text:
User talk:Rbellin/Archive 1

from Please do not bite the newcomers

 * Newcomers are often hesistant to make changes, especially major ones, such as NPOVing and moving, due to the fear of damaging Wikipedia.

Just a minor point, but "fear of damaging Wikipedia" is not the only reason a newcomer like myself might be hesitant to do major NPOV/moving/deletion. Newbies with previous Wiki or version-control experience will not have that worry. A newcomer who is knowledgeable or expert in a given area may seek the pages on his/her area of interest, and find that they are lacking and/or biased, but note the presence of prior flames on the relevant Talk pages that indicate that more knowledge and/or neutrality is actually *not* desired by some vocal, active contributors.

Unfortunately, if "an active contributor will have to perhaps spend more time on the talk pages deliberating with other contributors, who often don't know a damn thing about the subject," then many experts and potential contributors are going to be driven away.

Rbellin 04:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for filling my request for an article at English studies, it's very clear and well written. I have a question: does "English studies" refer to the study of English language as well as of English literature? I would like to redirect some pages that talk of studying "English" to "English studies", but don't want to do so if that wouldn't make sense. Thanks again. -- sannse 20:11, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think English studies really refers only to English literature, not the study of the English language or linguistics. Non-literature references are probably best redirected to English language, I guess. -- Rbellin 18:06, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The problem is when "English" refers to a combination of both English language and literature. As in: "John Smith taught English for twenty years".  I've had a look at a few sites for various English studies departments of universities etc and they mostly seem to mention some sort of language component to their courses (this page from the University of Nottingham for example).  So maybe that should be mentioned in the article?  I'm not sure, so I'll leave it to you.  But I think I should be OK using it to disambiguate when the language and literature articles really won't work.  Thanks for the reply.  Regards -- sannse 21:28, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of the messages on User talk:snobot. I agree with you that avoiding the Hegelian redirect is potentially harmful to future expansion of Hegelian. I started out changing links from Hegel to Hegel, and I guess I got a bit over-zealous. But note that nothing on wikipedia is "lost", I'll start undoing the changes as soon as I finished typing this message. The "disambiguation" not stems from my use of a bot that was coded for disambiguation, I will change the message to something like "redirect avoidance" in accordance with its current use. Also, I'll make sure to sticking to terms that are clearly the same (as explained above). --snoyes 20:15, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems that wikipedia is too slow to load the "user contributions" pages, so I'll revert the changes at off-peak time. --snoyes 20:50, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How odd, Alice Lloyd College wasn't linked yesterday :-) Seriously, did you actually know of this college previously? Are you a graduate? The reason I chose it as an example is that last year I made an attempt to read Browning's Pippa Passes, got maybe 2/3 of the way through before giving up, and had a mild and passing interest in all things Pippa. I was curious to know how the town in Kentucky got its name, and, of course, it turns out that it was named by Alice Spencer Geddes Lloyd, (who is currently not linked...) Dpbsmith 02:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I've got no connection to Alice Lloyd College and had never heard of the place before you mentioned it. I just took the mention -- in a context which could've seemed like Wikipedia was passing judgment on it -- as provocation to add the article. And it did turn out already to be linked from a handful of other pages.

 * The general issue of academic "prestige" is one that Wikipedia will keep revisiting, I guess. I don't know if there is a good way to treat this issue neutrally, without either encouraging snobbery (and its evil twin, me-tooism) or ignoring all differences.  Maybe a start would be to add articles discussing college rankings, how they're generated, and their critics (like the "Forget U.S. News Coalition")?  I'll think more about this. -- Rbellin 06:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth... I don't think much of college rankings (which, incidentally, is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of appealing to "objective" ranking lists to decide what should go on the page). The difference between an excellent school and a good one is, typically, that most of the departments in the excellent school are excellent, while only some of the departments in the good school are excellent. And the difference between an excellent department and a good one is that most of the professors, etc. And we're talking about distributions with big variances and small differences between the means. And the quality of the education is most determined whether or not you happen to encounter a small number of professors that "click" with you and inspire you. Similarly, the main difference between a good humongous state university and an excellent prestigious smaller institution is that you need to work a little harder and be a little more assertive and motivated in order to actively extract a good education, from the former. My daughter got an excellent education at U. Mass, which is a state university and in the second group of state universities--the ones that are not quite "public Ivies." But it has a good business school, and she majored in business, and had one or two excellent professors.

 * Nevertheless, I think there's some point in making a list of the hundred or so college and universities that are famous or notable... the ones that, well, people have heard of, or are likely to be referred to. "Fermi developed the first nuclear reactor in the squash courts of the University of Chicago"; "Goddard did his pioneering rocket experiments at Worcester Polytechnic Institute;" "Owen Johnson's book, Stover at Yale, continues the story of Dink Stover..." etc. etc.

 * And, while I'm glad you made the entry for Alice Lloyd College--I still think that it would be possible to say, from a neutral point of view, that Dartmouth College is famous, and that U Mass/Dartmouth is not. Even though that's where one of the most talented engineers I know learned his stuff. Dpbsmith 22:54, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm also none too keen on college and university rankings, so I'm trying to report on their methodology more than their results in the Wikipedia article. I think you're right that it's possible for Wikipedia to say something more about this issue; but I'm not sure exactly what.  "Famous" depends a lot on who you ask: e.g. most non-PhD-owning people who I talk to haven't heard of Swarthmore College and think the University of Chicago might be a state school, while the hyper-educated tend to think of them as among the cream of U.S. higher education.  This makes it hard to use "famous" as a surrogate for the intangible "quality" which we subjectively perceive.  The examples you give, which have a lot to do with institutions' history, will possibly not select more recently founded and/or recently improved institutions, and/or might allow some "famous" schools to coast on their reputations.  But they are an interesting alternative, especially for research universities: maybe we could list locations of significant discoveries.

 * P.S.: I might lift some of your comment's text into the college rankings article, if that's all right. -- Rbellin 23:51, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course. Thanks Dpbsmith 00:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Five Colleges... yes, you must have read my mind. Good change. I actually dithered back and forth about whether to mention this myself. I kept wondering whether the phrase "Pioneer Valley" area was OK, since few outside Massachusetts would know where it is. And I couldn't quite figure out how to fit in Williams, since it is not part of the Five Colleges. By the way... it seems to me that the Five Colleges resemble a "university" in the historical sense (independent colleges in physical proximity sharing credits, etc) than most universities? Dpbsmith 15:27, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rubellin, I don't know if you have ever seen WikiMoney, but I offered six wikis for an article you wrote (English studies) - appologies for the delay, I've now paid up. I also opened you an account at WikiMoney accounts and added your initial 20W. Of course, if you don't want to use the account just ignore or delete it, but some find it fun :) -- sannse (talk) 17:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- Hi, I added Letters to Humanities and Arts, but it seems that w/o letters Arts would be included in Humanities as well. It would make sense to me to make arts a "see also" and to add "arts and letters" as a see also. (Philosophy otoh and for instance, wouldn't seem to me to be included in Arts, so adding Letters would be required if Humanities were made "see also" and Arts was left. What do you think?--Samuel J. Howard 15:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Discussion moved to Talk:List of academic disciplines

Hey, welcome to the WikiProject Critical Theory. Great to have you on board! If you want, you can introduce yourself under the =Introductions= heading on the talkpage, so we can coordinate our fields of interest etc. Pteron 21:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Great idea regarding the Critical theory (Frankfurt School) article. One of those Wikiedits that makes me go "Dammit! Why didn't I think to do that!" Oh, and welcome to the WikiProject. Glad to have you on board. :) Snowspinner 03:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

First off, thanks for your help in cleaning up the Derrida entry. There's plenty of organization and basic editing that I didn't do the first time out. I hope we can continue to work together as I go through a few more drafts. I will certainly heed your advice about how to manage revisions. I have a couple of more substantive items to offer, and I expect that there is probably a more appropriate forum than talking to you. If you are aware of such a forum, please do not hesitate to redirect me.

There are a couple of detailed concerns I have that I'd like to communicate to avoid toe-stepping going forward -- rather than brain dumping them here, I reckon we should redirect to a more suitable format if one is available or otherwise make one. Drop me a line via my talk page to let me know where to go. Buffyg 14:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RfA
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I've been nominated for adminship status over at Requests for Adminship. Since you've worked with me on a couple of articles through WikiProject Critical Theory, I thought you'd probably be a particularly good person to cast a vote either for or against, so I thought I'd let you know. Snowspinner 18:58, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
Thank you for your comment on User talk:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide (current draft). I have posted a response (half-agreeing and half-disagreeing:) ). If you have an opportunity, I'd be grateful if you would take a look. Cheers. jguk 20:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Better writing guide"
Hi. Concerning the "Better writing guide" and any mass redirects or deletions, you might be interested in this. It's a possible back-up plan. Maurreen 21:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

"Academic boosterism and snobbery are out of control on Wikipedia"
Amen, brother.

You can say that again.

I seem to remember crossing swords with you once because I thought it was self-evident that one could create an NPOV "list of notable universities." Maybe I'm thinking of someone else? Anyway I said something along the lines that it was obvious that Princeton was notable and that Alice Lloyd University in Pippa Passes, Kentucky was not. I don't remember much more...

...but I've been quite disgusted at recent showy displays of peacock-butt-plumage in the MIT article, and even more annoyed when people defended same on the grounds that the article on Harvard was just as bad. Which it is.

The MIT article has been toned down to being merely obnoxious, but at one point it opened as follows:

 * The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, is a preeminent research institution and university. It is located in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts directly across from Boston.

