayed in significance.

Targeting leads to the magnification of political trends. A constituency that might give the minority party 25% or 30% instead may fall to 10% or 15% over time because of lack of effort by its minority party. Local minority parties may atrophy and die: the majority party may rise to over 95% of the vote in some constituencies.

Because of the negative effects on minority parties in ignored or downplayed constituencies, targeting is becoming increasingly controversial. One strong critic of targeting, Pennsylvania State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, has opposed targeting by new political organizations, warning that "targeting is counterproductive to the long-range interests of the Democratic Party. Elections are not short-term one-shot events, but recurring long-term events that require long-term organizational efforts in as many places as possible."

In the UK
In the UK, similar processes affect the ways in which some constituencies get far more party attention than others. For example, usually the marginal constituencies in the Midlands receive far more attention from campaigners than either Surrey or the North-East, as they are solidly Conservative and Labour strongholds respectively. Other strategies may inform how seats are targeted, however. In the 2005 UK General Election, the Liberal Democrats targeted seats held by the Conservatives that had comparatively small majorities and were held by prominent Tory MPs such as Oliver Letwin, David Davis and even Michael Howard. In the event, this so-called "decapitation" strategy had hardly any success. Only Tim Collins lost his seat of those targeted.

In Canada
In Canada, which has a Westminster system similar to that found in the UK, the spread and effects of targeting are similar to that found in the United Kingdom. Canada, which has seen regionalism play a role in its national politics, will see odd targeting patterns, where a province, Alberta for example, might be ignored by a party which usually does not do well there, the Liberals for example, while an Edmonton, a large city in Alberta, will see heavy targeting as the Liberals attempt to win at least some representation from that province. The biggest contrast with the US system is the idea of a “Full Slate”; That is running a candidate in every possible seat. US congressional elections can pass with some members being elected without opposition, whereas in Canada, parties will normally try to field a full slate of Candidates.

title: Targeting (politics)


text:
Anita Lane

Anita Louise Lane (18 March 1960 – 27 April 2021) was an Australian singer-songwriter who was briefly a member of the Bad Seeds with Nick Cave and Mick Harvey and collaborated with both bandmates. Lane released two solo albums, Dirty Pearl (1993) and Sex O'Clock (2001).

Early life
Anita Louise Lane was born in Melbourne in 1960. She began singing and writing songs at the age of 16. She was a classmate of Rowland S. Howard while both were students at the Prahran College of Advanced Education, undertaking the Tertiary Orientation Programme.

1979–1983 : The Birthday Party
Lane met Nick Cave in 1977 and the pair began an intermittent personal relationship. Cave, on lead vocals, was a member of a new wave group the Boys Next Door with Mick Harvey on guitar, Phill Calvert on drums and Tracy Pew on bass guitar. By December 1978, Rowland S. Howard had joined the line up on lead guitar. In February 1980, the Boys Next Door were renamed as the Birthday Party and Lane and Cave moved to London with the group.

Lane and Cave co-wrote the lyrics for "A Dead Song", which appeared on their debut album Prayers on Fire which was released in April 1981. AllMusic's Greg Maurer praised the album and noted Lane's song writing contribution. George Sarostin of Only Solitaire felt that, on this track, Cave "sounds, with all of his whiny 'okay okay', just like one of those poor innocent or half-innocent victims with a bloody nose and a gun at their temple in a gangster movie".

For their second album, Junkyard, which was released in May 1982, Lane and Cave co-wrote "Dead Joe" and "Kiss Me Black". Session and touring musician Barry Adamson provided bass guitar on "Kiss Me Black". The group relocated to West Berlin in August 1982 prior to their cessation in June of the following year.

1984–2001: Collaborations and solo career
Lane on keyboards, backing vocals and occasional lead vocals, was briefly a member of Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds with Adamson, Cave, Harvey, Blixa Bargeld on guitar (also a member of Einstürzende Neubauten) and Hugo Race (ex-Plays with Marionettes). She supplied lyrics for "From Her to Eternity", the title track of their debut album (June 1984). She left the group soon after.

