text:
Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 10

Comment
The link to the Enticy Institute on the article page is a link to a patent nonsense site. Matt Stan 14:09, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Yep, don't appreciate it either. Is it really institute? Tkorrovi 16:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

"Supposed Experts" in Artificial Consciousness
Let us attempt to reach consensus on who are the leading proponents of artificial consciousness and its relation to artificial intelligence. OK? Matt Stan 08:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Various suggestions (please add to list):

 * Douglas Hofstadter - consciousness is a central interest as is AC
 * Daniel Dennett - wrote Consciousness Explained and deals with AC
 * Roger Penrose - denies AC though most scientists dismiss his reasoning
 * Thomas Nagel - subjective experience
 * Igor Aleksander - AC
 * Owen Holland - AC
 * Rod Goodman - AC
 * Sam S. Adams - AC - Joshua Blue project, IBM Research
 * Gerald Edelman - Nobel prize winner, respected ideas on the theory of mind
 * Cynthia Breazeal
 * Stephen Jones

 * But Hofstadter, Dennett, Penrose, and Nagel are philosophers of AI or philosophers of mind. They use the term "AI" or "consciousness", but not "artificial consciousness". I don't really have information on the others. Wikiwikifast 16:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * AC can perhaps be seen as a part of AI or as a part of Consciousness. Interestingly Wikipedia's article on Hofstadter says he is interested in consciousness not intelligence.  Readers of his work will know, of course, that he is interested in both.  But in his case it may be wrong to say that he is interested in AC only as a part of AI.  I believe the same comments apply to Dennett who wrote a book entitled Consciousness Explained, not a book called Intelligence Explained.  Penrose is a celebrated mathematical physicist, but a philosopher of dubious importance.  Paul Beardsell 22:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I included Nagel only because his subjective experience concept has importance for AC. Dennett talked about of what should be considered AC, but the same thing (AC) is unfortunately often referred to under different names, what may not be proper. The only importance of Penrose is that he denies AC (but not all subfields of AI), Hofstadter writes a general philosophy similar to Dennett, what also touches AC. At present Igor Aleksander, Owen Holland and Rod Goodman work on big project to create a conscious robot http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1028776,00.html Tkorrovi 19:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AC and Strong AI

 * How about moving 'artificial consciousness' over to strong AI instead? Wikiwikifast 16:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, strong AI is a limited proposition about information processors (digital computers/Turing machines) artificial consciousness is about any type of machine, including those based on a 20,000 gene set of DNA strands.

 * There is no strong AI article, the link refers to AI article where strong AI is also mentioned. And there is no strong AI theory, also there are no strong AI projects, there are no strong AI programs, it is usually only mentioned in comparison to weak AI. As much as I know, so far only AC is something what supposed to theoretically perform of what strong AI supposed to, but it is not the same as strong AI, and likely more genuine compared to consciousness than strong AI. There is no place in AI article where information about AC can be written, also why this approach cannot be separate article when the subfields of AI are? If there was enough to say about strong AI, then it could be a separate article as well, the reason why it was not a separate article was just that probably nobody knew what to write about it, it is not determined at all what strong AI is. Tkorrovi 19:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Another tiresome set of assertions wrongly presented as hard fact. There is a strong AI theory, there are strong AI projects, the field of AI is vehemently split between believers of the weak and strong AI theories, strong AI is not only mentioned in contrast to weak AI.  No one who has read widely could believe otherwise.    Paul Beardsell 22:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Then say one strong AI theory, or one strong AI project, or even one good strong AI definition. I read AI forums and followed AI for a long time, and saw that it's not clear for almost anybody what it is. Tkorrovi 01:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Now you deny even a definition! If I provide an example will you admit you are wrong?  Paul Beardsell 11:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the science is plain: AC can be real/genuine/true consciousness.  This is a minority opinion on this talk page but is nevertheless a popular view among computer scientists and philosophers of mind.  As such I think AC fits into the Strong AI section of the artificial intelligence article rather well but I think a separate article is a better idea.  Those here who (in defiance of the Copernican principle and Occam's razor and the Church-Turing thesis) think that AC can only ever be a simulation of real/genuine/true consciousness can not, in my opinion, be happy with including AC into Strong AI because Strong AI is real/genuine/true intelligence - not a simulation of it.  Paul Beardsell 22:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It may be plain for you, but at least it's not that plain for Thomas Nagel, it's also that without understanding or considering everything, things look like much more simple. Tkorrovi 01:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Even if AC does turn out to be a branch of AI, I think there is still room for an article to clarify that point - separate from the AI article. If it does turn out that AC can be developed as an end in its own right, as I had always assumed, then even more point in it having a separate article. I have no great learning in this field, and I come here primarily to learn. Can we have summaries of the main proponents' arguments about consciousness (as distinct from intelligence) in the main article, please? My offerings, for what they are worth are as follows:
 * 1) There isn't, from what I have gleaned, a project to pursue the development solely of a machine implementation of consciousness for its own sake, or even as part of some other purposeful endeavour;

 * I think for many researchers AC is the holy grail. Growing up with Lucy by Steve Grand is perhaps not an example with much promise but that is surely his goal?  Paul Beardsell 09:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * "Non-disciplinary" philosophy of "general purpose building blocks," no software "yet". Like building a house from bricks. Tkorrovi 15:25, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * 2) I do not agree that there should necessarily be a strict dichotomy between weak and strong consciousness - the distinction certainly doesn't arise with natural forms of consciousness, and therefore a coherent definition of AC per se is required before we can perhaps make distinctions that were developed for the AI Topic;

 * If by strong and weak you mean genuine/real/true and non-genuine/simulated/pretend then, of course, the distinction does not arise in natural consciousness. Except when we pretend to be asleep!  Paul Beardsell 09:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * 3) I can imagine implementations of AC in various contexts that might be considered just as art - if they have no obvious function - or as entertainment. Though I agree about Wikipedia not being primary research, it does have the propensity to make connections (links) between subject-matter that doesn't occur anywhere else. An article that bridges the gap between what SF writers imagine in their stories and what is both theoretically and practically possible from an engineering perspective is a useful endeavour and doesn't, I rhink, conflict with what Wikipedia is about. Matt Stan 00:41, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes! You can buy solar powered (non-flying) decorative butterflies using muscles wires on some robotics sites.  I reckon with a bit of tweaking they could have a genuine consciousness in excess of the most advanced thermostat.  Paul Beardsell 09:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * As much as I know no scientist ever argued that thermostat is conscious.Thermostat is a Chalmers example what he didn't provide because he himself thinks that thermostat is conscious, but for reductio ad absurdum the Lloyd's argument that the connectionist models might shed light to subjective aspects of consciousness described by Nagel. "On the face of it, this approach is put forward as a way of dealing with Nagel's worries about consciousness, where the central mystery is: why is there something it is like to be us at all? There is a huge prima facie mystery about how any sort of physical system could possess conscious experience. Lloyd holds out the promise that connectionist models might shed light on this question, but at the end of the day the models seem to leave the key explanatory question unanswered. Even if we were to go out on a limb and suppose that these simple systems are conscious, the question of explanation would still remain untouched." http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/notes/lloyd-comments.html (article by Chalmers). Tkorrovi 16:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Even this selective quote does not say quite what Tkorrovi seems to think. See below discussion in Thermostat section.  Paul Beardsell 12:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The reason why there is no "strong AI project" in the way you think of it is because the real work done in "strong AI" is in philosophy. You can be an engineer and say, "Since no one is creating strong AI, I will do it!" But how do you start? What makes your project not weak AI? Obviously, we haven't figured out what is necessary or sufficient for consciousness.

Weak AI is important for strong AI because it serves as inductive evidence for consciousness/intelligence. That is, if we can make something that seems conscious/intelligent, there is a possibility that it is truly conscious. If we can't even make something that exhibits intelligent/conscious behaviour, then that it is truly conscious is out of the question. Hence, the idea behind the Turing Test is worth mentioning.

Lastly, Dennett, Nagel, etc. are not "experts" of AC/strong AI in that what they say must be true. Philosophy of mind and AI is an ongoing debate, and what they say is only one side of the picture. Characteristic of philosophy, there are many competing theories that exist.