 * MIT is widely considered to be one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the world, and is consistently ranked as the top university for science and technology in the United States. It is also a world leader in many other fields, including management, economics, linguistics, political science, and philosophy. Among its most famous departments and schools are the Lincoln Laboratory, the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Media Lab and the Sloan School of Management.

One of the most prestigious educational institutions in the world? Good grief. I have cardinal-and-grey blood in my veins but really. Since then I've been making a point of asking people who are not U. S. nationals the simple question "What names come to mind if I ask you to name the most prestigious educational institutions in the world?" Just a reality check, to see whether I've been over-modest about my alma mater. So far, not one has mentioned MIT. Not without prompting, that is.

I think when I made my crack about Alice Lloyd University perhaps I hadn't been an active Wikipedian for long enough to see this stuff.

BTW the current Harvard article says "The school color is a shade richer than red but brighter than burgundy, referred to as crimson." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * A potential explanation of the long paragraphs documenting institutions' excruciatingly narrow selectivity, dizzyingly high rankings on carefully selected lists on which they rank highly, etc. etc. is that it they arise out of an attempt at maintaining NPOV. The current Britannica is content to say of fair Harvard that she "is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States (founded 1636) and one of the nation's most prestigious. It is one of the Ivy League schools." Now, if a Wikipedia article were to say merely that Harvard is "one of the nation's most prestigious," someone might reply "sez who?" and the next thing you know how have a paragraph about how the endowment is umpteen skabillion jillion dollars and counts of Nobel prizewinners and so forth.

 * I'm thinking that perhaps we need a powerful tradition that all comments about university prestige, quality, influence, eminence, etc. etc. should be limited to a couple of fairly generic sentences, which should always be secondary references, and that buttressing data beyond that should go on the Talk page.

 * Not that I think the boosters would be likely to agree to this, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you've hit the heart of the problem: It might be okay if the article only said "among most prestigious" or something like that without a large paragraph of supporting statistics. However Wikipedia has a policy of Cite sources. I've seen what happens when there's only such a statement: it gets removed by editors who claim there's no supporting evidence. So the only way to stop that is to add the supporting evidence to the page. And removing "among most prestigious" or something along those lines is bad, because a large part of the notability of these elite universities lies in their prestige; it is a fundamental part of their identity, when defined as the perception of them within society at large.  —Lowellian (talk)   01:25, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of specific, cited facts rather than unattributed opinion is generally praiseworthy, even in these cases. "Among the most prestigious" is simply unverifiable, and completely controvertible in most of the hundreds of cases to which it will immediately be applied if Wikipedians find it acceptable. In my opinion this (and the Dartmouth case Dpbsmith describes below) is basically a problem of article style: a university's article should begin with a brief description, not a snowstorm of facts. The facts, though, have a place: later in the article. I wholly agree with Avoid peacock terms when it encourages editors to allow the facts to speak for themselves rather than draw explicit conclusions about significance or prestige. The concise lead section is not the place to build a circumstantial case for any article subject's significance; neither is it, though, the place for sweeping subjective claims like "prestige". I do like Dpbsmith's idea that all such claims should be direct citations from secondary sources; but this too could lead to a massive influx of quotations from college guides, none of which has a place in an article's introduction. It might actually be interesting to see such citations collated together in the body of university articles, though. -- Rbellin 07:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Could you (Dpbsmith and Rbellin) take a look at the newly enlarged article on Wheaton College, Massachusetts, "an active community of learners who value the liberal arts as a means for personal growth, professional success and leadership that improves the world." It goes on and on like that. OTOH I don't understand why the recent editors have removed the nice old seal that was found in the infobox of a previous version of the article. / u p p l a n d 12:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Copyvio from http://www.wheatonma.edu/About/ . Of course. Will list as such tonight unless someone wants to do it sooner. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've drafted a guideline at User:Rbellin/Avoid academic boosterism and would be interested in seeing it improved, accepted, or rejected by other Wikipedians. -- Rbellin 19:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forest-green butt feathers
YEESH. Maybe it's a "September effect?" It takes the freshmen a couple of months to find Wikipedia, maybe?

In the past few weeks, Dartmouth College's opening paragraph has swollen from

 * Dartmouth College is a four-year private liberal arts college in Hanover, New Hampshire, USA and a member of the Ivy League. Dartmouth was founded in 1769 by the Rev. Eleazar Wheelock and Samson Occum under royal charter of King George III of Great Britain. It is the ninth-oldest college in the United States. Dartmouth's original purpose was to "Christianize", instruct and educate "Youth of the Indian Tribes in this Land ... and also of English Youth and any others." Dartmouth is the smallest college in the Ivy League.

to

 * Dartmouth College is a private university in Hanover, New Hampshire, USA and a member of the Ivy League. It is the ninth-oldest college in the United States and one of the most prestigious in the world. In addition to its liberal arts undergraduate program, the university includes the Medical School, the Thayer School of Engineering, the Tuck School of Business, and 18 graduate programs in the arts and sciences. Dartmouth was founded in 1769 by the Rev. Eleazar Wheelock and Samson Occum under royal charter of King George III of Great Britain. Dartmouth's original purpose was to "Christianize", instruct and educate "Youth of the Indian Tribes in this Land ... and also of English Youth and any others." Dartmouth is the smallest university in the Ivy League, with a combined undergraduate and postgraduate enrollment of 5,683.

I probably should have known something was in the offing when the sentence "The well known film Animal House was based on Dartmouth College" was changed to "The well known film Animal House was allegedely [sic] based on the film's writer's experiences at Dartmouth College." Such "allegations" have been made by writer Chris Miller, Dartmouth '63 as well as the film's director, which to me sort of puts it out of the "allegation" category.

I love it that someone obviously thought "smallest college in the Ivy League" reflected badly on the school and tried to counter it by giving the enrollment figure. Any day now I expect to see a further edit giving some reason why it shouldn't be considered the smallest. "Although sometimes alleged to be the smallest, if you measure the enrollment properly as a percentage of the population of the town in which it is situated Dartmouth is actually the largest university in the Ivy League and among the largest universities in the United States..."

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HYP
May I ask you to please read the evidence that I have posted on Votes for deletion/HYP, follow and read some of the links that Google brings up, and consider whether afterwords you still want to delete the article? Thank you. —Lowellian (talk)  08:57, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Academic boosterism guidelines
A worthy start.

One random, tangential remark:

 * In an opening summary paragraph, simply noting that a university is "in the Ivy League" succinctly establishes that the university is prestigious, notable, of high academic caliber, and of historic age by U. S. standards. No more needs to be said. 90% of readers know what's implied by "Ivy League" and the rest can follow the link. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Three cheers for succinctness! Anville 14:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

from user 216.126.90.151
Hi there,

I read your comments regarding my posts. As I am new to Wikipedia... I am loathe to criticize your assessment that my posts belong in a blog. However, I'd like to point out a few things.

1. The area my posts were located is called "Discussion" NOT in the actual article areas which are quite clear require NPOV. NPOV for me requires a much greater commitment of references and style which at this time I do not have the time for. I decided to make posts that although perhaps may make me look like a baffoon (especially because on the controversy of the subjects), I believe might bring "fresh" thought to those who are writing the articles. I am still uncertain how I have transgressed. If possible please explain your perception as to what the "discussion" area should be used for other than for "discussion"?

2. You use the word "soapbox" to describe my opinions. I am uncertain what triggered the stance but that is very combative. As I have no previous history with you, I would think it is you that might examine your actions at having such an agreesive response to a new user.

One thing if I may be so bold to suggest? Don't clobber new users right away just because they say something you don't agree with or they slip up with some etiquette. Using "Soapbox" and suggesting I get out of here is hardly encouraging. I would have prefered edits where you disagree with me and why. And then perhaps some comments towards style dujour. Wounded pride would offer me greater incentive to go looking for sources and be more kosher to readers. 3. Your talk page makes more comments regarding academia. Academics may be influential and perhaps provide a valuable service to our biosphere, but (I believe) are numerically tiny contributers of information relative to great deal of data that is out waiting to be "discovered". Furthermore, if you'll forgive me, I don't think Wikipedia is scientific in nature. It uses citations from scientific references but unfortunately (I believe most scientists would agree) science and democracy have little in common (a comment that is philosophical onto itself :).

Contributers seem to be held to some standards (sources, grammer, spelink) but ultimately interest and tenacity seem to rule the day in the Humanities. A user could use proxies to appear as someone else at any time and continue to make edits (plus a million other problems). Until someone does a scientific investigation (not Wikipedia) of what Wikipedia's information represents... I would call it an information experiment.

4. If Deconstruction interests you, I would think you might be sympathetic to the concept of miscommunication. I don't put much into two discussion articles of a newbie. It takes along time to get a feel for someone. Unless someone starts swearing, vandalizing, or breaking some other rule of the WEBMASTER (G~d), web etiqutte allows users the attempt to communicate (Painfully pathetic as that may be).

Having said all that, I noticed you have contributed a great deal to Wikipedia. Your seem to have interests that are somewhat simlar to my own. I think we probably would have a great many things to argue/debate about.

BTW - Do you still think I belong on a blog? If not please update my talk user page to retract. No hard feelings either way.

If you don’t have time (or interest) to play with my questions below… no problem. I should let you know I travel a bit on stream of thought and consider Deconstruction the best definition of how my mind has always operated. By kindergarten teacher said “obsessed with details” in my report card.

Both Derrida and his text is dead…all that remains are two people passing more dead words. Deconstruction interests you, as does computer science, mathematics and although I didn’t look enough deep enough through your articles… I suspect AI. I may have something to offer you although I lack academic credentials.

A little clarification as I think you are being a little wily in your response.