Lane co-wrote "Stranger Than Kindness" with Bargeld, which appears on Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds' fourth album, Your Funeral... My Trial which was released in November 1986. Chris Long of BBC Music reviewed the album in May 2009 and found that "Stranger Than Kindness" was a "twisted love song. At once both beautiful and startling, it is a song that sounds like a held breath, never letting slip the power that swells within it".

Lane added her lead vocals over a musical score by Bargeld, Cave and Harvey for the soundtrack of the 1988 Australian film Ghosts... of the Civil Dead, including the track "A Prison in the Desert". Jon Behm of Reviler.org praised her "ethereal howling/whispering vocals, which due to her babydoll voice sound a bit like the ravings of a mentally disturbed child. It's a pretty intriguing tune for any fan of moody, somewhat frightening music".

Lane had a "sporadic solo career" beginning with her four-track extended play Dirty Sings in 1988 on Mute Records. For the recording, she was joined by Adamson, Cave, Harvey and Thomas Wydler on drums (of Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, ex-Die Haut);  while Harvey produced the EP.

She also provided guest vocals on "The Bells Belong to the Ashes" for the album Headless Body in Topless Bar in 1988 by German post-punk post-rock band Die Haut.

In 1989, Lane was featured on Adamson's debut solo album, Moss Side Story; with Harvey, she was part of the Freedom Choir on "Suck on the Honey of Love" and "Free at Last". She supplied vocals again for his second solo effort, the soundtrack for the film Delusion (1991).

In 1992, she performed a duet with Kid Congo Powers on Die Haut's track "Excited" and another with Bargeld on "How Long (Have We Known Each Other Now)" for the German group's album Head On. Lane and Bargeld duetted again on "Blume" for his group, Einstürzende Neubauten's sixth studio album, Tabula Rasa (1993). The track is co-written by Lane, Bargeld and his group members.

In 1993, Lane issued her debut solo studio album Dirty Pearl, recorded from 1982 to that year. It consists of her work with The Birthday Party, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Einstürzende Neubauten and Die Haut, as well as exclusive album tracks. The album was co-produced by Bargeld, Cave, Harvey, Johannes Beck, John Cafferty, Die Haut, Einstürzende Neubaten, Sven Röhrig, and The Birthday Party. An expanded CD version includes all four Dirty Sings tracks. Ned Raggett of AllMusic noted that Dirty Pearl was a "collection organized in reverse chronological order", which was "a bit fragmented as a result [it] still makes for an involving listen, demonstrating clearly that her work is worth taking on its own terms instead of simply being a Cave footnote". He praised her singing "a good if at points girlish voice, albeit one that she's shown more control over with time ... she has a taste for smoky sonic settings for her vocals, sometimes low-key and sly, other times frenetic even as she keeps her cool". Consumable Online's Reto Koradi felt the music "glooms in the dark, slow and almost hypnotic. The lyrics paint pictures of dreams, love, sex, religion and death". Most of the original tracks were co-written by Lane with Harvey. The album provided Lane's single "The World's a Girl", which appeared on 5 June 1995. Koradi declared that it was "an obvious choice as a single, it's the most radio-friendly track". The lead track was co-written with Harvey. The two B-sides were duets with Cave for cover versions of "Bedazzled" – originally by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore for their 1967 film of the same name; and "I Love You... Nor Do I" – originally by Gainsbourg and Brigitte Bardot in French as "Je t'aime... moi non plus" (recorded in 1967).

In 1995, Lane contributed vocals to Harvey's Serge Gainsbourg tribute album Intoxicated Man. She returned in 1997 for his second Gainsbourg-inspired album Pink Elephants. Over the two albums, Harvey had Lane "singing the female parts originally performed by the likes of Jane Birkin, Brigitte Bardot and Anna Karina".