--Wikiwikifast 10:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Whilst AI seems to have been dominated by philosphers and its theories disappearing up their own arse (i.e. not leading to particular progress in the engineering field), research into consciousness is focused in psychoneurology, in particular using scanners to correlate perceptual and cognitive activity with neural activity. There may one day be (if there isn't already) a mental map based on this research that equates to the human genome project (already completed). My suggestion is that artificial implementations that attempt to simulate the operation of conscious processes, as evinced from such neurological research, is the path towards AC actualisation. This will leave philosophy way behind. I am not concerned with the philosophers' views on what constitutes consciousness or not - they'll never reach a consensus, just as they've never reached consensus even on logic or ethics. However if I can produce and sell a machine whose advertising claims that that machine is conscious, or even artificially conscious -- and that claim isn't disallowed by the Advertising Standards Authority -- then I'll be able to claim strongly that my AC is real AC. Some implementations that I've considered as candidate AC products are:
 * A conscious bus stop that recognises the people who regularly stand next to it, welcomes them, tells then when their bus is due, introduces them to each other, shares in their complaints about the bus service, answers questions by sending voice-recognised text to Google, plays music, replays horrifying images of muggings that have taken place near it, etc, etc.
 * (Related to the previous) A conscious policeman on the beat that collects evidence, helps the public in simple ways like answering questions about the way to the nearest bus stop, and never wants promotion
 * A conscious sexual partner that never thinks, never complains, and whose heuristic is designed to ensure increasing satisfaction the more it is used. This is perhaps the most promising idea in that there is already a well-established market for sex toys
 * A conscious (and articulated) computer screen combined with webcam, upon which appears an animated representation of a human (which a camera on this or on other instances had previously observed and which uses morphing software to drive its images), which proactively interacts with its user (partner?) and takes on personae which are effectively caricatures of people with whom it has interacted previously. (Of course one could buy characters, much like people buy mobile phone ring tones, and people who had used the product to the extent required for the machine to build virtual representations of them could sell their characters. A useful pastime and money-spinner perhaps for old celebrities)
 * A conscious driving assistant (already marketed by BMW on its latest model) that keeps your car going in the right speed and direction even when the actual driver becomes inattentive
 * A conscious dinner party host that ensures quests' glasses are filled, coordinates the timing of the cooking, makes trivial conversation (AI component required here, perhaps), and interrogates bus stops across the internet to trace late-comers
 * If any of these ideas were freshly patentable then they aren't now! They are in the public domain on wikipedia. And I don't think you need a philosopher to tell you whether they are implementable. Matt Stan 08:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As I said before, the results of scanning the neural activity http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs182/readings/ns/article.html suggest that awareness is awareness of processes. Human genome project is completed only in the sense that the DNA sequences are mapped, but only a function of a very few fragments of DNA are known. The complexity of that problem is so huge, that it's not feasible to understand everything that way. Neither probably by scanning the whole neural activity. In addition to that, such scanning only shows when neurons fire, but nothing about what happens inside the neuron, but neuron may be as complex as a computer. And even if we could do that, again just having a map would not by itself explain anything. There is also by far not enough information in DNA for all brain activity what even a child has, what shows again that the brain activity is not pre-programmed, but is a result of learning. What we must understand is how that happens, not what *exactly* is in the brain. AC is useful for providing an experimental method to test philosophy. I thought just about a regulator at first, what could model the processes based on the input and predict how they would develop. A natural processes, such as friction of the tyres of your car, what depends on so many things, and cannot be uniformly modelled. Tkorrovi 15:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * "What makes your project not weak AI?" "Objective Less Genuine AC" should do that. Well, "Genuine AC" should do that as well. Not sure though how Paul interprets it, and why he said that thermostat can considered to be "Genuine AC", concerning that you should ask him, I don't support "Genuine AC" because I don't think that it would be ever possible to model consciosness completely. Tkorrovi 09:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You use project and expert in a restrictive way which suits your argument. Given that I agree with what you say. Please do not misunderstand me: I never said the problems are solved and now all we need is enough Meccano to construct Sentient Expert Mk 1. Paul Beardsell 11:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The 'you' in my first paragraph was directed at Tk, and my comments about projects and experts was directed more at him as well. I mostly agree with you (PB) when you said that there are strong AI projects, etc., but I was addressing the restrictive sense of project as in an engineering project, which was what I took Tk to mean. Wikiwikifast 00:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Obviously there isn't a Strong AI project like the Boeing 7E7 engineering project. How many research grants, how many funded scientists does there have to be before a project is admitted? There are, of course, many Strong AI research projects. And each computer scientist / philosopher of mind engaged in Strong AI has a theory, or pretends to have one, to get his/her funding. The theory is not established like, for example, Special Relativity but to say there is no theory (or rather no set of candidate theories) is just to redefine the word. Paul Beardsell 11:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, there are engineering projects that are created for a purpose other than making something useful for humans. But calling them 'strong AI' projects makes it sound like there are conscious robots out there. However, people have created robots that act like insects that can move around autonomously, etc. Wikiwikifast 00:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, I agree that AC should remain a separate article and should not be merged with AI nor moved to Strong AI. Wikiwikifast 03:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The concept of machine
Daniel Dennett compared mind to a machine, but the problem is that he never said what he means by machine (if you find where he did that, then please say). Machine is usually interpreted as something human-made or something what humans can make. Then there are virtual machines, like Turing machine, what are theoretical concepts, what cannot always be made, like Turing machine with endless tape. or we cannot implement them because it's impossible to obtain all necessary information to implement them. So machine and virtual machine are not the same. We can say that mind is equivalent to certain virtual machine what satisfies Church-Turing thesis, what it certainly is, but this is not the same as to say that mind is a machine. We may call such theoretical machine a Church-Turing machine, to name it somehow. Then we may say that mind is some kind of Church-Turing machine. We cannot follow the logic of Dennett until we don't know what Dennett meant by machine, especially when the question is exactly in the difference of consciousness and a machine. So this is a theoretical problem, I hope it's understood. Tkorrovi 11:41, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fortunately for Dennett the Church-Turing thesis says that all machines are equivalent in computing ability except for speed and memory capacity. So Dennett does not have to say what type of machine he is talking about. One idealised computing machine, the Turing machine, is shown by Turing to be equal or superior in capability to other computing machines. A Turing machine is of course implementable (and there are examples on the web) except for the infinite memory size. But any program which runs in finite time can only access a finite amount of tape. The human being has a finite life time and so doesn't need an infinite tape. According to the Church-Turing thesis, any computer can mimic any other. The unavoidable conclusion is: If your Sinclair ZX-80 cannot mimic the  human being replace the C30 cassette tape with a C60. Of course, there is also the problem of writing the software. Paul Beardsell 12:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) So, are you saying that humans are not machines? That there is something spiritual about them: a soul or a magic spark? Or are you questioning the Church-Turing thesis? Or are you questioning it's applicability to humans on the basis of new physics? Or are you saying that the software cannot be written? Paul Beardsell 11:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you saying that humans are machines? The argument for strong AI goes:
 * (1) Given that the mind is the software/hardware brain, and
 * (2) Given the Church-Turing thesis,
 * (3) The possibility of Strong AI must be accepted.
 * I do not disagree with (2), but (1) is questionable. --Wikiwikifast 02:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, that humans are but machines is a very common view amongst many/most scientists and many/most philosophers. Even Penrose agrees with (1) but he disagrees with (2).  See functionalism.  But the point is not whether you or I agree with either (1) or (2) and of course you can logically disagree with either but that if you accept them both then the conclusion (3) is unavoidable.  Paul Beardsell 02:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Many/most scientists and philosophers believe in some form of materialism, but I don't think many/most believe that the mind is a machine qua symbol manipulation. Wikiwikifast 04:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If I change "many/most" into "many" then the point is incontrovertible: Many scientists and philosophers do believe that the hardware/software brain is a computing machine.

 * My point is that the mind is not necessarily a virtual machine. Wikiwikifast 04:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If by "virtual" you mean not-real then I agree with you. But I think we disagree because many do believe the mind is really the software/hardware machine.  That I strongly believe so is hardly pertinent!  Your position is, of course, not an unusual one:  Most religions are on your side.  Paul Beardsell 11:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