1.	You are the one that chose to make that association (soapbox=2 essays by me + maybe future essays by me). By suggesting someone else is making the decision “the word soapbox is not mine” “it seems you are trying to say others agree. As far as I can tell so far you’re the only one that’s made that connection. Perhaps a vote of Wikipedia users should be in order? Or are willing to concede YOU thought those essays belonged on a soapbox?

2.	 The soapbox definition (in Wikipedia) says it applies to “Articles”. As the ‘’’Discussion’’’ tab is different than the ‘’’article’’’ tab… that suggests there is a difference between articles and discussion. If not then I suggest someone should update the definition to say “discussions” also hold the sanctity of being articles.

3.	Just because someone wrote an article about soapbox… does that mean I need to follow its interpretation? As far as I can tell, it’s just another article written by whoever had the interest to write the article.

4.	Is that rule enforceable? Is the webmaster the owner? Is it a convention? Who decided that convention and tested it scientifically?

Do you still think those essays belong in a soapbox? Or perhaps a more accurate statement would be Wikipedia’s definition is lacking?

I’m not looking to get into a flaming war and really do appreciate the attempted apology, but I don’t think your answer is a full retraction. I would consider the words “full retraction” acceptable…. NOT full retraction because my time is too important to waste with you. And if you have time to answer my questions….bonus.

from user 216.126.90.151 second reply
If you don’t have time (or interest) to play with my questions below… no problem. I should let you know I travel a bit on stream of thought and consider Deconstruction the best definition of how my mind has always operated. My kindergarten teacher said “obsessed with details” in my report card.

Both Derrida and his text is dead…all that remains are two people passing more dead words. Deconstruction interests you, as does computer science, mathematics and although I didn’t look enough deep enough through your articles… I suspect AI. I may have something to offer you although I lack academic credentials.

A little clarification as I think you are being a little wily in your response.

1. You are the one that chose to make that association (soapbox = 2 essays by me + maybe future essays by me). By suggesting someone else is making the decision “the word soapbox is not mine” it seems you are trying to say others agree. As far as I can tell so far you’re the only one that’s made that connection. Perhaps a vote of Wikipedia users should be in order? Or are willing to concede YOU thought/think those essays belonged on a soapbox (which is perfectly acceptable).

2. The soapbox definition (in Wikipedia) says it applies to Articles. As the Discussion tab is different than the article tab… that suggests there is a difference between articles and discussion. If not then I suggest someone should update the definition to say “discussions” also hold the sanctity of being articles.

3. Just because someone wrote an article about soapbox… does that mean I need to follow its interpretation? As far as I can tell, it’s just another article written by whoever had the interest to write the article.

4. Is that rule enforceable? Is the webmaster the owner? Is it a convention? Who decided that convention and tested it scientifically?

Do you still think those essays belong in a soapbox? Or perhaps a more accurate statement would be Wikipedia’s definition is lacking?

I’m not looking to get into a flaming war and really do appreciate the attempted apology, but I don’t think your answer is a full retraction. I would consider the words 'full retraction' acceptable…. NOT full retraction because my time is too important to waste with you. And if you have time to answer my questions….bonus.

Regards

Just noticed something
a little something... against my own "essays"...argh. I just noticed I used the word essay to describe my writing in those instanes. Although I think my other points are still valid.... I did notice there is something in Wikipedia references that says that 'essay' is something Wikipedia is NOT. Its interesting Wikipedia articles suggest what it is not... while others decide what it is.

However as mentioned in points 3 and four before.... am I bound by a definition in another article? Does an article have special power over another article? If so where is this defined in Wikipedia? And do I only learn this at the point I am ostracized/banned because of too many complaints?

Not trying to be destructive. Really want to know the answers to this.

I have corrected myself
I think you are correct Mr. Rbellin. I will change it to an "encapsulation of Gramsci's thought and do reconsider the name of the title until further research. Sorry. WHEELER 19:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rbellin/Archive 1


text:
King Arthur's World

King Arthur's World is a 1992 side-scrolling strategy video game for the Super NES. It was developed by Argonaut Software and published by Jaleco.

Gameplay
In King Arthur's World, the player controls King Arthur. At the start of each level, only the King is present and various types of troops can be brought out of the tent where he starts. The King and his troops can be commanded to move in a direction, which they do until they receive new orders, are killed or come across enemy troops, which they fight if they can. Also, some troops have special commands, such as for archers to fire arrows.

The aim of each level is to proceed from the tent at the start to the finishing point. This may require the player to defeat various enemies, avoid traps and obstacles. King Arthur is the only essential character. If he dies, the player has failed and play can only continue if 100 gold coins are spent to rescue him, in which case the player restarts at their tent. The game can be played with a standard controller or, alternatively, with the Super NES Mouse.

King Arthur's World Mobile
In 2018 it was announced that some of the original makers of the game had reunited to redevelop King Arthur's World, initially for mobile platforms.

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

title: King Arthur's World


text: User talk:209.189.235.29

title: User talk:209.189.235.29


text:
Chords of Fame

Chords Of Fame is a two-LP compilation from American folk singer Phil Ochs, compiled by his brother Michael Ochs shortly after Phil's death and released in 1976 on A&M Records. With the exception of 1969's Rehearsals for Retirement, all studio albums are represented, as well as a number of live releases.

The compilation also included several rarities not previously available on an album:
 * An electric version of "I Ain't Marching Anymore", released as a single in the UK in 1966.
 * Both sides of a 1974 single:
 * "Power and the Glory", recorded with a fife and drum corps.
 * "Here's to the State of Richard Nixon", a revision of "Here's to the State of Mississippi", taped live at Max's Kansas City.
 * An acoustic version of "Crucifixion" recorded at Carnegie Hall on March 27, 1970, at the show that had produced Gunfight at Carnegie Hall.

Notably, Chords of Fame compiled tracks Ochs had recorded for both A&M and Elektra Records. With the exception of the 1997 box set Farewells & Fantasies, the album marked the last time Ochs' Elektra material would be released on A&M, or vice versa.

Ed Sanders wrote the liner notes, which were printed on the back of the album.

Track listing
All songs by Phil Ochs unless otherwise noted.

Side One
 * 1) "I Ain't Marching Anymore" – 2:47
 * 2) "One More Parade" (P. Ochs, Bob Gibson) – 3:00
 * 3) "Draft Dodger Rag" – 2:07
 * 4) "Here's to the State of Richard Nixon" – 2:19
 * 5) "The Bells" (Edgar Allan Poe with musical interpretation by P. Ochs) – 3:00
 * 6) "Bound for Glory" – 3:15
 * 7) "Too Many Martyrs" (Ochs, Gibson) – 2:46
 * 8) "There But for Fortune" – 2:35

Side Two
 * 1) "I'm Gonna Say It Now" – 2:46
 * 2) "Santo Domingo" – 3:48
 * 3) "Changes" – 4:30
 * 4) "Is There Anybody Here" – 3:17
 * 5) "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" – 3:46
 * 6) "When I'm Gone" – 3:51

Side Three
 * 1) "Outside of a Small Circle of Friends" – 3:41
 * 2) "Pleasures of the Harbor" – 4:59
 * 3) "Tape from California" – 3:39
 * 4) "Chords of Fame" – 3:32
 * 5) "Crucifixion" – 7:40

Side Four
 * 1) "The War Is Over" – 4:25
 * 2) "Jim Dean of Indiana" – 5:02
 * 3) "Power and the Glory" – 2:21
 * 4) "Flower Lady" – 6:06
 * 5) "No More Songs" – 4:33

Source material

 * Track 1 from the 1966 single.
 * Tracks 2, 5, 6 and 7 from All the News That's Fit to Sing (1964).
 * Track 3 from I Ain't Marching Anymore (1965).
 * Tracks 4 and 22 from the 1974 single.
 * Tracks 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 from Phil Ochs in Concert (1966).
 * Tracks 15 and 23 from Pleasures of the Harbor (1967).
 * Tracks 16 and 17 from Gunfight at Carnegie Hall (1974).
 * Tracks 18, 21 and 24 from Greatest Hits (1970).
 * Track 19 previously unreleased (recorded 1970).
 * Track 20 from Tape from California (1968).

title: Chords of Fame


text:
Llannerch-y-medd

Llannerch-y-medd, is a small village, community and post town on the Isle of Anglesey in Wales. The Royal Mail postcode is LL71, and it has a population of 1,360, of whom more than 70% is Welsh speaking.

The village is situated near the centre of Anglesey close to the large water supply reservoir, Llyn Alaw, and is believed to have an ancient foundation. Llannerch means "a woodland clearing". The word medd in the name is Welsh for mead, which is made from honey, and the name may be related to the production of honey for mead. The disused Anglesey Central Railway runs through the village. Its station, opened in 1866, was closed in 1964 as part of the Beeching Axe, and its goods yard is now a car park. There is now a cafe and tea rooms housed in a modern extension of the old buildings.

Just to the northeast of the village is the hill called Pen y Foel which is 123m above sea level; between 1951 and 1956 this was the site of a VHF Fixer station, part of the RAF Western Sector, and was one of a number similar fixed sites managed by RAF Longley Lane near Preston in Lancashire. The site contained an octagonal wooden hut with a hand-steerable radio mast with two radio receivers of type R1392D, transmitter and telephone line. This hut was protected by a close surrounding octagonal brick wall to provide some bomb blast protection which still exists. The station was used to allow each sector to locate RAF or allied aircraft and to help pilots find airfields in low cloud weather conditions. Also on the hill was a rectangular brick hut (now unroofed) also built by the RAF; this was a simple two-room hut with a rainwater collection tank. The site had three RAF wireless personnel (two were normally on duty) who were billeted with a landlady in Llannerch-y-Medd and attached to nearby RAF Valley. The site closed in around 1956 as the technology was replaced by improved systems.