For Murder Ballads, released in February 1996, the ninth studio album by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Lane sang a verse of their cover version of Bob Dylan's "Death Is Not the End" and vocals for "The Kindness of Strangers".

Lane's second solo studio album Sex O' Clock was released on 23 October 2001, produced by Harvey. AllMusic's Stewart Mason found it "mixes sleek, creamy, and often danceable R&B-tinged pop tunes with the sort of lyrical plain-spokenness implied by the title". He could not decide whether her delivery which is "so deadpan that it's hard to tell if the sexually-obsessed (and to be honest, rather trite) lyrics ... are meant as parodies of Tori Amos and/or Alanis Morissette, or if Lane takes ... [her lines] seriously".

Sex O'Clock includes a cover version of Gil Scott-Heron's song "Home Is Where the Hatred Is", which Mason lists as one of its "best tracks". Another of Mason's favourites is "I Hate Myself", co-written by Doc Pomus and Ken Hirsch. Lane and Adamson duet on a cover version of Lee Hazlewood's "These Boots Were Made for Walking". In May 2008, Guy Blackman of The Age felt the album was under-appreciated, it was "a classic of suggestive orchestral pop. It should have set the world alight, but didn't".

Cover versions
Digital hardcore band Lolita Storm covered "Stranger Than Kindness" for the tribute album Eyes for an Eye: A Tribute to Nick Cave in 1996. Swedish singer Karin Dreijer (under their pseudonym, Fever Ray) also covered it in November 2009, which was accompanied by a music video. It was issued as a single in support of Dreijer's self-titled debut album. "A Dead Song" was performed by US artists, Get Hustle, for a tribute album, Release the Bats – The Birthday Party as Heard Through the Grinder of Three One G (2006). Australian singer-songwriter Tim Rogers tackled "From Her to Eternity" on Straight to You – Triple J's Tribute to Nick Cave in February 2012.

Personal life
From 1977, Lane and Nick Cave had a personal and professional relationship; they separated as a couple in 1983 but intermittently worked together professionally into the 1990s. In 1984, Lane formed a personal relationship with Australian journalist and writer Nicolas Rothwell. They lived together for a short time in New York where Rothwell was then working. In the mid-1980s, she lived back in Sydney, Australia, in a relationship with Andrew Foote before returning to Berlin, where she had spent some time with Cave in the early 1980s, and resumed her relationship with Cave. It would, however, be short lived.

After the relationship with Cave ended, Lane stayed on in Berlin. By the early 1990s, she had married German man Johannes Beck, with whom she had her first child, Raphael (Raffie), in 1990. After the breakdown of the marriage, she lived in Essaouira, Morocco in 1994/95 where she commenced a relationship with Sicilian man Andrea Libonati. This would result in two more sons; Luciano, born in Melbourne in 1995, and Carlito, born in 1998 in Sicily to where the couple had by that time relocated. In 2003, Lane moved back to Australia with Libonati and her children and took up residence in Byron Bay, before moving back to Melbourne in 2008 with her children to her original family home in the suburb of Glen Iris. From early 2020, Lane had moved by herself into a house in Melbourne's inner suburb of Collingwood where she lived until her death.

On 27 April 2021, Lane died at age 61. No cause of death was given. She was less active in her career in the final years of her life primarily due to health issues.

title: Anita Lane


text:
Wire chamber

A wire chamber or multi-wire proportional chamber is a type of proportional counter that detects charged particles and photons and can give positional information on their trajectory, by tracking the trails of gaseous ionization.

Description

The multi-wire chamber uses an array of wires at high voltage (anode), which run through a chamber with conductive walls held at ground potential (cathode). Alternatively, the wires may be at ground potential and the cathode held at a high negative voltage; the important thing is that a uniform electric field draws extra electrons or negative ions to the anode wires with little lateral motion.

