text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by RK

 * February 2005
 * Every article I am working on is being done in conjunction with others who are editing Judaism-related articles.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=10527257

 * February 2005
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Harris-Shapiro
 * (Worked with others on an article listed in Votes for Deletion. After my editing the article has apparently been saved.)

 * March 5, 2005
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Self-esteem
 * (''Reworking an old article to add academic rigor; citing and quoting peer-reviewed scientific studies and new views on the topic.)

 * Sunday March 6, 2005
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism#Pages_up_for_review
 * (Requesting that others look at the new articles I created.)

 * Sunday March 6, 2005
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_views_of_astrology
 * (I am working with JayJG, and offering many sources with quotes to back up the text of the article. Also I have requested more input on the WikiProject for Judaism articles page.)

Ocotber 2004
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=6338250&oldid=6322614
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=6322614&oldid=6321340

Sept. 2004
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=6031470&oldid=5655455
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=5655455&oldid=5588196
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=5588196&oldid=5573653

Agug. 2004
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5570838
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5563266
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5273293
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5272533
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5272349
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5081160
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=5009098&oldid=5005936
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5005936
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5000174

July 2004
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4888770&oldid=4888345
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4878200&oldid=4873285
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4746637&oldid=4746613
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4706233&oldid=4691192

 * No timestamp - Four months ago
 * What happened: Nothing - that is the point.

 * I was banned for an entire year despite the fact that I was not involved in any flame wars, I was not involved in any revert wars or edit wars.
 * The supposed problems actually had been peacefully resolved, while the people banning me claimed otherwise, for reasons I am still puzzled by.
 * I have taken many contentious articles ''off' of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments.
 * I have asked for and successfully used mediation.
 * I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this ban previously. They were unable to come up with a single instance of someone in this situation ever being banned. This speaks volumes.  We thus have a situation in which a huge ban is made for events that are normally described as a successfull resolution.  This is not reasonable. RK 02:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have worked with many others on all of the Judaism articles, and I coordinate my editing with the WikiProject team working on Judaism articles. This effort turned out to be very successful. In fact, every time I create an article I invite others to work on it, which is the opposite of what some people claim. And as you can see, others invite me to work on articles that they have created. I truly do not understand the claims to the contrary. Please see the below edits for specific examples. (In contrast, the people trying to get me banned refuse to cooperate with the rest of us, for reasons still unknown.) Some specific examples follow:

[Re: ].

 * Huh? There were no lies and no insults. Every word on this message was factual, and even on the Wiki-En list you did not dispute it. You merely here ad more facts and try to present your spin on the issue, which is your right. But you certainly did call for the acceptance of edits by people who admit to being Nazis, you admitted it more than once, and your implication to the contrary here is not honest. RK 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Zero0000

 * 20:38, Feb 15, 2005
 * The committee should note the accusations made by RK against the previous Arbitration Committee on User talk:RK and copied on several other places:
 * "we should not allow four people with a vendetta to wreck our whole system"
 * "a small number of people abusing their Admin power out of some sort of personal vendetta"
 * This is precisely the same sort of abusive behavior that he was banned for. --Zero 12:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * He is inserting a claim (alleged to be a report that someone says that) Chabad Lubavitch is "developing into a new form of Christianity". RK knows this to be factually false (Chabad do not believe in Jesus Christ, the most that could be conceivably be claimed is that they are adopting some features common to Christianity).  RK also knows that Lubavitchers would regard this false claim as exceedingly offensive.  But it's his POV and POV pushing is what he does. --Zero 13:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification of this comment. It is true that many Lubavitchers believe the late Rebbe was Mossiach.  It is not a tiny minority who believe this but at least a large minority.  It is also true that some of the rhetoric produced in support of this claim is uncannily like Christian rhetoric (this is my personal opinion based on reading it).  However RK wrote "developing into a new form of Christianity" which is patently absurd.  Looking at the edits, we see RK inserting his own opinion in the guise of reporting someone else's.  This is evident by the way he gives contrary views only a few token words at the end of the passage. This example is representative of RK's edits.  --Zero 02:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Zero, this is not "evidence". You are taking a description of a religion which is used by many religious scholars, and are falsely and bizarrely saying that it is somehow my unique personal view.  Also, I do not see how making that point constitutes "evidence" for violation of Wikipedia protocol.  Zero, mere disagreement with an edit does not constitute vandalism, hatespeech, or grounds for a ban. In any case, not a single person on the WikiProject for Judaism agrees with you. RK 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Personal insults and lies on Wikien-l: .  Quote: "Zero 0000 _again_ defended Nazi hatespeech and harassment, and called for its acceptance on Wikipedia".   The block log will reveal that in fact I was the first sysop to block the Nazi user NSM88 whose edits started this thread and the first to bring that to the mailing list for discussion. --Zero 13:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dissident
MyRedDice kept a list of wikipedians attacked by RK. It'll be interesting to see what each's (current) opinion of RK and their disputes with him was as well as vice versa.