The hill Pen y Foel is also the basis for the name of the local Male Voice Choir Cor Meibion Y Foel which is a member of the National Association of Choirs. It has 43 members and rehearses in the village at Capel Ifan. Over the past decade the Choir has supported local Eisteddfodau, competed in the Anglesey Eisteddfod, raised money for numerous charities and has entertained audiences in concerts, weddings and other functions throughout North Wales.

A claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is buried in the village forms the subject of Graham Phillips's The Marian Conspiracy. Mary's traditional burial place is near Ephesus, in present-day Turkey.

Notable people

 * Hugh Hughes (1693–1776) a Welsh poet; lived on his estate at Llwydiarth Esgob, near Llanerchymedd,

Governance
An electoral ward exists in the same name. This ward stretches to cover the Community of Tref Alaw with a total population taken at the 2011 census of 1,941.

title: Llannerch-y-medd


text:
List of reference routes in New York

A reference route is an unsigned highway assigned by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to roads that possess a signed name (mainly parkways), that NYSDOT has determined are too minor to have a signed touring route number, or are former touring routes that are still state-maintained. The majority of reference routes are owned by the state of New York and maintained by NYSDOT; however, some exceptions exist. The reference route designations are normally posted on reference markers, small green signs located every tenth-mile on the side of the road, though a few exceptions exist to this practice as well. These designations are not signed like other highways on normal reassurance marker road signs for drivers to see clearly, with four exceptions.

Reference route numbers are always three digit numbers in the 900s with a single alphabetic suffix. The designations are largely assigned in numerical and alphabetical order within a region, and designations are not reused once they are removed. Certain letters are avoided, such as "I" (used to indicate Interstate Highways and potential confusion with the number 1), "N" (used for institutional roads), "O" (potential confusion with the number 0), "R" (used for reservation roads), "S" (potential confusion with the number 5), "X" (a designation sometimes used in region 10), "Y", and "Z" (at the end of alphabet and not used). "Q" and "U" are not currently being assigned due to confusion in the past. Designations are assigned as follows:
 * The first digit is 9, distinguishing the number as a reference route designation.
 * The second digit corresponds to the NYSDOT region number the route is in, with regions 10 and 11 using the digit 0.
 * The third digit is 6 for collector/distributor roads along limited access highways, 7–9 for parkways, and 0–5 for all other roads.

An older system of reference route numbering used numbers ranging from 800 to 999 without an alphabetic suffix. Some reference markers with these older numbers still exist, even though these reference routes have new numbers. Every road maintained by NYSDOT also has a state highway (SH) number, used in state laws.

Region 1
NYSDOT Region 1 primarily covers the Capital District, Saratoga–Champlain and Upper Hudson Valley areas. The counties comprising this region are Albany, Essex, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren, and Washington.

Region 2
Region 2 primarily covers the Central, Mohawk Valley, and south-central Adirondack areas of New York. The counties comprising this region are Fulton, Hamilton, Herkimer, Madison, Montgomery, and Oneida.

Region 3
Region 3 primarily covers the eastern Finger Lakes area. The counties comprising this region are Cayuga, Cortland, Onondaga, Oswego, Seneca, and Tompkins.

Region 4
Region 4 primarily covers the western Finger Lakes and Genesee Valley areas. The counties comprising this region are Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Orleans, Wayne, and Wyoming.

Region 5
Region 5 primarily covers the Niagara Frontier and southwestern New York. The counties comprising this region are Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, and Niagara.

Region 6
Region 6 primarily covers the western and central portions of the Southern Tier. The counties comprising this region are Allegany, Chemung, Schuyler, Steuben, and Yates. Reference routes for Tioga County are also listed here, as Tioga County was in Region 6 until August 2007.

Region 7
Region 7 primarily covers the North Country and the northern portion of the Adirondacks. The counties comprising this region are Clinton, Franklin, Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence.

Region 8
Region 8 primarily covers the Middle and Lower Hudson Valley. The counties comprising this region are Columbia, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, and Westchester.

Region 9
Region 9 primarily covers the eastern Southern Tier and the Central Leatherstocking and Catskill regions. The counties comprising this region are Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Otsego, Schoharie, and Sullivan. Region 9 also includes Tioga County; however, the reference routes in Tioga County have designations corresponding to Region 6 since the county was part of Region 6 when the routes were assigned.

Regions 10 and 11
Regions 10 and 11 collectively cover the core of Downstate New York, with Region 10 covering Long Island and Region 11 covering New York City. As such, Nassau and Suffolk counties comprise Region 10 and the five boroughs of New York City—The Bronx, Brooklyn (Kings County), Manhattan (New York County), Queens, and Staten Island (Richmond County)—comprise Region 11.

title: List of reference routes in New York


text:
ARC (file format)

ARC is a lossless data compression and archival format by System Enhancement Associates (SEA). The file format and the program were both called ARC. The format is known as the subject of controversy in the 1980s, part of important debates over what would later be known as open formats.

ARC was extremely popular during the early days of the dial-up BBS. ARC was convenient as it combined the functions of the SQ program to compress files and the LU program to create .LBR archives of multiple files. The format was later replaced by the ZIP format, which offered better compression ratios and the ability to retain directory structures through the compression/decompression process.

The .arc filename extension is often used for several unrelated file archive-like file types. For example, the Internet Archive used its own ARC format to store multiple web resources into a single file. The FreeArc archiver also uses a .arc extension, but uses a completely different file format. Nintendo uses an unrelated "ARC" format for resources, such as MIDI, voice samples, or text, in GameCube and Wii games. Several unofficial extractors exist for this type of ARC file.

History
In 1985, Thom Henderson of System Enhancement Associates wrote a program called ARC, based on earlier programs such as ar, that not only grouped files into a single archive file but also compressed them to save disk space, a feature of great importance on early personal computers, where space was very limited and modem transmission speeds were very slow. The archive files produced by ARC had file names ending in ".ARC" and were thus sometimes called "arc files".

The source code for ARC was released by SEA in 1986 and subsequently ported to Unix and Atari ST in 1987 by Howard Chu. This more portable codebase was subsequently ported to other platforms, including VAX/VMS and IBM System/370 mainframes. Howard's work was also the first to disprove the prevalent belief that Lempel-Ziv encoded files could not be further compressed. Additional compression could be achieved by using Huffman coding on the LZW data, and Howard's version of ARC was the first program to demonstrate this property. This hybrid technique was later used in several other compression schemes by Phil Katz and others.

Later, Phil Katz developed his own shareware utilities, PKARC and PKXARC, to create archive files and extract their contents. These files worked with the archive file format used by ARC and were significantly faster than ARC on the IBM-PC platform due to selective assembly-language coding. Unlike SEA, which combined archive creation and archive file extraction in a single program, Katz divided these functions between two separate utilities, reducing the amount of memory needed to run them. PKARC also allowed the creation of self-extracting archives, which could unpack themselves without requiring an external file extraction utility.

Following the System Enhancement Associates, Inc. vs PKWARE Inc. and Phillip W. Katz lawsuit, SEA withdrew from the shareware market and developed ARC+Plus. This version included a full-screen user interface, with the last known version being 7.12. SEA was eventually sold to an unspecified Japanese company in 1992.

The ARC format is no longer common on PC desktops, but most antivirus scanners can still uncompress any ARC archives found in order to detect viruses within the compressed files.

Lawsuits
In the late 1980s a dispute arose between SEA, maker of the ARC program, and PKWARE, Inc. (Phil Katz Software). SEA sued Katz for trademark and copyright infringement. An independent software expert, John Navas, was appointed by the court to compare the two programs, and stated that PKARC was a derivative work of ARC, pointing out that comments in both programs were often identical, including spelling errors.

On August 2, 1988, the plaintiff and defendants announced a settlement of the lawsuit, which included a Confidential Cross-License Agreement under which SEA licensed PKWARE for all the ARC-compatible programs published by PKWARE during the period beginning with the first release of PKXARC in late 1985 through July 31, 1988, in return for US$62500, which at the time was an undisclosed payment amount. In the agreement, PKWARE paid SEA to obtain a license that allowed the distribution of PKWARE's ARC-compatible programs until January 31, 1989, after which PKWARE would not license, publish or distribute any ARC compatible programs or utilities that process ARC compatible files. In exchange, PKWARE licensed SEA to use its source code for PKWARE's ARC-compatible programs. PKWARE also agreed to cease any use of SEA's trademark "ARC" and to change the names or marks used with PKWARE's programs to non-confusing designations. The remaining details of the agreement were sealed. In reaching the settlement, the defendants did not admit any fault or wrongdoing. The Wisconsin court order showed defendants were ordered to pay damages to plaintiff for defendants' acts of infringing Plaintiff's copyrights, trademark, and acts of unfair trade practices and unfair competition.

The leaked agreement document revealed under the settlement terms, the defendants had paid plaintiff US$22500 for past royalty payments, and US$40000 for expense reimbursements. In addition, defendants would pay plaintiff a royalty fee of 6.5% of all revenue received for ARC compatible programs on all orders received after the effective date of this Agreement, such revenue including any license fees or shareware registrations received after the expiration of the license, for ARC compatible programs. In exchange, plaintiff would also pay a commission in the amount of 6.5% of any license fees received by plaintiff from any licensee referred to plaintiff by defendants, whether before or after the license termination date.