What??! By virtual machine I mean a finite state machine or Turing machine. The mind may not be analogous to concepts of software/hardware, because it is controversial that cognition consists of merely symbol manipulation—symbol manipulation as in the reading and writing of discrete tokens such as 0 and 1. In the connectionist framework, cognition isn't transformation of discrete symbols, but rather patterns of activity. Wikiwikifast 14:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you may be redefining "virtual machine". The view you express, if backed up by appropriate citings, should go in the article. But others think (and I reckon I can find references to back this up) that "patterns of activity" is just like the flashing of lights on the panel of a 1970's computer. What is going on, underneath the patterns, is symbol manipulation. Paul Beardsell 22:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * "Virtual machine" I took from Tkorrovi's post, the first one in this section. Connectionist nets are modelled after neurons in the brain. The firing of one node activates certain other nodes in its vicinity, depending on the connection strength between it and a neighboring node, which is supposed to simulate how neurons work. In neural nets, I believe connections are given numerical weightings, e.g. 0.55. I think the numbers aren't supposed to be discrete, but are theoretically supposed be real numbers (i.e. continuous). If you accept this model, cognition cannot be symbol manipulation, because there are no discrete tokens like either 0 or 1, but rather, it uses the set of real numbers (of which there are infinite, and have no discrete divisions). Hence, if you accept this model, the mind cannot be a Turing machine. Wikiwikifast 00:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the use of "virtual" in this context is a red herring. As a software professional, I have always understood a virtual machine to be an implementation of a machine within another machine, e.g. the Java Virtual Machine within the Windows operating system (machine). Now whilst it might be worthwhile to think of "mind" as a virtual machine machine within the "body" machine, I do not think that is the intention here and I don't think that analogy holds anyway. It is more likely, I think, that Tkorrovi looked up "virtual" in the dictionary and thought that it would be useful to describe mind as "a bit like a machine", or "virtually a machine", which is of course misleading anyway, as we are aiming to indicate whether mind is a machine at all, and as Wikwikifast points out, from a scientific materialist perspective, it is. The salient question, as Wikiwikifast again correctly identifies, is to ask what sort of machine the mind is, because that will throw light on whether it can be emulated using the methods available to us. Matt Stan 06:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * "Virtual machine" is another of those compound nouns the meaning of which can be perfectly well understood from each of the constituent words. It also has its own article.  The first usage of that term in this section is incorrect.  Paul Beardsell 09:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Do real numbers exist in nature? This is an interesting philosophical question. Even distance, we are told by the quantum theorists, is discrete. Maybe only rational numbers exist. Certainly our vision is digital and discrete. The pixels are close together and we do not see pixellation - there must be smoothing happening in software - but the retina consists of discrete rods and cones. In the connectionist nets the values assigned to the nodes are not chosen from the whole set of real numbers but from a subset of the rationals: This is a proven limitation of all computers. As the firing of a neuron in the brain must involve an integer number of electrons we also know that not all real numbers can be represented at the synapse junctions. The neuron cannot be set to fire after the transfer of a fractional number of electrons. The brain does not process real numbers. Brain processing is chemical and electrical. Everything is a multiple of a number of molecules or a multiple of a number of electrons. Brain processing is discrete. Paul Beardsell 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

See philosophical implications of the Church-Turing thesis. Is the Universe computable? Paul Beardsell 01:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You have a good point. However, I just wanted to point out that not everyone believes in symbolicism.
 *  symbolicism - An approach to understanding human cognition that is committed to language like symbolic processing as the best method of explanation. ... The commitments of symbolicism have been challenged by connectionist research and most recently the dynamical systems theory approach to cognition. - Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind
 * See also John Lucas' Minds, Machines and Gödel for an argument against the claim that the mind is a Turing machine. Instead of debating incessantly over talk pages, I should probably use my time constructively by contributing to the AI and cognitive science articles... Wikiwikifast 02:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As to what type of machine the brain is, this is settled for most scientists. Turing showed that anything which does symbol manipulation is no more powerful than the Turing machine.  And anything passing about discreet lumps of stuff (e.g. electrons and molecules) is doing symbol manipulation in the computer science sense.  It is a finite state machine.  All finite state machines are no more powerful that the Turing machines.  Proven computer science result.  It's maths.  No argument.  The onus is on the dissenters to explain what is wrong with any of this reasoning.  Penrose understands this and attempts to do so, but established science finds serious flaws in his arguments.  But Penrose understands what it is he has to show, most other dissenters ignore the scientific method.  That is what is happening here.  Paul Beardsell 09:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Cognitive science article would indeed be a better place for that. This is not necessary for AC considering the Thomas Nagel argument that subjective experience cannot be reduced (modelled), and this is included in the article. Considering that, it doesn't matter whether subjective experience is physical. I think it's physical and Nagel thinks that it's physical, but this doesn't matter for AC. Tkorrovi 08:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If the mind is no more powerful than the Turing machine then what accounts for subjective experience? A magic spark?  The soul?  Penrose quantum quackery?  Maybe Nagel is wrong.  Paul Beardsell 09:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

It (that the mind is a machine) does matter for genuine/true/real/strong AC. Obviously. Paul Beardsell 09:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

All machines are equivalent in computing ability except for speed and memory, but there is a difference between virtual (theoretical) machine and man-made machine also in that it may not be possible to obtain all necessary information to make the machine, in spite that theoretically some type of virtual machine can implement it. Please read Thomas Nagel "What is it like to be a bat" to get an idea. Tkorrovi 12:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have read the book*. I have demonstrated the equivalence of the Sinclair ZX-80 and the human being (except for speed and memory capacity). Neither of these are theoretical machines. Trying my best to interpret what you have said I think you have chosen the last of the presented alternatives: You think the software cannot be written. Paul Beardsell 12:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * (*)I have read the book "The Mind's I" in which Nagel's ideas are quoted at length and the bat essay may appear in it's entirety. The critique of those ideas which appears in that book and especially how they are contrasted with other ideas is interesting and entertaining.  But, I suggest, not entirely relevant to the narrow point we are trying to resolve here.  Paul Beardsell 12:43, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes it may be not entirely relevant. It is said in the article Thomas Nagel that "While many philosophers of mind and cognitive neuroscientists accept the fundamental distinction between the subjective and the objective, they often have not accepted Nagel's dismal conclusions." This is almost that what is relevant for AC. But concerning dismal conclusions, maybe Nagel is not so well understood, he doesn't deny the reduction of that what is objective. Tkorrovi 12:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whether written or taught, we cannot make sure that it can be developed so that it implements consciousness completely, but we can develop it so that it implements consciousness partly when we don't omit anything, except that what is not objective. Tkorrovi 12:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I cannot deny that view but that is just one way things might work out. At some point the built-consciousness might reach a critical mass, transfer itself to a local super-computer cluster of 100,000 Trituim 86666MHz processors running MacOS XII, attach several Terabytes of NAS memory and, changing gear, evolve a consciousness which is a superset of human consciousness. But, please, neglect this flight of fancy for the moment. I return to your view: Will your partially implemented consciousness be a genuine manifestation of consciousness or not? And, if not, why not? Paul Beardsell 12:52, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem is that whether it is genuine consciousness or not can never be found out. Because of that, as science must be objective, in scientific terms we must say no. But there is a possibility that it may seem one day very genuine, especially if maybe implemented on quantum computer, maybe even exceed some human abilities, in theory there seems to be nothing what restricts such system. And then one day we may believe that this is genuine consciousness, but there would be no scientific way to find out, all what we can test even in that case would be that it is artificial consciousness. Tkorrovi 13:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * But, as an aside, and this is another fact to trip up Penrose, the Church-Turing thesis still applies to the quantum computer. Paul Beardsell 13:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure, I also think that Church-Turing thesis apply, and I think it's not Gödel's theorem what is wrong, but rather the way how Penrose uses it. This question has been discussed endlessly in the Internet. Tkorrovi 20:59, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dennett deals with this issue well in both The Intentional Stance and Consciousness Explained. Essentially, he denies the human any special place in the universe, he says we allow another human consciousness because he says he is, and says it is mere arrogance to deny something else consciousness if it acts as if it is conscious and if it claims it is conscious. He makes the point better than I do, doubtless. Paul Beardsell 13:24, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it he is saying your use of subjective and objective you fail to apply to humans themselves. Subjectively you say you are conscious. Objectively, how do I know? Paul Beardsell 13:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the only reason why we can say that we are conscious is that we are humans, and capable humans are considered to be conscious when they don't happen to be in coma. We cannot even completely compare our consciousness to that of somebody else. This doesn't mean that we are better, this is just how we determine consciousness. Maybe dolphins are better than we are, but we can never know. Tkorrovi 13:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except that dolphins act as if they are conscious, they do all but say they are conscious. I have seen a conscious dolphin, I am sure. Neither you nor I can be sure that the other is conscious: Indeed, for all you know I have tapped this out on a panel in my tank. Flipper Paul Beardsell 13:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC).