The chamber is filled with carefully chosen gas, such as an argon/methane mix, such that any ionizing particle that passes through the tube will ionize surrounding gaseous atoms. The resulting ions and electrons are accelerated by the electric field across the chamber, causing a localised cascade of ionization known as a Townsend avalanche. This collects on the nearest wire and results in a charge proportional to the ionisation effect of the detected particle. By computing pulses from all the wires, the particle trajectory can be found.

Adaptations of this basic design are the thin gap, resistive plate and drift chambers. The drift chamber is also subdivided into ranges of specific use in the chamber designs known as time projection, microstrip gas, and those types of detectors that use silicon.

Development

In 1968, Georges Charpak, while at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), invented and developed the multi-wire proportional chamber (MWPC). This invention resulted in him winning the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1992. The chamber was an advancement of the earlier bubble chamber rate of detection of only one or two particles every second to 1000 particle detections every second. The MWPC produced electronic signals from particle detection, allowing scientists to examine data via computers. The multi-wire chamber is a development of the spark chamber.

Fill gases
In a typical experiment, the chamber contains a mixture of these gases:

 * argon (about $2⁄3$)
 * isobutane (just under $1⁄3$)
 * freon (0.5%)

The chamber could also be filled with:

 * liquid xenon;
 * liquid tetramethylsilane; or
 * tetrakis(dimethylamino)ethylene (TMAE) vapour.

Use
For high-energy physics experiments, it is used to observe a particle's path. For a long time, bubble chambers were used for this purpose, but with the improvement of electronics, it became desirable to have a detector with fast electronic read-out. (In bubble chambers, photographic exposures were made and the resulting printed photographs were then examined.) A wire chamber is a chamber with many parallel wires, arranged as a grid and put on high voltage, with the metal casing being on ground potential. As in the Geiger counter, a particle leaves a trace of ions and electrons, which drift toward the case or the nearest wire, respectively. By marking off the wires which had a pulse of current, one can see the particle's path.

The chamber has a very good relative time resolution, good positional accuracy, and self-triggered operation (Ferbel 1977).

The development of the chamber enabled scientists to study the trajectories of particles with much-improved precision, and also for the first time to observe and study the rarer interactions that occur through particle interaction.

Drift chambers
If one also precisely measures the timing of the current pulses of the wires and takes into account that the ions need some time to drift to the nearest wire, one can infer the distance at which the particle passed the wire. This greatly increases the accuracy of the path reconstruction and is known as a drift chamber.

A drift chamber functions by balancing the loss of energy from particles caused by impacts with particles of gas with the accretion of energy created with high-energy electrical fields in use to cause the particle acceleration. Design is similar to the multi-wire proportional chamber but with a greater distance between central-layer wires. The detection of charged particles within the chamber is possible by the ionizing of gas particles due to the motion of the charged particle.

The Fermilab detector CDF II contains a drift chamber called the Central Outer Tracker. The chamber contains argon and ethane gas, and wires separated by 3.56-millimetre gaps.

If two drift chambers are used with the wires of one orthogonal to the wires of the other, both orthogonal to the beam direction, a more precise detection of the position is obtained. If an additional simple detector (like the one used in a veto counter) is used to detect, with poor or null positional resolution, the particle at a fixed distance before or after the wires, a tri-dimensional reconstruction can be made and the speed of the particle deduced from the difference in time of the passage of the particle in the different parts of the detector. This setup gives us a detector called a time projection chamber (TPC).

For measuring the velocity of the electrons in a gas (drift velocity) there are special drift chambers, velocity drift chambers, which measure the drift time for a known location of ionisation.

title: Wire chamber


text:
Chan Wah-shun

Chan Wah-shun (c. 1836 – 1906), nicknamed Money Changer Wah (找錢華) and Money Clutcher Wah (爪錢華), was a student of the Wing Chun grandmaster Leung Jan (梁贊). He is noted for being the martial arts teacher of Ip Man.

Background
Born in Shunde District, Foshan in 1836, Chan ran a currency exchange stall near Dit Da and Wing Chun practitioner Leung Jan's herbal medicine clinic in Foshan. He carried heavy loads of coins every day, and so developed great strength over the years. In 1884, his son Chan Yu-gum (陳汝錦) was born.