After the lawsuit, PKWARE released one last version of his PKARC and PKXARC utilities under the new names "PKPAK" and "PKUNPAK", and from then on concentrated on developing the separate programs PKZIP and PKUNZIP, which were based on new and different file compression techniques and archive file formats. However, following the renaming, SEA filed a lawsuit against PKWARE for contempt, for continually using plaintiff's protected mark ARC, by turning ARC from noun into verb in the PKPAK manual. The U.S. district court of the East District of Wisconsin ruled SEA's motion was denied, and the defendant was entitled to recover the legal cost of $500.

The SEA vs. PKWARE dispute quickly expanded into one of the largest controversies the BBS world ever saw. The suit by SEA angered many shareware users who perceived that SEA was a "large, faceless corporation" and Katz was "the little guy". In fact, at the time, both SEA and PKWARE were small home-based companies. However, the community largely sided with Katz, due to the fact that SEA was attempting to retroactively declare the ARC file format to be closed and proprietary. Katz received positive publicity by releasing the APPNOTE.TXT specification documenting the ZIP file format, and declaring that the ZIP file format would always be free for competing software to implement. The net result was that the ARC format quickly dropped out of common use as the predominant compression format that PC-BBSs used for their file archives, and after a brief period of competing formats, the ZIP format was adopted as the predominant standard.

In an interview, Thom Henderson of SEA said that the main reason he dropped out of software development was because of his inability to emotionally cope with what he claimed was the hate-mail campaign launched against him by Katz.

title: ARC (file format)


text:
User talk:Cthulhu2000

Welcome!

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

Selphie 16:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) *talk*

title: User talk:Cthulhu2000


text:
Talk:2005 British Columbia general election/Archive 1

Liberal Colouration
Hey all. Had a bundle of fun with everyone Canadian federal election, 2004— we really broke new ground in terms of depth and breadth of online election coverage. I'm looking forward to seeing where this article goes.

Anyway, wouldn't be an election article without a great colour debate. The BC Liberals are currently "lightcoral," which is the same colour as we've widely implemented for the federal party. I'm not so keen on it re-appearing here, most generally because it just plain feels wrong to have Campbell sporting the same colours as the party of Trudeau. Wikipedia's article on the British Columbia Liberal Party seems very much to have reached a consensus behind the notion that the BC Liberals are currently a party of the right, with as much or more in common with the federal Conservatives as the federal Libs. It seems that our internal graphical shorthand should likewise remind our readers that these Liberals are a unique fish, not to be lumped in with any of the more traditional parties.

FWIW, the BC Liberals' own marketing generally plays up the blue half of their colourscheme over the red... back in 2001, I can remember their own internal graphics shown at their election night HQ depicting their electoral wins as "blue" rather than "red", likewise, at their recent party convention at Whistler the place was largely decked out in blue. The election signs in 2001 were also mostly blue, IIRC.

Anyhoo, curious if there's anyone else sharing my squeamishness about the lightcoral. As far as alternatives go, we could just pick a different reddish/pinkish shade, swing things over to the blue side of the spectrum (I'd likewise avoid the federal tories' "cornflowerblue") or split the difference and have a purple, a purply-red, or a purply-blue.

Thoughts on this most-pressing of topics? -The Tom 05:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I dont mind having it changed to blue if you can prove to me that that is what the major networks will be using. I tried to highlight the differences by putting "BC" in front of Liberals btw. Earl Andrew 07:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * TV news stuck with red back in 2001. I imagine the major networks will be having a similar debate as this one around the conference table, but not for another four months. ;)  Here're some swatches for discussion's sake:
 * {| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse"

 * - bgcolor="lightcoral"
 * lightcoral
 * - bgcolor="rosybrown"
 * rosybrown
 * - bgcolor="tomato"
 * tomato
 * - bgcolor="darksalmon"
 * darksalmon
 * - bgcolor="palevioletred"
 * palevioletred
 * - bgcolor="orchid"
 * orchid
 * - bgcolor="plum"
 * plum
 * - bgcolor="mediumpurple"
 * mediumpurple
 * - bgcolor="lightsteelblue"
 * lightsteelblue
 * - bgcolor="dodgerblue"
 * dodgerblue
 * - bgcolor="lightblue"
 * lightblue
 * }
 * Unity's colour can be pushed in a few directions to make room, if necessary... lighter, into the turquoise ranges, or into the greens, for instance
 * The Tom 21:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * okay... experimented a bit, didn't like what I got, so I went and grabbed some graphical stuff from the Liberals, played with the levels keeping the overall tone roughly the same, and stopped when I got.
 * {| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse"

 * - bgcolor="#99AAFF"
 * 99AAFF
 * }
 * So that's my personal pick—"Howe Street Periwinkle." Hits the correct blue spectra that the BC Libs use, has a fair hint of warmth in it to represent the red portion of the BC Liberals (both graphically and ideologically ;)), and saturation-wise it works with the other party colours.
 * Let it never be said we don't overthink things on wikipedia. --The Tom 22:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I must say, I like it. But I do want us to be consistent with the media, but this will do for now. :) Dont forget to change it here: Legislative_Assembly_of_British_Columbia as wellEarl Andrew 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Not to rain on the parade here but I think it'd be best to stick with "lightcoral" for the BC Liberals despite their right-of-centre ideology. Red is this the most predominent colour in their logo and "lightcolor" is still used for other provincial Liberal parties that are not tied to their federal cousins, I think most notably of Alberta.  I am a card carrying, left-of-centre member of the Liberal Party of Canada and don't consider the BC Liberals to be "Liberals" and take great pains to explain to people who don't follow politics as closely that they are not a comparable party.  Despite that, most members of the Liberal Party of Canada in British Columbia belong to the BC Liberal party and though they take great pains to always call themselves "BC Liberals" they still keep the red (as do the networks).  I say we change it back to "lightcoral" until we see someone else do otherwise, to change it unilaterally without seeing the party or the media doing so first would seem to me to border on original research. - Jord 03:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further to my note above, after examining the BC NDP website I really think we should switch back to the old standby "lightcoral".

The "Liberal" in their logo is clearly red while the picture of the province is blue. This is likely due largely to the fact that blue is the predominent colour of the BC flag. A look at the [www.bc.ndp.ca NDP website] shows that it is also predominently blue. Though we tend to think of red as a "left" colour, one only needs to look south of the border to see the hard-right "red states" of the Republicans. Red seems to still be the colour of choice for the BC Liberals and we should reflect that here. I am going to change back to "lightcoral". I commend you for the work and effort you put into finding a good colour The Tom, I liked it but I think we need to go to "lightcoral" to a) reflect the official colour of the BC Liberals and b) not confuse those less politically astute readers of the article who will expect "Liberals" to be red. -- Jord 01:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All fair points, and I certainly won't raise a fuss either way. Couple of thoughts, though: Anyway, for shits and giggles I may ask around various folks closer to the powers that be than I am who might be able to weigh in on this most-pressing of issues. Thanks again to all. - The Tom 05:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, one of my reasons for changing the colour was specifically for the benefit of said "less politically astute readers." I think it's more important to communicate to them instantly that Federal Liberal =/= BC Liberal than to communicate that BC Liberal == That pink party.  Colours are visual shorthand, and it's important to portray this election to readers—the majority who may be relatively familiar with Canadian politics but not BC politics—as a ideologically-polarized and vitriol-heavy battle between the left and the right, not a squishy consensus-dominated tiff between the left and the centre-left.   You can make the BC Liberals lime green if you want; this isn't really a blue/red debate but rather a lightcoral/not-lightcoral debate.
 * While there's a little bit more square footage of red in the BC Liberals logo than blue, blue is dominant everywhere else. The caucus site is thoroughly blue, as were the election signs last time around.  While their current site is largely white, which touches of dark red and light blue, the previous version was all-blue.  More notably, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform report (printed by the Ministry of the Attorney General) landed in my mailbox the other day, complete with a pie chart on assorted electoral outcomes and seat divisions that depicted the Liberals as blue and the NDP as orange.
 * To nitpick, I take some issue with the "most federal Liberals are also BC Liberals" comment. As the point is made in in the Liberal Party of Canada article, both the Alberta and Ontario Liberal Parties, while independent from the feds, are ideologically close and share memberships quite closely, so using lightcoral for them makes sense.  As a card-carrying federal Liberal in the BC interior (a rare breed, and to be fair, nobody ever sent me a card) I know of zero political overlap between the Campbell support base and the tiny rump of federal Liberal support out here.  While there's certainly some crossover in the Lower Mainland (Mark Marrissen & crew), I'll bet dollars to donuts that Tory MPs James Moore, Gurmant Grewal, John Reynolds and John Cummins will vote BC Liberal and FedLib MPs David Anderson, Ujjal Dosanjh, Stephen Owen and Hedy Fry will not, and that most of their respective supporters will follow suit.