Counter-example
Oliver Sacks describes in his book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat the case of autistic-savant identical twins who were able to compute large prime numbers within a timescale that was several orders of magnitude less than what would be required by the most powerful computer to perform the same feat. These twins were not articulate enough to describe the methods they used, and I think their ability remains a mystery twenty years later. They certianly did not have the mathematical ability to compute prime numbers using any standard algorithm such as the sieve of Erastothenes - they could not even do simple multiplication. Such pathologies as Sacks describes raise questions about the operation of the brain that could possibily be used to counter the Church-Turing thesis, or at least to question it until a viable explanation had been found. The twins in Sacks' story seemed to have a particular consciousness of primeness (and not much else besides) and savoured each new prime number they encountered as one might savour a newly discovered vintage wine. Sacks mentions a number of examples of enhanced and deficient mental abilities that surely throw some light on our conception of consciousness, and which perhaps should be taken into account in our discussions here. Matt Stan 07:13, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

But you invent magic. We do not know how we remember the spelling of "Erastothenes" but we do not invent magic to explain it. The scientific method does not say "invent science to support your prejudices". Paul Beardsell 09:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Experiments on primates have shown that there is an area of the brain concerned with visual cognition that does pattern-matching and which, interestingly, operates at a level of resolution (topological complexity, to be more precise)commensurate with alphabetic and other writing system symbols (e.g. Chinese). This is used to show that our brains were not designed for reading, but that we have innate capabilities (shared with other primates) that lend themselves to be able to interpret writing. So our spelling ability is capable of being understood at an elementary level. However the recognition of prime numbers is held to be a difficult feat to perform algorithmically, and is indeed the basis of modern cryptography. Therefore if we cannot explain how certain individuals' brains can divine prime numbers, surely that is a good argument to suggest that the Church-Turing thesis may not hold in all circumstances when it comes to understanding consciousness, as I suggest above. If we could explain it then there is the possibility that cryptography would founder. Matt Stan 09:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, you overstate the ability of the idiots savant. They could not do any prime number problem. Related problems, e.g., which a mathematician would be able to work out if they knew what the twins knew, stumped the twins completetly. You have managed to remember and store away a large vocab, to store away a fairly detailed map of London, to remember many facts about scores of people. These idiots savant did none of that. The storage capacity of the brain is known to be enormous. Yet I can store a lot of prime numbers on my laptop. No one is saying that the brain is not remarkable. But no new science should be invented until necessary. It is difficult for people to appreciate they are not God's chosen ones. We feel special. A more plausible explanation than the brain not being finite state sub-Turing is that it's drugs in the water that make you think this way. No new science required for that. Paul Beardsell 10:03, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

A much better counterexample is the finite state machine known as Beethoven. Paul Beardsell 10:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Please would you provide a reference to Beethoven in this context, unless you mean the composer. If the latter, why should the ability to produce musical patterns be cited as a counter-example for the Church-Turing thesis in relation to mind? Matt Stan 10:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with you! Beethoven, even though he was much more impressive than Sacks's twins, is no evidence for humans being more than FSMs.  Paul Beardsell 10:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

In the story that Oliver Sacks tells (and he was a neurologist invited to examine the twins), at first no one was aware that the twins were savouring prime numbers. He listened to them, noted down the numbers they mentioned, and took his notes to a mathematician who indicated that they were all primes. Sacks then wrote down some more primes - bigger ones - and re-joined the twins. He mentioned his primes and the twins paused to consider them. They had never encountered such large primes and were delighted with the new player (Sacks) in their game. I forget how large they went in terms of the numbers mentioned, (and the twins did take longer to recognise larger primes) but I think it's fair to say that it's unlikely they had memorised a list previously presented to them. They also, incidentally, had the ability correctly to state (without delay) the day of the week of any date in the previous or next 10,000 years. I doubt whether they'd had the chance to memorise such a large number of calendars. Whatever the explanation, I don't think it's one of them having an eidetic memory, though some idiot savants do have this. I also don't think their ability was learned - the fact that they were identical twins being important here. Matt Stan 10:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Identical twins important? Did you forget to provide this link?  My point being that even a cluster of computing machines is no more capable except in speed and memory capacity than any other computing machine.  Paul Beardsell 12:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

If you know all the prime numbers to 1000, say, then it is not super-humanly difficult to test numbers to 1000000 for primeness. Not magic. The calendars might have impressed Oliver Sacks the mystic, but it would not have impressed Oliver Sacks the mathematician. You only have to learn 14 calendars to know them all. The magic feat is simply one of dividing modulo 14 and applying an offset correction for Pope Gregory. I can tell you whether any number of any size is divisible by 11. But then I am not like you machines. I take Super Unleaded. Paul Beardsell 10:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I am digressing, but it occurs to me, from reading Sacks and others that part of our normal humanness consists of constraints (attenuators) on our consciousness. See hrair limit (also relevant in the autistic savant context), and remember Sacks' example of the man who smelt like a dog (i.e he could smell water at a distance) temporarily after experimenting with drugs. I am primarily concerned here, though, with the example of primeness. It is not easy to test a number for primeness in your head, even with relatively small numbers. See http://primes.utm.edu/prove/ for the known methods of proving primeness, and bear in mind that the twins couldn't do simple arithmetic. What I think they demonstrate is that there was some mysterious method of determining primeness (perhaps by means of some form of pattern matching and/or symbol manipulation) which was not learnt (the only reason why the twins are important is that they had the same genotype which gave them each the same mysterious capability) and was not explainable by them - they didn't know how they did it, i.e. they didn't do it by any known mathematical/algorithmic process, and it couldn't be fathomed by anyone else, and still can't, as far as I am aware. Matt Stan 18:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Brain size
In terms of learning ability, I am reminded of Richard Feynman's calculation that if you were to encode alphabetic symbols at the atomic level, using 100 atoms per character, and build a block of material encoded in such a way, then the entire content of all the world's reference libraries could be stored in a piece of matter (I think he said metal, actually) as small as a grain of sand. I don't know what the volumetric storage requirements of biological memory are, but assuming they are not more than an order of magnitude different from Feynman's model, then one could theoretically perhaps store the entire contents of the Internet in a small corner of one's brain. What this makes me wonder is whether there might be some kind of critical mass of grey matter below which consciousness is impossible, and that therefore there are physical constraints on artificial implementations using current technology. If this could be demonstrated then one might come up with a calculation that one would need a disk platter as large as the rings of Saturn, or perhaps as large as the orbit of Pluto round the sun, to store enough data to make consciousness possible. How many neurons are there in a typical brain? I think we should be told. Matt Stan 18:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The unit of biological memory has to be the neuron or the synapse because the reading and writing of material within the cell cannot be done in seconds. A neuron is huge when measured in numbers of atoms: 25 microns = 2.5*10^(-5)m. Feyman's info density packing will be based on the size of an atom: 2.5*10^(-11)m. 10^6 difference in linear dimension. But to your question: The volume of a human brain is 1600cc or 1.6litres or 0.0016m^3. Linear dimension of a neuron is 2.5*10^(-5)m. Volume is 1.6*10^(-14)m^3. At maximum packing density there are 1.6*10^11 neurons in the brain. The easy way tells us 100bn neurons. 100*10^9 = 10^11. I was spot on: super unleaded! Is that 100Terabits = 10Terabytes? Paul Beardsell 23:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


text:
Gopalkrishna Gandhi

Gopalkrishna Devadas Gandhi (born 22 April 1945) is a former administrator and diplomat who served as the 22nd Governor of West Bengal serving from 2004 to 2009. He is the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi and C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji). As a former IAS officer he served as Secretary to the President of India and as High Commissioner to South Africa and Sri Lanka, among other administrative and diplomatic posts. He was the United Progressive Alliance nominee for Vice President of India 2017 elections and lost with 244 votes against NDA candidate Venkaiah Naidu, who got 516 votes.

Early life and background
Gopalkrishna Devadas Gandhi was born on 22 April 1945 in Delhi, to Devdas and Lakshmi Gandhi. His father was a journalist. Gandhi graduated with a master's degree in English literature from St. Stephen's College of Delhi University.

Career
He joined IAS as an officer in 1968 and served in Tamil Nadu state till 1985. Thereafter, he remained secretary to the vice-president of India (1985–1987), joint secretary to the president of India (1987–1992).

In 1992, after retiring voluntarily from the IAS, he became minister (culture) in high commission of India, UK and director of The Nehru Centre, London, UK. This was followed by various diplomatic and administrative positions for the rest of his career, including high commissioner of India to South Africa and Lesotho (1996), secretary to the president of India (1997–2000), high commissioner of India in Sri Lanka (2000), and ambassador of India to Norway, and Iceland (2002).

On 14 December 2004, he was appointed governor of West Bengal following the expiry of the term of office of incumbent Viren J. Shah. He was succeeded by Devanand Konwar (the serving governor of Tripura), who was given additional charge of West Bengal. For a few months in 2006 he also took on additional duties as the governor of Bihar.

He was the chairman of Kalakshetra Foundation, Chennai from December 2011 to May 2014. In 2015, he translated the Tamil classic, the Tirukkural, into English. He was the chairman of governing body of Indian Institute of Advanced Study, and president of its society on 5 March 2012 and served until May 2014.

Gandhi teaches at Ashoka University, where he is a professor of history and politics.