In 1888, Leung Jan's physical health had begun to decline and his sons, including Leung Bik (梁壁 Liáng Bì; loeng4 bik1) and Leung Chun (梁春 loeng4 cheun1), had left Foshan to make a living. They had no intention of taking over his training hall, named Wing Sang Tong (榮生堂), also known as Jan Sang Tong (贊生堂), which was looked after by his student Lee Wah (李華), nicknamed Woodman Wah (木人華).

While searching for a successor, Leung took in Chan as his student. Leung would later often return to his hometown Gulao Village (古勞), and Chan continued to be trained by Lee. Chan also learned traditional Chinese medicine Dit Da from Leung. Chan eventually closed his money changing business and helped ran a Dit Da clinic.

Upon the death of Lee in the following year in 1889, Chan took over the operations of the training hall, while Leung went back and forth between Foshan and Gulao. Wing Sang Tong was later renamed to Hang Chai Tong (杏濟堂).

Chan started training his young son in Wing Chun in 1892. Chan assisted Leung for only four years.

With the death of Leung Jan in 1901, Chan left Hang Chai Tong and worked at a ceramic shop at Lianhua Street.

In 1906, he rented a huge ancestral hall at Yejia Village, Chancheng District at Foshan for teaching Wing Chun, which was where he accepted his 16th and last student, Ip Man. Chan was only able to teach the students for three years when in 1909, he suffered a mild stroke. Chan asked his second student, Ng Chung-sok (吳仲素), to take over the hall and continue with students' trainings before retiring back to his village at Shunde. Chan died of illness in 1913 and was buried there.

In popular culture
In the 1978 film Descendants of Wing Chun, he was portrayed by Norman Chui.

In the 1978 film Warriors Two, he was portrayed by Casanova Wong.

In the 1981 TVB television drama series Kung Fu Master of Fat Shan, he was portrayed by Ray Lui.

In the 2005 TVB television drama series Real Kung Fu, he was portrayed by Timmy Hung.

In the 2006 TVB television drama series Wing Chun, he was portrayed by Philip Ng.

In the 2010 film The Legend Is Born: Ip Man, he was portrayed by Sammo Hung.

In the 2013 film The Grandmaster, he was portrayed by Yuen Woo-ping.

In the 2013 TVB television drama series Ip Man, he was portrayed by Yuen Wah.

title: Chan Wah-shun


text:
ABS Aircraft

ABS Aircraft AG is a Swiss aircraft manufacturer, building Fournier-designed motorgliders. It was founded in Küsnacht in 1985.

title: ABS Aircraft


text:
Silje Nergaard

Silje Nergaard (born 19 June 1966) is a Norwegian jazz vocalist and songwriter. She is one of the best-selling jazz artists on the official sales chart in Norway. She became known worldwide after the release of the international bestseller Tell Me Where You're Going featuring Pat Metheny on guitar.

Career
Nergaard entered the music scene at the age of 16 when she accidentally had a jam session with Jaco Pastorius Band in 1982. Her first hit single in 1990, "Tell Me Where You're Going" featuring guitarist Pat Metheny made it to no. 1 in Japan as well as top 10 in Norway and other countries. Her album At First Light (2001) is the best-selling Norwegian jazz album ever recorded and entered the official sales chart in Norway at No. 1 in its first week. The album A Thousand True Stories, which Nergaard recorded with the Metropole Orchestra in 2008, was a great success in both Europe and Asia. Nergaard is one of the few Norwegian artists to have been commercially released all around the globe, on most continents and major music markets including Japan, Brazil, Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Nergaard has recorded and performed songs with Al Jarreau, Pat Metheny, Toots Thielemanns, and Morten Harket of A-ha. She has had Tord Gustavsen and Jarle Vespestad as two pillars in her bands. Vince Mendoza received a Grammy Award Nomination for the Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s) Award for the song "A Thousand True Stories" in 2011.