 * First, I want to apologize for having editted this without consensus, I thought that there had been some due to there being no comment to my Jan 2 remark above suggesting that we change back to "lightcoral". I also want to clarify any confusion taken from my remarks.  I am under no illusion that the BC Liberal Party is a party of the centre-right and that it is dominated by elements of the federal Conservative Party.  However, I would also point out that, as an active member of the Liberal Party of Canada, my colleagues from BC are all supporters (though many begrudgingly) of the BC Liberals.  Rank-and-file federal Liberal voters may not necessarily be BC Liberal voters but, for the most part, card-carrying federal Liberal members, if they belong to any provincial party, belong to the BC Liberals.  Moreover, though you point to the Mark Merrisan / Christy Clark folks you might also note that BC Liberal cabinet minister Gulzar Cheema ran for the federal Liberals in the 2004 election. - Jord 14:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Greens"
Though the term "Greens" is often used in Australia, I've never heard a commentator in Canada refer to someone as "Greens Leader" or the like, "Green Party" seems to be the term of choice in Canada not "Greens". You might see members of the Green Party called "the Greens" and maybe the leader called "leader of the Greens" but I don't think the style "Greens Leader" or "Greens candidate" would be used, either "Green Party" or the singular "Green" seems a better fit. Thoughts? - Jord 03:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. That said, Greens : Green Party :: New Democrats : NDP :: BC Liberals : LPBC -The Tom 07:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archive?
I'd liked to archive some of the stuff on here due to the size of the talk page and the fact that there will likely be plenty of more talk as we approach the election. Any objections? - Jord 18:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joe Pal
Anyone know what the deal is with Joe Pal from Surrey Whalley? he is not listed as anything in the official elections BC lists, not even Independent. Travis May 3rd. 2005

 * I'd put in "No affiliation". That designation appears on other Canadian election charts, usually separate from "Independent", although there really isn't any distinction between the two terms, IMHO. Ground Zero 21:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks I will do that. Travis May 3rd. 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Indpendents / Non affiliated candidates
I'd like to combine these into two rows, they are two designations for a candidate with the same status. I'll do this unless there is objection. Please advise. - Jord 23:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is #3 DRBC or Green
I am hesitant to move DRBC to the third column instead of the Green Party. Though DRBC now has one member in the legislature to Green's zero, this would not be the first time a party has been formed (in part) by a disgruntled independent and gone on to fair poorly at the polls and win no seats. The Greens consistantly lead DRBC in the polls and are beating DRBC in nominations. I do not believe we can displace the Greens as the third party at this time without being POV. - Jord 22:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would request you move the greens back to #3 sure the DRBC may have one MLA but the Greens are ahead of them in the polls and they seem like the 3rd party. Jack Cox 17:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That is my opinion as well, I did not move them ;) - Jord 17:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I am going to move Green Party back to 3rd position, because they have a full slate of candidates, whereas the Democratic Reform Party does not. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation, 135.214.66.241 06:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

election guidelines apply
Please follow election guidelines and best practices, and update that page if necessary. It mostly lists good examples. If this page is a good example of anything, then, make sure it is linked.

DRBC / Reform BC
The following news release can be (as of January 19, 2005) found on the [www.reformbc.net Reform BC front page]:

MEDIA ADVISORY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vancouver, BC, January 17, 2005

BC HAS A NEW POLITICAL PARTY

Tom Morino, Leader Democratic Reform BC; and Simon Moses, Leader All Nations Party of BC yesterday announced at a founding convention in White Rock that they have reached an agreement to unite the two parties under the name Democratic Reform British Columbia.

Shirley Abraham, President Reform BC; stepped down as party president, along with other board members, to join Democratic Reform British Columbia and Ron Gamble was elected president to replace her. Gerry Rehwald and Walter Hayden will remain on the Reform BC board. Gamble stated that Reform BC remains as a registered political party.

- 30 –

For further information please call: Reform BC President: Ron Gamble (604) 980-7779

 * I e-mailed Mr. Gamble as I was unclear as to what was going on exactly... here is the email back and forth:

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:48:28 -0800 From: Ron Gamble  To: Jordan O Brien  Subject: RE: From www.reformbc.net All headers Mr. O Brian,

Four members of our board who were working to have the Democratic Party and All Nations Party come over to Reform BC did not materialize. Instead the Democratic Party, through Elections BC changed their name to Democratic Reform BC. The result of that had a profound effect in that Reform BC would not have been able to change its name to Democratic Reform BC as there was one already registered.

Although section 5.1 and 5.2, Article 2 and 3 are unalterable, the party name was not and could have been changed but no resolution was brought forward to our Annual General Meeting to do so.

Our bylaws do not permit membership in two provincial parties. As a result the four board members, who supported and joined the new party, could no longer belong to Reform BC. As to the rest of the Members of Reform BC it will be up to them to decide what party they want to join or support.

Reform BC at this moment is not ready, nor may be ready, to run candidates in this coming provincial election.

-Original Message- From: Jordan O Brien [mailto:jord@jord.ca] Sent: January 19, 2005 10:24 AM To: rongamble@shaw.ca Subject: From www.reformbc.net

Mr. Gamble:

I have a question about the current status of Reform BC.

>From what I have pieced together of have assumed the following:

At Reform's Jan. 15, 2005 AGM a vote was held to disband the party and join the new DRBC but this vote did not pass. As a result most of the executive left the party to join DRBC. Please let me know if that is correct.

What is very unclear, though, is do you and the new leadership of Reform BC intend to run candidates in the 2005 election? I am assuming by the positive news release re: DRBC on the Reform website that though a majority of Reform BC members support the DRBC - including yourself and the executive they elected Jan. 15 - there was not the 75% support required to amend the constitution?

Alternatively, I wonder if, perhaps, someone ruled that due to section 5.1 and 5.2 of your constitution stating that Sections 2 and 3 are unalterable it was ruled that, legally, Reform BC could not disband?

Could you please help me to shed some light on the above? Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks, Jordan O'Brien

 * Just FYI, I think that clarifies at least what happened w.r.t. Reform BC, they thought they were going to be taking the lead on it and when they didn't they took their toys and went home. - Jord 21:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Party
Why has the BC Conservative Party been moved to minor parties from the "also rans" area? There are other parties still in existence that ran more candidates in 2001 and the Conservatives are not registering in any polls. Please advise. - Jord 19:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd picked a 3% cutoff between minor parties and also-rans, which demarcates a pretty substantial gap between Marijuana and, uh, the People's Front, I think, which was sub-0.5%.  I'll move them back for the time being. -The Tom 20:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul Nettleton
Nettleton is listed as running in a different riding that the one he currently represents. Was this an error? I can't find any reference to him planning to run in a different riding but find two about him reoffering in his current riding (they are quite dated though). Could someone clarify? - Jord 18:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul Willcocks reported it a few weeks ago. -The Tom 20:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good eye. I managed to confirm with a better source, I got the following off of the CP wire.

The Canadian Press Western News, Friday, January 21, 2005 Former Liberal Nettleton switches ridings to take on deputy premier

The Canadian Press

PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. (CP) - Former B.C. Liberal MLA Paul Nettleton says he's switching to a neighbouring riding so he can take on the deputy premier.

Nettleton, who was thrown out of the Liberal caucus after he accused his government of attempting to privatize B.C. Hydro, told the Prince George Citizen on Thursday he will run in Prince George-Mount Robson in the May 17 provincial election because he believes Deputy Premier Shirley Bond and the Liberals are ripe for the picking.

"I do think she is vulnerable," Nettleton said. "There will certainly be some high-profile losses for the Liberals in May, and one of them is Shirley Bond, I believe."

Nettleton said he decided to make the switch partially because he was told an internal B.C. Liberal Party poll placed him ahead of incumbents Bond and Prince George North MLA Pat Bell in overall local popularity.

He did not have a copy of the poll.

He said he is also running in Prince George-Mount Robson because his family moved to a home in the riding this past summer, so that is where he will be on the ballot.

Bond was recently named health minister.

Nettleton said he bears no ill will with Bond and his relationship with her remains "cordial."

Nettleton's decision leaves his current riding, Prince George-Omineca, wide open for a right-left battle between the Liberals and the NDP.

 * - Jord 21:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DRBC/MDM
Just for clarification's sake on the alphabet soup that ultimately composed DRBC: The Moderate Democratic Movement was an element of the British Columbia Democratic Coalition and it thus ceased to exist upon the coalition's merger into DRBC (along with the All Nations Party and bits of Reform BC). For tax purposes DRBC is seen by Elections BC as a successor party to just Morino's original party, BCDA. The other parties that folded into it along the way (including MDM and ANP) continue to exist on the register for legal purposes but are effectively dead. -The Tom 04:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies, as you are a very avid editor of this page, I assumed that you were in agreement with the timeline that I pasted from here ;) I stand corrected. - Jord 16:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How the New One Works
Incumbents will be italicized, Leaders or Ministers will be bolded and if incumbent and running again italicized.

 * Normally, Jack Cox, when you are going to change something like that you should reach concensus first on this page before making the change. Especially, something such as the candidates tables whose format has long since been established on all Canadian elections pages.  Also, you should sign your name to your comments on this page which you can do easily by typing ~ at the end of your post. - Jord 14:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fix Up
The Thing just went cooky, needs a fix Jack Cox 01:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you be a little more specific than "The Thing" and "went cooky"? -- Jord 14:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bearcat
I DONT CARE WHAT HE WANTS WITH PAGE LINKAGES, THE THING LOOKS UGLY PLAIN! I will do it again and again if I have too Jack Cox 20:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Jack
 * a) please calm down
 * b) Wikipedia operates by consensus and that is a consensus that has been reached throughout Canadian election pages
 * - Jord 03:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Results table
I see someone has moved the results table to above the candidates table. In previous elections we have kept the results table at the bottom of the article until after the voting takes place, at which time it is moved to the top of the article immediately below the summary. If there is no objection, I will move it back to the bottom of the article. - Jord 00:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please document this practice as standard for other elections
 * Hey Jord, mea culpa. I recall it being above the candidate list on the 2004 federal page so I can't say I'm aware of the precedent you refer to, but if it's really bothering you go right ahead and move it back. -The Tom 02:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't quite involved then. We had decided to do so during Alberta general election, 2004 which is where we also decided not to link candidates who were not "notable" enough for an article.  I don't really care one way or the other, as I recall, the logic was simply that it was too cluttery to have an empty, and therefore meaningless, table above the more useful candidates table when no results were in. - Jord 16:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Fringe parties"
That sounds really, really, POV to me :| Any other ideas? - Jord 14:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Much as certain parties within the category have occasionally gotten riled about the tag (usually with the argument, "well, we're not fringe, but *point* those guys are"), it is the only name in general usage, with an especial preponderence of hits in Canada. Just because it can be construed by some as an epithet doesn't neccessarily make it POV -The Tom 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fringe is defined as "Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views" which I don't think is a fair way to characterize the parties. I don't disagree with the way you have reorganized the party breakdown, but I don't think the label "fringe" is appropriate for a neutral, encyclopedic work. - Jord 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've changed it to "Other parties contesting this election" which seems consistant with the "Other parties that may contest this election" category below it. I hope that is ok. - Jord 16:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues
Question:

Should there be a section for "Issues" or "Campaign Issues"? Like leadership, health care, economy, environment, etc. - Maclean25 04:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Em dash
The ridings ought to have Em dashes instead of hyphens. see: Electoral district (Canada). Double Blue (Talk) 03:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That might be for Canadian ridings, but for BC ridings? -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 04:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The em-dash federally has to do with the different use of the hyphen in French grammar (hyphens connect compound nouns there, so in order to keep something like Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot straight the em-dash has to be brought into play). Elections BC seems to use plain-vanilla hyphens . -The Tom 16:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the em dashes are a federal thing not a Canadian-wide thing. Even New Brunswick, which is bilingual, uses regular dashes creating rather confusing ridings such as Dalhousie-Resitigouche-est - Jord 20:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It can indeed make riding names confusing. IMO, hyphens should be used as part of a name not in connecting names but if this is the consensus and Elections BC uses them, I'll go along too. Thanks for the input. Double Blue (Talk) 20:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Links to candidate websites
While helping over at Alberta general election, 2004, we seemed to have an unwritten policy of not including external links to candidates within the candidates' table. I never removed them myself but I noticed them all vanishing shortly after they appeared and I could sympathize with both sides of the argument. No one ever complained so I assumed an unwritten consensus had developed ;) I am wondering what our stand should be on this as a link has appeared.  -- Jord 15:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I was simply following the Alberta precedent myself of non-wikilinking anyone who wasn't an incumbent, although a few "star candidates" were arbitarily redlinked in the hope that there may be an article on them someday. I can't recall external links ever appearing on the federal list at all.  Like you say, there are two sides to the issue—personally, I'm not one of those people who compulsively wishes all biographical substubs to be deleted, so the abstract hope that every candidate might one day have an article make me lean towards wikilinking everyone.  If there's a link to be shared, the candidate can get a quick and dirty substub with the link on that page. -The Tom 17:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you follow what I was getting at. I am not talking about the candidate names being wikilinked (I think they should be because I feel that wikipedia should aim to contain limitless knowledge, not just standard encyclopedic knowledge) I've conceeded with the consensus in Alberta that only incumbents and notables ought to be linked.  I was referring to whether or not external links to campaign websites should be included ... see Robert Broughton in the eastern suburbs. - Jord 18:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think external candidate sites should be linked at all on this page. If the candidate has a wikipage, then a link in the External Links section on that page would be alright. I am going to delete any external candidate sites I see on this page. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Double Blue (Talk) 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Coverage
Do we want to coordinate how we do the coverage of this tonight? On Alberta general election, 2004 EarlAndrew and I split the ridings up among ourselves so we wouldn't both be editting at the same time. Do we want to do that tonight? - Jord 03:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Different kinds of Majority.
In the last parliamentary elections in BC the result was 77-2, an absurdly lopsided result.

The 2005 elections are described as "Early election results show the current government to retain power, with a smaller majority."

Could this be rephrased to something like "Early election results show the current government to retain power, with a lopsided 77-2 majority reduced to a comfortable 50-37 (or whatever) majority"?

Tabletop 09:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 77-2 isn't something that's going to come again, but words like 'lopsided' and 'comfortable' seem to violate NPOV (indeed, I don't find 46-33 to be 'comfortable'). The current wording is perfectly fine and accurate.

Maybe there needs to be an article on the Descriptions for Size of Majority to thrash this one out. To fail to mention 77-2 is understatement, not NPOV, while 46-33 is less than an overwhealming victory, closer to a comfortable majority but more than a close result. Tabletop

Referendum cleared the ridings, but not the popular vote. But at 57% it's not going to just die away, that's for sure.

Kelvinc 11:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the voting system convention is sounded as if it was very well organised. The convention voting "strongly" even "heavily" for the new system.

I added a blurb on the 2001 results. I think it serves the purpose. My concern was really with the specific wording of 'comfortable' and 'lopsided', which I did not use.

Kelvinc 18:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

CBC Results and Elections BC results don't match.
D'oh! looks like the results are inaccurate. Still waiting for one poll in Bulkley-Stikine to come in. What, are they driving to Victoria or something? -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * CBC always stops updating their results on elections night. See Elections BC for results. - Jord 18:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How does this work in a Westminster system?
Quoth the article:

Under amendments to the B.C. Constitution Act passed in 2001, B.C. elections are now held on fixed dates: the second Tuesday in May every four years.

How does that work in a Westminster system? Can the goverment no longer dissolve parliament and call a snap election? What if there's a coalition (not likely in Canada I know) that collapses or a by-election causes the ruling party to lose its majority? --Jfruh 01:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The legislation merely requires an election to be held on the second Monday in May four years following the previous election. If the government were to fall, new elections would be held and the next election would be the second Monday in May four years following that election presuming that it did not fall before hand.  The amendement was relatively simple and can be found here. - Jord 02:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Colourblind-friendly"?
Wouldn't the map be less friendly to a person with red-green colourblindness? I ran both through Vischeck and the originals all seem far more colourblind friendly. -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can tell you is I'm colorblind, and I can tell the difference between the red and the green in my map but not in the original. -- Mwalcoff 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Gary Collins redux
I noticed this:
 * ''December 14, 2004 - Liberal Finance Minister Gary Collins abruptly resigns from cabinet and the legislature despite having been named co-chair of the Liberal re-election campaign a month earlier. The move requires Premier Campbell to undertake a minor cabinet shuffle.

that's not how I remember it, though his naming to the election campaign provided a convenient excuse; as I remember it this resignation happened just after - or was it just before? - news broke that he had been under surveillance by the RCMP commercial crime squad having lunch at El Lupo in relation to what has since become the Railgate scandal.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

By-seat breakdown?
Earlier election pages have detailed seat-by-seat returns; here it's broken down only by region, which diminishes popular percentages of the lesser parties....I'd come here wanting to find what the percentage of teh vote won by each Tory candidate was, as presenting it as 0.55% of the provincial vote is misleading and not that informative as per their chances in individual ridings now.Skookum1 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First/Second Party in infobox
This edit attempted to reverse a switch-change made to hide the "First Party, Second Party" titles in the infobox, the implciations of which are obviously POV; this was disucssed at Talk:British Columbia general election, 2009. Just reporting this, partly because I sourced the IP address which made the edit and it's somebody at the Universite de Quebec a Montreal, or at least someone "riding" their servers.Skookum1 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Columbia general election, 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.electionprediction.org/2005
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050529184230/http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2661 to http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2661
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050525005706/http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20050510.htm to http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20050510.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050513071307/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6881 to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6881
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050421002013/http://www.canada.com/vancouver/bcvotes/index.html to http://www.canada.com/vancouver/bcvotes/index.html
 * Added tag to http://142.36.252.26/bcimg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


text: User talk:207.165.148.197

title: User talk:207.165.148.197


text: Template talk:Coor

title: Template talk:Coor


text:
Blue (Third Eye Blind album)

Blue is the second studio album by American rock band Third Eye Blind, released on November 23, 1999. The album's creation was difficult, mainly due to power struggles and arguments between frontman Stephan Jenkins and lead guitarist Kevin Cadogan, leading to a quick but isolated recording experience between members. The album was generally well received by critics, and was certified platinum by the RIAA, but performed below the band's prior album, the multi-platinum Third Eye Blind. While managing to stay together for the creation of the album, shortly after its release, the band fired Cadogan, touring in support of the album with replacement guitarist Tony Fredianelli.

Writing and recording
The band enjoyed extensive success in 1997 with their first album, Third Eye Blind, which eventually went platinum six times. The band maintained popularity into 1998 through extensive touring and a number of singles that performed well in the charts, including "Semi-Charmed Life", "How's It Going to Be", "Graduate", "Losing a Whole Year", and "Jumper", but by the end of the year, the band looked to start working on new material. Dedicated work on the album began right away in January 1999.

In promoting the album, frontman and lead vocalist Stephan Jenkins recounted a pleasant experience in recording the album, referring to it as "too much fun and feeling like...a complete recording group for the first time...We had these jam sessions that were fun". He also commented that it had been more collaborative than their prior album; bassist Arion Salazar became more involved in the writing and production, while drummer Brad Hargreaves was involved in the creative process for the first time, as he had joined the band late into their sessions for the first album. However, in retrospect, Jenkins painted a much more grim picture, citing time constraints, label pressure from Elektra Records, and isolation between members, stating: "'We did the last album in six months, we just whipped it out, and there's some things on that album, on the second album, that I'm so proud of...but the second album suffered from a kind of coldness almost. That's done in part because we were never in the studio at the same time, never rehearsed the songs together, never played them together. I did my best to, to produce that record and it was very hard to do. Then we succumbed to the time pressures from Elektra to get the album out in six months which we did.'"