Controversies
While delivering the 15th D P Kohli Memorial Lecture for CBI on "Eclipse at Noon: Shadows Over India's Conscience" with nearly 3000 officers of the agency in the audience, Gandhi noted that "The CBI is seen as the government's hatchet, rather than honesty's ally. It is often called DDT — meaning not the dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, the colourless, tasteless, odourless insecticide it should be, but the department of dirty tricks."

In 2015, he wrote a letter to the then President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, to reconsider the rejection of the mercy plea of the 1993 Mumbai serial blast convict, Yakub Memon.

Personal life
His paternal grandfather was Mahatma Gandhi and maternal grandfather was C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji). He is the son of Devadas Gandhi and Lakshmi Gandhi. Gopalkrishna Gandhi is the younger brother of Rajmohan Gandhi, Ramchandra Gandhi, and Smt. Tara Bhattacharjee (Gandhi). Gopalkrishna Gandhi and his wife Tara have two daughters.

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

title: Gopalkrishna Gandhi


text:
Antonio Pucci (poet)

Antonio Pucci (c. 1310–1388) was a Florentine bellfounder, town crier, self-taught as a versifier, who wrote his collection, Libro di varie storie ("Book of Various Tales"), using a popular dialect for a popular audience. In his Centiloquio he set out in terzinas ninety-one cantos' worth of chronicle from Giovanni Villani's Cronaca. In Le proprietà di Mercato Vecchio he praised, again in terzinas, the incomparable street life of Florence's crowded market piazza. In poems he could blame or praise women with equal force, a favorite medieval trope. He composed cantari in the eight-line stanzas called ottava rima, telling the subjects of courtly romance in a fast-paced narrative, with an undertone of subversive populist skepticism that undercut the very conventions that the stories embraced, full of vivid contemporary color and pious sentiment, and perhaps he declaimed them in the public squares: La Reina d'Oriente, Gismirante, Apollonio di Tiro, Brito di Brettagna, Madonna Lionessa.

During the second half of the 14th century, Florence remained a centre of culture, but its literature developed a more popular character. The best-known representative of this development was town crier Antonio Pucci, whose vast verse production includes poems on local Florentine lore as well as historical and legendary verse narratives.

About 1373, New Chronicles from Giovanni Villani was versified and produced by fellow Florentine Antonio Pucci as a rhymed version in terza rima. The poetic transcription was called Centiloquio.

title: Antonio Pucci (poet)


text:
Réunion national football team

The Réunion national football team (Sélection de la Réunion de football) is the regional team of the French overseas department and region of Réunion and is controlled by the Réunionese Football League, local branch of the French Football Federation. Réunion is not a member of FIFA and is only an associate member of CAF, and is therefore not eligible to enter either the World Cup or the Africa Cup of Nations. However, it has played numerous matches, most of them against the island nations of Madagascar, Mauritius, and the Seychelles.

History
Réunion's first international came in the 1947 Triangulaire, losing twice against Mauritius (2–1) and Madagascar (4–2). Réunion won their first match in the 1950 edition, beating Madagascar 3–2.

In the 1979 Indian Ocean Island Games, Réunion qualified top of their group, beating Seychelles (3–0) and Maldives (9–0). In the semi-finals, they beat Comoros (6–1), leading to a rematch against Seychelles in the final. Réunion won 2–1.

Réunion qualified for the final of the 1985 Indian Ocean Island Games, losing on penalties to Mauritius after a 4–4 draw. Réunion got out of the group stage again at the 1993 Games, beating Mauritius in the semi-finals 1–0 with Jimmy Moultanin scoring their only goal. They lost 1–0 to Madagascar in the final. They got their revenge against Madagascar in the 1998 final, drawing 3–3 in regular time before winning 7–6 on penalties.

Réunion made it to the final of the 2003 Indian Ocean Island Games losing to the hosts Mauritius 2–1. In the 2007 Games, Réunion won the competition despite scoring only two goals.

Réunion entered the inaugural 2008 Coupe de l'Outre-Mer, winning their group against Mayotte (6–1) and French Guiana (2–0), qualifying for the final, where they beat Martinique (1–0). They entered the 2010 Coupe de l'Outre-Mer, facing Martinique again in the final, losing on penalties.

Réunion advanced to the knock-out stages of the 2011 Indian Ocean Island Games, losing to Seychelles (2–1) in extra-time. They beat Mayotte 1–0 to claim third place. In the 2012 Coupe de l'Outre-Mer Réunion qualified for the final match, beating French Guiana (2–0), Saint Pierre and Miquelon (10–0) and Guadeloupe (2–1) before meeting Martinique for the third consequtive final, defeating them 10–9 on penalties. In the 2015 Games Réunion beat Mayotte 3–1 in the final and in the 2019 competition they beat Mauritius on penalties, with Mathieu Pélops saving all five attempts in the penalty shoot-out.

Latest squad
The following players were selected to the squad for the 2019 Indian Ocean Island Games.

Caps and goals updated as of 28 July 2019, after the match against .

Records

 * Players in bold are still active with Réunion.

Head-to-head record

 * Last update: 7 May 2011 🇳🇨 new caledonia 1–3

Honours

 * Indian Ocean Island Games
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Champions (5): 1979, 1998, 2007, 2015, 2019
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (4): 1985, 1993, 2003, 2023
 * [[File:Med 3.png]] Third place (1): 2011
 * Triangulaire
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (4):  1950, 1954, 1957, 1963
 * [[File:Med 3.png]] Third place (9): 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1958
 * Coupe de l'Outre-Mer
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Champions (2): 2008, 2012
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (1):  2010

title: Réunion national football team


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arnold Schwarzenegger/archive1

Arnold Schwarzenegger
This was nominated in June but got shot down because there was too much on his political career and too little on his acting career. The section about his acting career has now been expanded (old version for comparison). It is still much shorter than the section on his political career, but I think it is sufficiently comprehensive. Besides, his political career is arguably a more important than his acting career, seeing as over 30 million inhabitants of California are now affected by his decisions... - Fredrik | talk 20:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: my heart goes out to the Californians who take it upon themselves to be affected by his decisions, so that the rest of us need no longer be affected by his acting :P dab (ᛏ) 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The acting career section is too list-like (whilst there is no list of his films). The political career has too much detail. Possibly it should become a Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger subarticle - especially if you expect it to go much further :) - but maybe much of it just isn't encylopedia material. See also Wikinews . Rd232 12:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Weak support: A very well written article, but the acting career section is a bit too short. --[[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 21:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose More emphasis on his earlier years is needed. Look for autobiographical information in "Education of a bodybuilder". He redefined the "sport" of bodybuilding and his success in this area is what enabled him to continue into business, acting and politics. At this stage, this article does not do his history justice. Sorry. As a guide you should break this article into early years (his life in Graz), his immigration to the US and his early bodybuilding career, his involvement in real estate (this is where he made the bulk of his money before T2), his late bodybuilding career including the films and his Golden Globe with "Stay Hungry", etc. Lots of information for you to include. :) prometheus1
 * comment if the 30 million Californians are seeking to find out about the sort of man their Governor is they are better off looking into more historical information rather than the spin. He is the epitomy of ambition but he has a good heart (very, very deep down). For example did you know that in his early days (pre $50 million wealth) he made a $1 million donation to the Weizmann foundation? Now is this an example of philanthropy or strategy? Only historical scrutiny can tell. prometheus1
 * Oppose: Need far more on his acting career and his iconic status. Sure he is the governor of 30 million; but probably 2 billion people have seen one or more of his films. :ChrisG 10:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Babruyka

The Babruyka (Бабруйка ) is a small river in Belarus, a tributary to the Berezina (Biarezina). It flows through the eponymous city of Babruysk and is named after the beavers which used to inhabit it. Due to industrial pollution, there are no more animals inhabiting the river and its flow has been reduced to a fraction of its former self.

title: Babruyka


text:
Talk:Antioquia Department

Antioquia Nueva?
Antioquia Nueva is not an alternative name for the department. It was the slogan that used the last governor, Anibal Gaviria. Also, Antioquia can't be traslated as Antioch, there is a difference in the names of both regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imoj2503 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Paisas
Not all people of Antioqua call themselves "paisas" only people from Medellin or near - -Elpaisa1
 * What I actually said was that they were the largest group (around 90% according to the Spanish Wikipedia)

Info request
i would like info on Antioquia.

Paisas
Who knows what Paisas means? Here it means those in jail who are not maras, gang members. Can we be sure it is not an offensive term in Colombia, SqueakBox 23:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC) Paisas to people from Medellin are not offensive at all. I don't know about any other department but in Antioquia people don't really take it as an offense. People from Medellin usually call themselves paisas.