In the spring of 2012, Nergaard released her new album Unclouded, based on recordings with her two guitarists Hallgrim Bratberg and Håvar Bendiksen. It was released on 9 March in Norway and 23 March internationally. Nergaard has written 9 new songs for Unclouded and has two covers on this album: "Human" by The Killers and The Moon's a Harsh Mistress by Jimmy Webb. For Unclouded, Nergaard has also invited the American guitarist John Scofield to contribute along with Georg Wadenius, Knut Reiersrud, and Nils Petter Molvær.

Personal life
She is married to the singer Heine Totland. They have two daughters and one son together.

Discography

 * Tell Me Where You're Going (Sonet, 1990)
 * Silje (BMG, 1991)
 * Cow On the Highway (Sonet, 1993)
 * Brevet (Kirkelig Kulturverksted, 1995)
 * Hjemmefra (Kirkelig Kulturverksted, 1996)
 * Port of Call (EmArcy, 2000)
 * At First Light (EmArcy, 2001)
 * Nightwatch (EmArcy, 2003)
 * Live in Koln (EmArcy)
 * Darkness Out of Blue (EmArcy, 2006)
 * A Thousand True Stories (Columbia, 2009)
 * Jazz Divas of Scandinavia with DR Big Band (Red Dot, 2009)
 * If I Could Wrap Up a Kiss (Sony 2010)
 * Unclouded (Columbia/Sony, 2012)
 * Chain of Days (Okeh, 2015)
 * For You a Thousand Times (Okeh, 2017)
 * Hamar Railway Station (2020)
 * Japanese Blue (2020)
 * Houses (2021)

title: Silje Nergaard


text:
Wikipedia:Merging

A merge, or merger, is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page.

Any editor can perform a merge. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below.

When performing a merge, one should remember to reconcile talk pages, and to attribute copied content, as required by Wikipedia's license. At minimum, this means adding words "Merged content to/from page " to edit summaries. See How to merge below for details.

Reasons for merging
There are several good reasons to merge pages:

 * 1) Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope. If a duplicate article was recently created, it may also be a candidate for speedy deletion under CSD A10 criteria.
 * 2) Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap and might be WP:REDUNDANT. Remember, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability. Topics with the same name that are normally covered in a single article for example Greenland deals with both the country and island (which have similar boundaries) thus a Greenland (island) article can be merged with the "Greenland" country article, see Semi-duplicate.
 * 3) Short text: If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic.
 * 4) Insufficient notability: Some topics may not reach the general notability guidelines, or more specific criteria, so merging is an alternative to deletion. While this can also be implemented through the articles for deletion process, merging directly may be more efficient. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who themselves are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity.
 * 5) Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For example, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>" article (and can be merged there); see also Notability (fiction).

Merging should be avoided if:
 * 1) The resulting article would be too long or "clunky",
 * 2) The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles, or
 * 3) The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.

Proposing a merge
If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it. See how to merge below. Bold merges may be reverted, even though they are labor-intensive to complete, but this edit process and civil discussion produces better articles. Articles that are young or short, such as stubs differing only in title and wording, should be merged immediately. Articles that have been separate for a long time should usually be discussed first, especially those on controversial topics.

To start a discussion, perform the following steps. If the merge is difficult to perform or seems potentially controversial, you should request assistance and feedback at Proposed mergers.

Do not use the discussion procedure described here to propose:
 * Category merges: Category merges should be requested at Categories for discussion, which uses the separate cfm template.
 * Template merges: Template merges should be requested at Templates for discussion, which uses the separate tfm template.

Step 1: Create a discussion
This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page. Exceptions:
 * If the destination does not exist, do not create its talk page (it could get speedily deleted).
 * If a discussion exists already, do not move it (for example, having a discussion on the source page is acceptable).