A major issue of the recording sessions was internal strife between band members, namely between Jenkins and lead guitarist and co-founding member Kevin Cadogan. The two actively fought for ownership of the band; Cadogan, under the impression that the band was made as an equal partnership, was outraged to find that Jenkins had made legal changes to make Jenkins the sole owner of the band. Cadogan was further frustrated by Salazar's and Hargreaves' lack of understanding and indifference to the arrangement. The album was almost not made at all, as the band manager informed Cadogan that Jenkins was attempting to remove Cadogan from the band prior to even starting work on the album. Cadogan did everything he could to stay in the band, including trying to push issues aside in order to just work on the album, having the band and sound engineer over to his home in order to record rough album ideas for two weeks. The sessions worked, but were very difficult, and ended up being the only period where the band worked together with one another. The rest of the album was recorded in solitude, with each member coming into the studio to record his parts of the album alone. The recording process spread itself across multiple other studios over time, one of which being one of the studios where Fleetwood Mac's Rumours had been recorded.

Song selection
The tension and isolation in the recording process led to complications in the song selection, which would, in turn create further tensions within the band. Firstly was the song "Slow Motion", a controversial ballad written by Jenkins about a student shooting a teacher's son. While Jenkins insisted that the song was satirical parody, and actually anti-violence, Elektra disapproved of the track being on the album, feeling it could cause controversy due to the proximity of the Columbine High School massacre, which had just happened in April of that year. The band and the label fought over the song's inclusion for four months, with the label proposing a compromise that would allow only the instrumental to be on the album, and in return, the label would finance an EP to be released after the album, where the band could release the song in its entirety and have complete creative freedom, without restriction. Cadogan, already unhappy with his lack of ownership over the band, was the sole member of the band to object to the deal, knowing he would not have any control over the deal's terms of a cash advance and imprint label creation for the EP.

With the members of the band not working together at the same time in the studio, the band's manager Eric Godtland set up a voting system for each member of the band to vote for the rest of the songs they wanted included on the album. A list of twenty songs were recorded during Blue's sessions, with Godtland instructing each member of the band to vote for their top fifteen. In addition to the twelve tracks that made the final track list of Blue (The thirteenth track, "Slow Motion" was not voted upon, as they had already come to a conclusion on what to do with the song.), were an additional eight songs, "Walk with the Devil", "Alright Caroline", "Lipstick", "Light That Hits the Room/Separation", "Sorry", "Gorgeous", "No One Home", and "Pack a Halo". Adding to the tension between Cadogan and the rest of the band was the fact that many of the songs Cadogan had written, such as "Light That Hits the Room", received no votes for inclusion beside his own, and "Gorgeous" received only the support of himself and Hargreaves, ultimately leading to the songs being left off the album. Conversely, Cadogan was the sole objector to the tracks "Never Let You Go" and "Deep Inside of You", which were not only included on the album, but eventually made singles. Elektra spokesman Joel Amsterdam revealed that "Horror Show", a track the band had recorded and released originally on the "How's It Going to Be" single and for the Varsity Blues soundtrack, was also in contention for the album, but ultimately left off.

Sound, composition, and themes
Not wanting to be pigeonholed into the pop rock genre after the success of "Semi-Charmed Life" from their debut, the band aimed to have a more experimental and harder-edged rock sound on their second album. Cadogan personally aimed for the album's sound to reflect all of the music he had encountered, due to it always being planned as one of the last albums released in the 20th century. As such, the individual songs spanned many genre and lyrical themes. The album's opening track and first single, "Anything", was described as pop punk. "Wounded" was described by Jenkins as "a chronicle of a friend's sexual assault", while "10 Days Late" was described as an "ambiguous [song] about abortion". However, when Jenkins was interviewed by Billboard, he claimed the song was about a friend of his who had gotten his girlfriend pregnant at a young age; Jenkins was the baby's godfather. "Slow Motion" was Jenkins' satirical commentary on how the media and Hollywood glorifies violence. While the lyrics were seen as controversial due to the album's release close to the Columbine High School massacre, they were not about the incident, and were actually written years prior, in 1995, though the label still requested their removal for the final release of the album.

Release and aftermath
The album debuted at number 40 on the US Billboard 200, selling about 75,000 copies in its first week of release. Blue was certified platinum by the RIAA by April 2000, and had sold over 1.25 million copies in the U.S. as of May 2003. Two variants of the album were released: a first pressing with "Slow Motion" with a chorus as track 11, and later pressings with it as an instrumental at the very end of the album. Four singles were released to pop and rock radio: "Anything", "Never Let You Go", "10 Days Late", and "Deep Inside of You". The band also toured vigorously in support of the album, including their "Dragons and Astronauts" tour.

Just after the touring in support of Blue began, on January 25, 2000, Cadogan was fired from the band. Tony Fredianelli, who had some limited experience with the band previously, joined the band shortly thereafter, filling in for the rest of the touring cycle. Cadogan subsequently sued Third Eye Blind for breach of contract, with a settlement of an undisclosed amount permanently ending the relationship. Third Eye Blind would go on to put out two more albums with Fredianelli, albeit with very long delays, Out of the Vein (2003) and Ursa Major (2009), until similar power struggles between Fredianelli and Jenkins led to similar firings and lawsuits between the two in 2010. Cadogan mostly kept to low-profile projects, largely three solo albums: 12 Nights in Studio A (2002), Wunderfoot (2003), and Thousand Yard Stare (2006). Notably, a number of versions of his songs written, but ultimately rejected for, Blue ended up on the album Wunderfoot, including "Lipstick", "Pack a Halo" (reworked into "Palpatations"), and "Walk With the Devil" (reworked into "Waiting for Me").

The contentious full lyric version of "Slow Motion" never appeared on a later EP, as the Black EP, later re-titled Symphony of Decay, was never released, but the song was eventually released in 2006 on the greatest hits album A Collection. Despite the difficult recording sessions and strife among members, in a 2015 Vice retrospective, Jenkins rated the album as his favorite of the band's releases, feeling that the album marked a sweet spot in the band's career, where they had freedom due to the prior album's success, but hadn't developed a fear of failing to create a followup yet.

Critical reception
The album was generally well received by critics. AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine praised the album for proving that they're "stronger and more serious than many of their post-grunge peers" and concluding that "there's not quite enough of it this time around to make Blue the equal of its predecessor, but it should be enough to please devoted fans." The A.V. Club writer Stephen Thompson agreed, noting that "its second half is particularly aimless and dire—but it's got its moments, particularly the sparkly, hitworthy single 'Never Let You Go' and 'Anything,' which opens the album with two minutes of pop joy." In a mixed review from Spin, Mark Lepage remarked that the band were "lightweights trying their hooks out on the heavy bag", noticing influences from the Rolling Stones, U2, and Kiss.

James Hunter of Rolling Stone praised the album for its "finely worked-out chunks of serious gun-metal rockcraft that depend on the San Francisco band's restless, edgy electric guitars" and concluded that the album was a rarity in the way it "works best as either background rock or intimate headphone material." Elysa Gardner of Entertainment Weekly noted Jenkins' lyrics and vocal delivery and Cadogan's guitar-work as standout elements of the album.

Track listing
All tracks are produced by Stephan Jenkins, The Mud Sisters, Arion Salazar, and Third Eye Blind; except "Slow Motion", produced by Jenkins, David Gleeson, and Ren Klyce.

 * "Darwin" ends at 3:50. After 15 minutes of silence, hidden song "The Red Summer Sun (Extended Coda)" begins 18 minutes 50 seconds into Track 13.
 * Most streaming services have "Slow Motion" as the last (thirteenth) track instead of the eleventh.

Personnel
Third Eye Blind
 * Stephan Jenkins – vocals (all tracks), guitar (tracks 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 11), percussion (tracks 2, 3, 6, 10), Hammond B3 (track 4), Memory Moog (track 5), keyboards (track 13), string arrangements
 * Kevin Cadogan – guitar (tracks 1-10, 12, 13), backing vocals (tracks 6, 8, 12), electric sitar (track 9), piano (track 12)
 * Arion Salazar – bass (tracks 1-10, 12, 13), guitar (tracks 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 13), backing vocals (tracks 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10), Prophet T8 (track 1), Univox (track 2), theremin (track 3), Wurlitzer (track 5), piano (track 5), Mellotron (track 8), electric sitar (track 13), Optigan (track 13), string arrangements
 * Brad Hargreaves – drums (tracks 1-10, 12, 13), backing vocals (tracks 5, 12), piano (track 12)

Additional musicians
 * Caitlin Cornwell, Ledisi, Teal Collins, Mauri Skinfill, Chris Manning, Golden Gate Boys Choir – additional vocals
 * Marc Capelle – piano, clavinet
 * Carla Kihlstedt, Marika Hughes – strings
 * Ben Kramer – trumpet (track 1)
 * D.J. Chutney – tamboura box (track 9)
 * Steve Cohen – piano (track 11)
 * Ren Klyce – keyboards (track 11)

Technical personnel
 * Albert Beltran Jr. – assistant engineer (tracks 1-10, 12, 13)
 * Jason Carmer – engineer (tracks 1-10, 12, 13), mixing (tracks 9, 10, 12)
 * Mike Cresswell – additional engineering (tracks 1-10, 12, 13)
 * Brian Gardner – mastering
 * David Gleeson – engineer (track 11)
 * Femio Hernandez – assistant engineer (tracks 3, 6, 7, 12)
 * Mauricio Iragorri – assistant engineer (tracks 1, 2, 4, 5, 13)
 * Jacquire King – Pro Tools editing
 * Tom Lord-Alge – mixing (tracks 1-7, 11, 13)
 * Alex Osbourne – assistant engineer (tracks 1-10, 12, 13)
 * Clint Roth – Pro Tools editing
 * Kevin Scott – assistant engineer (tracks 9, 10, 12)
 * Toby Wright – mixing (track 8)

title: Blue (Third Eye Blind album)