 * Paisa (short for "paisano"=fellow contryman), refered to culturally Antioqueño, is by no way offensive to them. See es:Paisa for an article in Spanish language wikipedia.
 * — Carlos Th (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * People from Antioquia and Medellin and the Colombian Coffee belt call themselves Paisas. The people from the Paisa Country, as it is sometimes called, have a distintive accent for which they are recognised and identified in Colombia. The Colombian Paisas take pride on being the pioneers of the industrialization and modern colonization of Colombia. They are quite religious and catholic. The Jewish element is an important component of the Paisa culture as many people from this region descended from Spanish conversos.--tequendamia 11:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * So I now see from es wikipedia. I believe better safe than sorry and I wasn't sure partly because it was inserted an anon. Paisa does mean what I eluded to above in Honduras, essentially a criminal who isn't part of a gang, and I imagine from the same word paisano, as I am adding to the Spanish wikipedia, SqueakBox 14:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay. I created the disambiguation here: Paisa (disambiguation), to show the different meanings.  — Carlos Th (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Belén de Bajirá
Belén de Bajirá es un municipio antioqueño no del Chocó. Los Mapas hay que actualizarlos.-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This title is more accurate Antioquia, Department of Colombia. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now it's at "Antioquia Department" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Source
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * de Arango, María Cristina. Publicaciones periódicas en Antioquia. Universidad Eafit, 2006. ISBN 9588281229, 9789588281223.

Armed conflict
There was a section added to this article regarding the armed conflict in Antioquia, and that section has been deleted. Similar sections have been removed from a number of other Colombian department articles. There is a discussion concerning these removals at Talk:Valle del Cauca department. -- Irn (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pedro de Ursua quote
"he could persuade the soldiers to be told of Aguirre's revolt, if they spoke in Euskera."

Not sure what this quote means. Guess it would more clear in Euskera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole section on basque smacks of basque nationalism. There need to be sources for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.235.206 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Antioquia Topographic 2.png

title: Talk:Antioquia Department


text:
Popscene

"Popscene" is a song by English alternative rock band Blur, released as a non-album single on 30 March 1992. Despite its relatively low chart placing, it has since become critically praised and regarded as one of the pioneering songs of the Britpop genre.

Recording
The song was first played live in late 1991, and recorded at Matrix Studios in Holborn with producer Steve Lovell. The lyrics showed frontman Damon Albarn's distaste for the music business, complaining that there were too many insignificant indie bands.

Musically, it was different to the style seen on the group's first album Leisure and featured heavily flanged guitars, a Can influenced drumbeat, and brass from session players the Kick Horns. The band considered "Popscene" to be the loudest and best thing they had worked on at that point.

Reception
The single reached No. 32 on the UK Singles Chart, and was panned by both Melody Maker and NME. The Beastie Boys, guest reviewing for NME, suggested the record would sound better played at 33rpm instead of 45. The low chart placing came as a confidence blow for the band, who were £60,000 in debt. Food Records boss Andy Ross later said "we were totally devastated ... we thought it was a brilliant single." The band have since said that the popularity of American grunge music contributed to the single's failure, as they felt the song had a very British feel. Guitarist Graham Coxon said "It was Nirvana that really fucked "Popscene" up."

Sylvia Patterson from Smash Hits rated the song two out of five. She wrote: "[The song] starts off like the Inspiral Carpets in a car crash and ends up exactly like Mancunian punk-poppers from yesteryear The Buzzcocks. A bizarre commotion from hell. Not very good either."

The experience of recording "Popscene" led the band to believe they should simply play music in their own style and not worry about trends. The "Britishness" of "Popscene" carried over to the group's second album, Modern Life Is Rubbish. The song was not released on the British version of the album, though it was added as an extra track in the United States and Japan. In Australia, "Popscene" was not released until 1998, when it was issued as a double A-side with "On Your Own"; it reached No. 69 on the ARIA Singles Chart.

The song has since become a fan favourite and is still performed live. Retrospective critical reaction to "Popscene" has been positive. Jonathan Holden, writing in the Rough Guide To Rock, declared the single to be "excellent" and that its "punky, energetic and brass-fulfilled pop" was out of place in 1992. John Harris considers the track as one of the first ever Britpop songs, and a starting point for the movement. The song had never been included on a UK Blur album, until 2009 when it was released on the compilation Midlife: A Beginner's Guide to Blur.

Track listings
All songs were written by Albarn, Coxon, James and Rowntree.

7-inch and cassette
 * 1) "Popscene" – 3:12
 * 2) "Mace" – 3:24

12-inch
 * 1) "Popscene" – 3:12
 * 2) "I'm Fine" – 3:01
 * 3) "Mace" – 3:24
 * 4) "Garden Central" – 5:58

CD
 * 1) "Popscene" – 3:12
 * 2) "Mace" – 3:24
 * 3) "Badgeman Brown" – 4:47

Production credits

 * "Popscene" produced by Steve Lovell
 * "Mace", "Badgeman Brown", and "Garden Central" produced by Blur and John Smith
 * "I'm Fine" 'produced by Blur
 * Damon Albarn: lead vocals, synthesizers
 * Graham Coxon: guitars, backing vocals
 * Alex James: bass guitar
 * Dave Rowntree: drums
 * The Kick Horns: brass

title: Popscene


text:
User talk:64.8.148.130

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Battle of the Alamo has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. The Thing // Talk  // Contribs  17:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Westerbork concentration camp. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Fumitol (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Belinda (entertainer), you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at History of the English language, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ALI nom nom 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 1 year from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Willmar, Minnesota, you may be blocked from editing. Pinethicket (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Willmar, Minnesota. Grafen (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Willmar, Minnesota with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. jorgenev 16:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of people from Minnesota with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. gz 33 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of people from Minnesota with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. gz 33 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Willmar, Minnesota with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. RA0808 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Willmar, Minnesota. RA0808 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Grand River (Ontario). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Jeff Koons worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Lucas Nunes (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Maryland, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Morphine, you may be blocked from editing. Mojoworker (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Amphetamine, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mojoworker (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm Petrb. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Bimetallic strip— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Petrb (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Third industrial revolution
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! JustBerry (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Electrician with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   16:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at El Guapo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Widr (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2015
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Electrician— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
 * --TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Araguaian river dolphin, you may be blocked from editing. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Willem de Kooning. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  20:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To edit, please create an account and log in  [ Last edited]: Last edited by: (UTC)

Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.

If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by [//accounts.wmflabs.org/ filling out this form]. Please check on [ this list] that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the [//utrs.wmflabs.org/ Unblock Ticket Request System] with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.

NawlinWiki (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello, I'm OwnstheBeagles. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Willmar, Minnesota have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. OwnstheBeagles (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2021
This IP address has been blocked before, and can be blocked again. See the Talk entries. David notMD (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, I'm RG067. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Flag of Minnesota—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. RG067 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rugby football. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello, I'm Eviolite. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Simón Bolívar have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse.   ev iolite   (talk)  15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Simón Bolívar. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Simón Bolívar, you may be blocked from editing. ... disco spinster   talk  18:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:64.8.148.130


text:
Radio Society of Great Britain

The Radio Society of Great Britain (RSGB) is the United Kingdom's recognised national society for amateur radio operators. The society was founded in 1913 as the London Wireless Club, making it one of the oldest organisations of its kind in the world. Through its work, it represents the interests of the UK's 80,000 licensed radio amateurs in the United Kingdom and certain dependent territories of the United Kingdom at the International Amateur Radio Union, acting as a medium for communication between the licensed operators and the UK government.

Role
The RSGB has traditionally acted as the organisation through which its members interact with the telecommunications regulatory authority of the United Kingdom, Ofcom. Although Ofcom has used its web site to solicit opinions directly from all amateur radio enthusiasts and other interested parties, the RSGB continues to advise and to seek to influence Ofcom on the likely impact of proposed changes in many areas – from decisions on spectrum and licensing, through to interference arising from intruders or from spurious emissions from electronic equipment such as Solar Panels, VDSL or PLT. Its advice on EMC issues is one of many services to its members and the wider amateur community. RSGB also acts as a parent organisation to many smaller groups and societies which affiliate to it. Some of these societies form in towns or unite local areas (such as repeater groups). Other specialist groups can include contesters, a particular operating category, or even people interested in a particular amateur radio band (such as 6-meter band groups).

The society publishes a monthly magazine called RadCom, along with a range of technical books.

History
The roots of the Radio Society of Great Britain can traced back to the formation of the London Wireless Club, inaugurated in West Hampstead on 5 July 1913. The first President was Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton who was succeeded in 1920 by James Robert Erskine-Murray.

At its first meeting in September 1913, it was decided that the name should change from the London Wireless Club to the Wireless Society of London. In November 1922, the name of the Society was changed to that it holds to this day, the substitution of the term 'Great Britain' for 'London' being made with the view to extend the perceived scope of the Society's work.