I would also like to be one to stress that this is NOT about any perceived "dispute" over any articles, it is about RK's conduct towards other people! It's typical for RK to deliberately misportray the issue to his advantage. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jayjg
Since returning RK has reverted his previous editing and comment style. His editing style consists of making broad generalizations that many people support his opinions, when indeed they seem to be supported by a small minority of individuals, or merely his personal opinion. When pressed for citations, if he does provide them, they rarely support the specific point he is making. He also takes his disputes to Wikien-l, and in Talk: makes personal comments (often attributing emotion to his opponents). As examples (sorry for the length, some of them get fairly esoteric):

 * On his second day returning to Wikipedia after his ban, RK resumes a dispute he has with User:Stirling Newberry regarding article content on Age of Enlightenment, inserting an opinion paragraph that appears to have no citations .  Two days later he re-inserts the same text, informing Sterling that "Wiki-En list has been notified", something he commonly does rather than using the proper dispute resolution channels.  Later the same day reverts the same text and more, describing Stirling's edits as "vandalism"   He also refers to Stirling's comments as "angry"  - note the comment he is responding to seems fairly dispassionate.  In the end Stirling appears to end the debate by pointing out that not only is disputed section uncited POV, but also (based on actual citations) inaccurate. He cuts to the heart of the issue with his final statement "In summary, a set of sweeping generalizations to the point of misinformative oversimplification which is not born out by an examination even of the major figures of the period, let alone a host of minor ones which we spend less time. The whole is based on historical fallacy: exagerating those features of the 18th century which we, ourselves, place the greatest value in."   It is these tendencies (sweeping generalizations to the point of misinformative oversimplification, exaggerating features that RK place the greatest value in) which characterize other on-going edit conflicts.
 * After taking a break for a week, he returns on Feb 24 making massive edits to the Judaism article without any prior discussion at all in the Talk: page.
 * He also returns to a previous dispute on the Maimonides page. RK had been asserting for weeks before his ban that Maimonides had not believed in his 13 Principles of Faith, based on the work of one author (Marc Shapiro) who has been promoting this novel thesis.  Maimonides distinguished between "true beliefs" and "necessary beliefs", and Shapiro extended this idea from its usual understanding to the 13 Principles of Faith as well.  RK has been continually attempting to promote Shapiro's view as normative amongst most Jewish movements (including Modern Orthodox) and most Jews (including scholars), and has been buttressing his claim with broad statements like "Many Jews hold" or "Most Maimonidean scholars believe" etc.  When he is challenged to produce actual sources for these broad claims, he attempts to reverse the onus of proof by asking for citations from those opposing him.  When again pressed for specific citations to support his thesis, he again insists they these are common views, and therefore his opponents need to bring citations to disprove them. When asked to start a new section proposing his new text, he seems unable to envision using the Talk: page for this purpose, and instead wishes to use the Talk: pages to debate the issue.  When again pressed to produce a suggested new text, he produces one which makes broad claims (e.g. "is accepted as factual by many modern Orthodox Maimonidean scholars," "These views are also understood as correct by the Reform and Conservative rabbinate," "the average Jewish layperson, of perhaps any denominations, believes the opposite: Many Jews hold..." etc.) yet only quotes the one scholar he prefers, Shapiro.  When his text is challenged in a number of places asking for sources for the broad claims,  he insists they exist elsewhere, and that his opponents are "angry", and making "bizarre personal attacks" and "ruthless attacks" on various scholars.    When asked again to provide citations for his claims, and focus on article content, not his opinions about Wikipedia editors, he responds by stating the editors who disagree with him are "confused" and "attacking", and providing a source which does not actually support RK's/Shapiro's thesis that Maimonides did not believe in his own 13 Principles of Faith, but rather something entirely different, that Maimonides distinguished between "true" and "necessary" beliefs. When requested not to get personal, and ask again for sources for his specific claims, he again insists on talking about the personal beliefs of the editors who are asking for citations and disagree with him, calling them "angry", and produces sources which support a different point.  When again asked not to get personal, and to provide citations which actually support his specific claims, he remains silent. This is exactly the pattern that occurred months before on the same topic, and which inevitably leads to his article content conflicts.
 * Huh? I have no idea of what you are talking about! In fact, I have made very few edits, and I have discussed them on Talk pages. And in regards to the Maimonides article, I have refused to make unilateral edits on controversial sections, and have repeatedly asked you for your views and sources!  RK 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * RK then moves on to Kabbalah Centre, where he again attempts to promote this POV, replacing specific statements with weasel words and broad unsupported claims, replacing "Modern Orthodox scholar Marc Shapiro holds that this is the view of Maimonides, despite a literal reading of Maimonides 11th principle of faith" with "many historians and some Modern Orthodox scholars hold that this is the view of Maimonides, despite a literal reading of Maimonides 11th principle of faith. On this specific topic Berg's teachings are similar to much of non-Orthodox Judaism."   While replacing a specific citation with these broad claims, RK strangely insists in his edit summary that others must "bring forth sources to back up your position".  He later reverts to his edits, still providing no citations.
 * Similarly, in Jewish views of astrology, he continues to insert broad uncited POV claims as well as irrelevant commentary, and insists on reverting to it without providing any evidence for his claims   His edit summaries are personal ("please stop reverting views which make you uncomfortable", and his Talk: comments repeat these claims "please stop reverting facts that make you uncomfortable", "Your comments in the article history edit lines indicate that you are unfamiliar with this." He almost ignores the actual objections to the statements in question (that they are either off-topic or unsupported POV), making handwaving arguments in their favour "Are you seriously under the impression that most Jews really still believe in astrology? That position is untenable," while quoting lengthy sections from the NPOV policy implying (and later stating explicitly) that the objector here is "reverting and censorsing views about science and non-Orthodox Jewish belief that makes you uncomfortable."