For example, if suggesting that Foo be merged into Bar, create a proposal in a new section at Talk:Bar. Start a new section at the bottom of that talk page and include the proposal itself, the list of the affected pages, and a merge rationale. A good example is the following section:

Notify involved users (optional)
You may optionally notify involved users (e.g. contributors to the source and destination pages), who might not be watchlisting them. One way is to simply notify them directly from the merge discussion page:

Alternatively, go to those users' talk pages and start a new section. Make sure to provide a link to the merge discussion. You may use the following standard templates to leave a standard message:

Please respect neutrality when making invitations to participate in the merge discussion. Votestacking, that is, canvassing support by selectively notifying editors who have a predetermined point of view or opinion, is inappropriate.

Step 2: Tag the relevant pages
These templates should not be substituted.

To propose a merge of two pages, place the following template at the top of each page or section:

If you know which page should be removed, use

on the source page, and

on the destination page.

If two pages are proposed to be merged into a third destination page that already exists, use

on the source pages, and

on the destination page.

If two pages are proposed to be merged at a destination page that does not yet exist (destination does not have a talk page), use

on each source page, choosing one of the source talk pages as the discussion location and ensuring the  parameter directs to this talk page on both source pages.

Please use the  parameter to direct to the same talk page. Otherwise, two separate discussions could take place. If the  parameter is not specified, the "Discuss" links lead to the top of each article's Talk page. In merge to, merge from), it always leads to the destination talk page, but it is still preferable to link to a specific section of the talk page.

In other namespaces

 * Do not use the above templates to propose a category merge. This should be requested at WP:Categories for discussion, which uses a separate cfm template.
 * For a merge of pages within "Wikipedia" namespace (titles with the "Wikipedia:" or "WP:" prefix), do not include this prefix in the parameter.
 * When proposing a merge between two different namespaces, these templates won't work because of technical limitations.

Step 3: Discuss the merge
Make sure to follow standard talk page guidelines, which includes civility and staying focused on the content, not on the involved editors, using threaded discussion formatting, not biting newcomers, and being clear and concise.

In many cases, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, but remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Example formatting:

Step 4: Close the merge discussion and determine consensus
During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merge. Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. Closing of merge discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowed. Admin tools are not needed unless page protection prohibits editing.

In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion. The discussion can be posted at WP:Proposed mergers to get some help. If necessary, a request that an administrator, who is not involved, close the discussion can be made at the Requests for Closure noticeboard.

To close a merge proposal discussion, the Discussion top and Discussion bottom templates are used in the following manner:

After closing the merge proposal discussion, remove the Merge to template from the source page and place the Old merge template on the corresponding talk page in the following manner:

Remove the Merge from template from the target page if the consensus is "do not merge" or "no consensus".

Merges can be easily reversed if a consensus is formed against it shortly after it was performed. If there is a consensus against the merge, or if there is no consensus or no discussion and you don't believe that it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags and, if necessary, close any discussion.

Step 5: Perform the merge
See below. The main reason that the merge backlog includes thousands of articles is because the people who support the merge neglect to undertake this final step. Any editor, including the editor who originally proposed the merge, is permitted to perform a merge in accordance with consensus. Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator.

Merge as a result of a deletion discussion
In Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions (also see Deletion policy), editors may suggest that the article(s) nominated for deletion be merged to an appropriate article. If there is a rough consensus for a merge at the end of a deletion discussion, the following template is placed at the top of the nominated article:

Similarly, the following template is placed on the destination article's talk page:

This informs users involved in those pages that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merge. Proceed in the manner described above. See also Merge what? for an essay encouraging not to just vote merge in AfD discussions.