The RSGB made the first radio transmission across to the United States, but failed to have any receiving equipment. Many members were slightly annoyed by this fact and so formed other sections of the RSGB which were later absorbed into the RSGB itself.

During World War II, the entire RSGB Council and many of its members were recruited into MI8, also known as the Radio Security Service. Its mission was to intercept clandestine enemy transmissions.

In 2006, the RSGB cooperated with Ofcom to revise the amateur radio licence in the United Kingdom; following the formal consultation process, from 8 February 2007 the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 was replaced by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. Changes included removing the annual licence fee and removing the requirement to log all transmissions. Amateur radio operators gained permission to operate one's amateur radio station remotely, and the changes increased the spectrum available to the lower classes of licensees.

2011 expenses scandal
On 28 March 2011, the Board announced that the RSGB's general manager had left the Society's employment after the discovery of financial irregularities, allegedly for the amount of £41,000. RSGB Director, Don Beattie G3BJ, acted as general manager until the appointment of a new general manager, Graham Coomber G0NBI, in May 2012.

The following notice appeared on the RSGB website on 16 October 2013: ''“The Board is pleased to be able to report to Members that the debt owed to the Society by its previous General Manager, who left the Society in early 2011, has been repaid in full, together with statutory interest and the Society’s court fees. This will be reflected in the 2013 accounts as a write-back of the provision taken against the debt in the 2011 accounts. Details will be in the annual report and accounts which will be published in time for the AGM in 2014. The Board expresses its thanks to the Society team which has brought about the recovery of this debt and now regards the matter as closed. No further comment will be made.”''

RSGB Centenary 2013
In 2013 the RSGB celebrated its centenary with a programme of events including a special callsign G100RSGB, the RSGB Centenary Award 2013 and a construction competition. The special callsign G100RSGB travelled around the 13 RSGB regions and was operated by groups in each area.

National Radio Centre

The RSGB National Radio Centre at Bletchley Park in Buckinghamshire opened in 2012. It has exhibits and demonstrations of wireless technology, the GB3RS radio station, and the RSGB archives in a newly constructed building close to the main Bletchley Park entrance. The centre has proven increasingly popular with visitor numbers rising from 26,000 in 2017, to over 90,000 in 2019.

Future
There are competing demands from more and more non-amateur uses of radio (for example mobile operators and wireless devices). Despite this, the RSGB has been able to maintain existing amateur radio allocations and negotiate some new ones.

Outreach to younger amateurs
With the formation of the Youth Team (Formerly RSGB Youth Committee) the society is catering for the demands of the younger licensees. In 2014, The society took part in the International Amateur Radio Union's Youngsters on the Air (YOTA) event in Finland, whilst completing a mini YOTA event in the UK. The RSGB hosted YOTA in the UK in 2017, attracting over 80 young people from all over the world to the UK to take part in radio related events. This event was organised by senior members of the RSGB with support from the youth committee. The Youth Committee was Chaired from its formation in 2014 to 2018 by Mike Jones, M5PMJ, acting as the Youth Coordinator for the UK for the International Amateur Radio Union. The society had remained an active part in the YOTA programme, being represented in 2018 in South Africa and engaging in December YOTA Months.

Publications
The RSGB publishes many books on amateur radio and related matters, including:
 * Brown, Chris (ed) (2001) Radio & Electronics Cookbook Radio Society of Great Britain. ISBN 0-7506-5214-4
 * Dennison, Mike and Lorek, Chris, eds. (2006). RSGB Radio Communication Handbook. 8th Edition.  Radio Society of Great Britain. ISBN 978-1-905086-74-0.
 * Dodd, Peter (1996) Antenna Experimenter's Guide, The Radio Society of Great Britain. ISBN 1-872309-36-4
 * Fielding, John (2006) Power Supply Handbook Radio Society of Great Britain. ISBN 1-905086-21-0
 * Fielding, John (2006) Amateur Radio Astronomy Radio Society of Great Britain. ISBN 1-905086-16-4
 * Hawker, Pat (2002) Antenna Topics Radio Society of Great Britain. ISBN 1-872309-89-5
 * Poole, Ian (2004) Radio Propagation—Principles & Practice Radio Society of Great Britain. ISBN 1-872309-97-6
 * Read, Giles (2010) HF Antennas for everyone Radio Society of Great Britain. ISBN 978-1-905086-59-7

RadCom
RadCom (formerly "Radio Communication", and even earlier "The Bulletin") is the official journal of the Radio Society of Great Britain, and is posted free monthly to all RSGB members. There are two other online publications:
 * RadCom Basics, for Members new to the hobby or to refresh their knowledge.
 * RadCom Plus, a more technical supplement with more advanced topics and projects

Patrons
The Radio Society of Great Britain has had a Royal Family Member as their patron for many years. These include:

 * HRH Duke of Edinburgh 1952 – 9 April 2021.

title: Radio Society of Great Britain


text:
Karasuk

Karasuk may refer to:
 * Karasuk culture, a group of Bronze Age societies
 * Karasuk languages, a hypothetical language family linking the Yeniseian languages and Burushaski
 * Karasuk Urban Settlement, a municipal formation which the Town of Karasuk in Karasuksky District of Novosibirsk Oblast, Russia is incorporated as
 * Karasuk (inhabited locality), several inhabited localities in Russia
 * Karasuk (river), a river in Novosibirsk Oblast, Russia

title: Karasuk


text:
Category:Abbots

Abbot is a title given to the head of a monastery in various traditions, including Christianity. The office may also be given as an honorary title to a clergyman who is not actually the head of a monastery. The female equivalent is abbess.

title: Category:Abbots


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Mark Fenton

Dr Mark Fenton

 * Non-notable headmaster. Rmhermen 20:11, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That blurb on the bottom leads me to conclude that a disgruntled student wrote this.  Delete as non-notable and as a personal attack. - Lucky 6.9 21:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and as a personal attack. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as libel. Delete, the school's notable, not its headmaster. Wyss 23:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you speedy delete it if the subject's notablity is debatable enough for a VfD, and there are only two attack sentences at the end of a neutral article? I'd worry about that precedent. Keep... on VfD. No vote on the article yet, but it is Linked from Dr Challoner's Grammar School, a school founded 1624 with a book about it and notable alum Roger Moore. Samaritan 02:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, you can edit it, as I have, to remove the libel concern. He is already mentioned as headmaster in Dr Challoner's Grammar School.  If deleted, also unwikify his name there, to avoid a repeat. Michael Ward 06:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, now libel has gone. Dan100 09:44, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * My bad for not checking the link to the Challoner School article. Keep rewrite sans the libel.  Notable school=notable headmaster IMO. - Lucky 6.9 19:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because the school's notable does not mean that the current headmaster is automatically notable. I have not found evidence to convince me that he meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.  Delete unless further evidence of notability is presented.  Rossami (talk) 04:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just because Nate McMillan went to my high school doesn't mean that the current principal warrants an entry.  Delete. --PacknCanes 18:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Non-notable. Even if kept, doesn't need the 'Dr' in the title. -- Necrothesp 16:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please Delete! Mark Fenton is not even notable in the local area (at least to my knowledge) nor for any reason other than being headmaster of a school. The reason I was on the site was to find out if his name was listed, and was surprised to find a self-aggrandizing article on the man. Notably, the sister school has a smaller stub article. --Mysteronald 23:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
USS Ronquil

USS Ronquil (SS-396), a Balao-class submarine, was the only ship of the United States Navy named after the ronquil, a spiny-finned fish found along the northwest coast of North America. It has a single dorsal fin and a large mouth and resembles the tropical jawfish.

Construction and commissioning
Ronquil was laid down on 9 September 1943 at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, in Kittery, Maine; launched on 27 January 1944, sponsored by Mrs. C. M. Elder; and commissioned on 22 April 1944.

World War II
After shakedown off the New England coast, Ronquil sailed for Hawaii. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on 8 July 1944; and, after preparatory training, sailed on her first war patrol (31 July – 8 September 1944) in the northeastern Formosa-Sakishima Gunto area. On 24 August the submarine sank two attack cargo ships: Yoshida Maru No. 3 (4,646 tons) and Fukurei Maru (5,969 tons). Ronquil’s second war patrol, from 30 September to 28 November 1944, was carried out in two phases. She first operated with a coordinated submarine attack group in the Bungo Suido area, and then joined six other submarines to carry out an antipatrol ship sweep off the Bonin Islands.

On her third war patrol, from 1 January to 14 February 1945, Ronquil patrolled the Bonins and did lifeguard duty in that area for Army bombers hitting the Japanese home islands. Her fourth war patrol from 11 March to 23 April 1945, brought her no worthwhile enemy targets but resulted in the rescue of 10 Army aviators from a B-29 bomber downed between the Bonins and Japan. The submarine's fifth and last patrol from 19 May to 26 July 1945, took her into the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea.