How to merge

 * 1) Copy all or some of the content from the source page(s) and paste the content in an appropriate location at the destination page. Don't just redirect the source page without copying any content if any good content from the source page exists. Publish the edit, leaving the following edit summary (a link to the source article is required by copyright):
 * Ideally, do any necessary copyediting and rearranging in a separate, second edit rather than when you first paste the moved text (to simplify attribution). In practice, this means:  Copy and paste all the content you want to transfer; publish the page with the required edit summary (even if it duplicates parts or looks a bit messy at this stage; you can use In use if you want to let others know you'll be fixing it right away); then edit the page a second time to clean it up.
 * 1) Redirect the source page whose content was just merged by replacing everything with the following:
 * Or if the content was merged to a single section, the following:
 * Publish the page, leaving the following edit summary:
 * 1) Reconcile talk page tags. If the source page has a talk page:
 * 2) * Move all merged-from and copied templates to the destination page's talk page, if there are any.
 * 3) * Reconcile templates: copy them from the source page to the destination and remove duplicates (look out for alternative templates; e.g.  is the same as ). Once copied, change the source article WikiProject templates so that they contain redirect (even for WikiProjects that do not yet support a redirect class); this does not have to be done if WikiProject banner shell is being used, since that template will automatically choose the class.
 * 4) Optionally: Tag the destination page's talk page with, and the source page's talk page with . Place these tags at the top of the talk pages.
 * As an alternative, experienced users can add to the top of both talk pages.
 * 1) Optionally: Fix any double redirects found at Special:WhatLinksHere. A bot automatically fixes this problem but it may take a day or two.
 * 2) Check for non-free images (or other files). Examples: a book cover, a poster, a logo, etc. The description page of such an image will have a red copyright icon and a non-free use rationale (a summary box with Non-free use rationale in the title, or a Fair use section) – the article title mentioned in such a rationale should be updated. This is required under the non-free content criteria.
 * 3) Remove the relevant  template from the destination article, if it still exists.
 * As an alternative, experienced users can add to the top of both talk pages.
 * 1) Optionally: Fix any double redirects found at Special:WhatLinksHere. A bot automatically fixes this problem but it may take a day or two.
 * 2) Check for non-free images (or other files). Examples: a book cover, a poster, a logo, etc. The description page of such an image will have a red copyright icon and a non-free use rationale (a summary box with Non-free use rationale in the title, or a Fair use section) – the article title mentioned in such a rationale should be updated. This is required under the non-free content criteria.
 * 3) Remove the relevant  template from the destination article, if it still exists.

Note: Most merged articles are not good candidates for merging of page histories because they have been edited in parallel and the collation of their edit states would create unhelpful and/or misleading diffs. In most cases, no request for a history-merge should be submitted. (A more detailed explanation is available here.)

Pages to merge
WikiProject Merge was initiated to clear merge backlog. Current pages tagged for merging can be found at Category:Articles to be merged, which lists pages that have been tagged for merging on a particular month (tagging began in September 2006).

List of merge templates
See here for a table with examples.

 * Template:Merge
 * Template:Merge to
 * Template:Merge from
 * Template:Duplication
 * Template:Merging
 * Template:Being merged
 * Template:Merging from
 * Template:Copied
 * Template:Merged-to
 * Template:Merged-from
 * Template:Old merge full

Other guides

 * Moving a page
 * Splitting
 * Section move
 * Content forks, on duplicated content in acceptable and unacceptable cases
 * Copying within Wikipedia, more details on copyright issues
 * Merge and delete, on deleting the source page instead of redirecting (to be avoided)
 * Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves and Requests for history merge, in cases when changing page history is needed
 * Articles for merging, a failed proposal for a different discussion process

Other projects

 * WikiData Merges

title: Wikipedia:Merging


text:
Talk:Rosa laevigata

The Cherokee Rose is a beautiful white rose that symbolizes the Trail of Tears march of the Cherokee from Georgia to Oklahoma. It's gold center symbolizes the gold taken from the land, and the seven petals represent the seven Cherokee clans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.140 (talk • contribs)

I don't believe this article deserves its "stub" status -- seems complete. Anyone want to promote it to full article status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeladenner (talk • contribs)

The assumption that the Cherokee rose has naturalized to it's current widespread state is debatable, and probably wrong. See: http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/pl.php?n=1124&tab=32 --petrovik 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rosa laevigata