The end of the war in the Pacific in mid-August 1945 found Ronquil off Pearl Harbor, training for another war patrol.

1945–1952
Ronquil returned to San Diego in the fall of 1945 and engaged in training exercises off the California coast. In January 1947, she departed San Diego for her first peacetime western Pacific deployment. This patrol lasted 114 days and took the submarine to Tahiti, the Caroline Islands, the Mariana Islands, Japan, and the Yellow Sea. On her return to San Diego, she resumed local operations before beginning a three-year period of intensive training in offensive and antisubmarine warfare, embodying lessons learned during World War II as well as new postwar developments.

1953–1971
Ronquil entered Mare Island Naval Shipyard in May 1952 for decommissioning and "Guppy IIA" modernization: Her hull and sail were streamlined for greater submerged speed. She received new, increased-capacity batteries for underwater endurance, and a snorkel which enabled her to use her diesels at periscope depth. New electronics, including improved sonar and fire-control systems, were installed.

Ronquil was recommissioned on 16 January 1953, and on 12 June departed for Japan. She arrived at Yokosuka before sailing on to Tokyo on 19 July to take part in the "Black Ship Festival" commemorating Commodore Matthew Perry's opening of Japan in 1852. Throughout August and September, Ronquil participated in antisubmarine and other operations in the waters near Japan; this was to set the pattern for most of her later deployments.

On 11 December 1953 Ronquil returned to San Diego for a year of overhaul, refresher training, Naval Reserve training, and fleet exercises. She sailed for a second western Pacific tour on 21 March 1955, returning late in September. The next 2 years were devoted to operations off the west coast of the United States; on 31 July 1957, the submarine again deployed to the Far East for 7 months.

From 3 July to 7 July 1958, Ronquil took part, with other ships of the fleet, in an observance of the 50th anniversary of the arrival of the "Great White Fleet" at San Francisco. She resumed normal operations, then sailed from San Diego on 6 April 1959 for a 5-month "WestPac" deployment. During July and August 1960, she participated in extensive antisubmarine exercises in the eastern Pacific with United States and Canadian forces.

In the early fall of 1961 Ronquil again sailed for the Far East, returning in March 1962. After taking part in a demonstration of antisubmarine operations for the national radio and television networks, she began a period of overhaul and local operations. The submarine departed San Diego in November 1963 for duty with the United States Seventh Fleet; on her return to California, she again resumed operations off the west coast. Late in 1964 Ronquil began preparations for deployment to the Vietnam area. In February 1965 she sailed for Southeast Asia and a five-month deployment.

In mid-1966, Ronquil rejoined the Seventh Fleet, returning to San Diego in February 1967 for further work off the coast of California. This was interrupted in August 1967, when Ronquil played the part of the fictional USS Tigerfish (SSN-509) in the motion picture Ice Station Zebra.

On 26 December 1967, Ronquil was again underway for Japan. During this deployment, she took part in exercises with U.S., Royal Navy, Canadian Forces, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, and Royal Australian Navy forces. On 2 July 1968 Ronquil returned to the United States West Coast. Ronquil departed for the East Asia on 4 July 1969, returning to San Diego on 24 December 1969.

At the end of January 1970 Ronquil began a period of repair and overhaul, followed by training and fleet exercises in the eastern Pacific. August 1970 brought another Seventh Fleet deployment. She returning to San Diego on 5 March 1971. The Vietnam Service Medal was awarded for this deployment.

On 1 July 1971, Ronquil was decommissioned, struck from the Naval Register,

Honors and awards
Ronquil earned six battle stars for World War II service.

 * Vietnam Service Medal ribbon.svg Vietnam Service Medal

Spanish service
On the day of her commissioning, Ronquil was transferred to Spain under the Mutual Security Assistance Act. She was commissioned into the Spanish Navy as Isaac Peral (S-32), named after Spanish submarine pioneer Isaac Peral. Under her new commander, Lieutenant Commander Pedro Soler Yolif, she sailed from San Diego to her new home port of Cartagena, Spain, where she arrived on 22 August 1971.

Isaac Peral faced retirement in 1982, but her service was extended until the commissioning of the new submarine SPANISH SUBMARINE Siroco. The Spanish Navy finally decommissioned Isaac Peral on 3 April 1984.

title: USS Ronquil


text:
Lisa Ryder

Lisa Ryder (born 26 October 1970) is a Canadian actress, who portrayed the role of Beka Valentine on the science fiction television series Andromeda.

Life and career
Ryder was born in Edmonton, Alberta and attended the University of Toronto, where she began acting. She formed a local theatre group, Bald Ego Productions, in Toronto after graduation and landed her first film and television roles in the mid-1990s. She starred in many theatre productions, including "Put Me Away," a one-woman show which she wrote. She gained a following as Detective Tracy Vetter on the final season of the vampire drama Forever Knight in 1995–1996 and was cast on the syndicated science-fiction series Andromeda in 2000; the series ended in 2005 after 110 episodes. She also co-starred, as android Kay-Em 14, in the 2001 film Jason X, starring Andromeda alumnus Lexa Doig (notable is the role reversal).

Ryder guest-starred in Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict, Total Recall 2070, Kung Fu: The Legend Continues, Wind at My Back and Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal. She also had a recurring role on The Newsroom. Her other movie roles include the critically acclaimed Canadian indie film Stolen Heart, the thriller Blackheart and the short films Strands and Lemon. She also wrote, produced and starred in the film SF Seeks, featuring Michael Shanks, Gordon Michael Woolvett, Keith Hamilton Cobb and Lexa Doig. She appeared in a television advert for Cheer laundry detergent in the late 80s – early 90s.

In 2014, Ryder starred in the Canadian Stage co-production of Helen Lawrence. In 2019, Ryder's play A Blow in the Face premiered with Nightwood Theatre and Bald Ego Theatre in Toronto, Ontario. The play was inspired by her personal experiences with postpartum depression after the birth of her first child. In the premiere, Ryder played the roofer Cloudy.

title: Lisa Ryder


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline CGI in movies

Template:Timeline CGI in movies
This was an attempt to produce an illustrative timeline for Timeline of CGI in movies. However, that article has evolved into a different format - a table with illustrations, so this timeline is no longer useful. Please delete. Paranoid 20:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is wrong in so many ways. Wyss 23:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Move listing to WP:TFD. No vote. --Goobergunch|? 23:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Mechamorphosis

 * This article describes the game by role-playing game. "Mechamorphosis" is also used to refer to the transformation of robots in fiction relating to the Robotech anime setting; primarily in the novelizations written by Jack McKinney.

Mechamorphosis is a Transformers-like role-playing game based on the d20 System created by Lysle Kapp and Rob Vaughn of Fantasy Flight Games (FFG). The game, released in 2004, is the fifth of FFG's Horizon minigames. The manual describing the game is 64 pages long. The game allows players to take on the roles of giant transforming robots set within the storyline of FFG's homebrew variation on Hasbro's Transformers toyline. Most of its game mechanisms are Open gaming content released under the Open Gaming License (OGL).

Reviews

 * Pyramid

title: Mechamorphosis


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traceroute program

Traceroute program
Copyrighted, non-encyclopedic. jengod 20:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Traceroute --Ld 20:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - primary source material widely and freely available in more appropriate venues. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, wiki is not a data dump. Wyss 23:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete wrong place for src code. Kbh3rd 23:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio and data dump. Samaritan 02:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment tagged it as a copyvio, and listed it there. this should be deleted (for copyvio reasons) and then redirected to traceroute to avoid a repeat. Michael Ward 06:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not copyvio, BSD license is quite compatible with most everything. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the existing article was not a violation, as it fully complied with the advertising provision of the BSD license. It is not however clear that this is compatible with the GFDL,  under which all Wikipedia content is supposed to be licensed.  This is because it would be a violation under that license if anyone came along and edited or removed the copyright and licensing statement in the text.  But Wikipedia articles are supposed to be freely editable.  Therefore, it strikes me as likely incompatible with the GFDL and with the Wikipedia spirit.  I suppose this matter has been hashed out somewhere else, or it should be.  At any rate, this seems like a clear delete, one way or the other. (I see that these issues are in fact being debated at the moment over on copyright violations) Michael Ward 17:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - source code as such is not appropriate for Wikipedia (it might be appropriate as an example in an article, but that's another question). I don't think this is a copyvio because the page included the copyright notice in its entirety as per point (1), while UC has rescinded point (3). --rbrwr± 15:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: When will all this licencing stuff get cleared up? What's wrong with the GFDL? Redirect in the interim. Alphax (talk) 05:20, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


text: File:Popscene.jpg

title: File:Popscene.jpg