In summary, RK's edit pattern has not changed at all; he continues to disguise his own POV as a "broad consensus", and refuses to provide any sorts of actual citations for his claims. When responding in Talk: his comments are nearly always about the editor, not the edits. And all this is happening while his behaviour is "restrained" because he is still under risk of having his temporarily lifted edit ban re-instated. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dante Alighieri

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is from October 2003. We're living in the present, Dante. JFW | T@lk  00:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The submitted evidence is characteristic of RK's behavior, and I have seen nothing from him since then that indicates that he has changed. This indicates the appropriateness of his ban on editing Jewish-related articles, which RK seems to think inappropriate. We may be living in the present, Jfdwolff, but those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:42, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Martin
The most important stuff is here: Requests for arbitration/RK/Evidence. I see no evidence of any kind of irregularity in Robert's arbitration case. As such, I see no grounds for an appeal.

Specific "eye-witness" evidence regarding RK's "facts" in his statement on the main page.

 * I am not involved in any flame wars.

Robert Kaiser regularly and consistently flamed people, right up to his formal arbitration. See the following sections of Requests for arbitration/RK/Evidence:
 * Abusive edit summaries
 * Abusive talk page comments
 * Posts to the mailing list
 * Ad hominem/Poisoning the Well

Robert Kaiser's discussion regarding the article ban is a good example of a current flame war that he is in, despite only recently rejoining Wikipedia. His repeated accusations that other people are engaging in "harassment" or are "angry" or are not "honest", for example, are typical examples of his flame war techniques, albeit calmer than when he is not under such close supervision.

 * Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to a peacul and productive resolution. Ever. Unfortunately, a tiny number of people are angry that our system actually worked. What kind of people think that peaceful resolutions and long-term cooperation is grounds for a year long ban?

I would not characterise Robert "fuck you sick Nazi bastards" Kaiser as an exemplar of peaceful resolution and long-term co-operation. Nor would I describe my relationship with him as having amicably come to a peaceful and productive resolution.

 * In repeated shows of good faith, I repeatedly take week-long or longer Wiki-breaks, and allow other people to have their say without any problem. The tiny number of people trying to ban me do the opposite.

Incorrect. I have done little Wikipedia editing for most of this year. I recused myself from RK's arbitration case. I feel that the arbcom article ban on Robert Kaiser should stand.

 * I have taken many contentious articles off' of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. No one else has done so.

Incorrect. A large number of Wikipedians, including myself, have ceased editing or watching articles where Robert has an interest, not wishing to be subject to his well-documented attacks.

 * I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary.

RK asked for mediation with me. I was delighted to accept. The process rapidly collapsed prior even to our agreeing on a mediator. I will resist the temptation to assign blame, as mediation is supposed to be confidential. I would not characterise Robert's use of mediation as "successful".

Evidence presented by Firebug
Personal attacks injected into edit summaries on Nation of Islam and Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism when I reverted his POV edits. He is accusing me of "anti-Christianity" and "personal attacks" (the latter despite the fact that most of my reverts merely mentioned the NPOV policy, which he apparently regards as a personal attack against him.) He claimed that my edits were "close to vandalism" because he personally disagreed with them.    I do not think that RK understands the NPOV policy nor has any intentions of complying with it. As a result, I think it is very important that the ban on editing articles related to Judaism be retained. It should also be clarified that this applies to articles related to anti-Semitism as well. RK has shown no evidence that the original Arbcom ruling was incorrect, and he has shown no evidence that he has learnt the error of his ways. Firebug 01:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Update - Since this was posted, RK also deleted one of my comments on Talk:Nation_of_Islam because he did not like its content. While editing articles is acceptable, my understanding is that deleting other user comments on Discussion pages is not. Firebug 05:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apologies
To my knowledge, Robert Kaiser has never apologised to me for his persistent and wholly unsubstantiated accusations that I am in some way anti-Semitic, nor has he retracted those accusations.

To my knowledge, no other Wikipedian has made remotely similar accusations against me. Robert has often intimated that such other accusations exist, but they do not.


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2

Case Opened on 16 Feb 2005

Case Closed on 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties
This is an appeal by RK of a previously decreed one year ban on editing Judaism-related articles.

Statement by affected party
This is a formal request to overturn a year-long ban against me, User RK, from editing any Judaism related articles. The ban is especially bizarre and puzzling because the people who edit these articles do not support the ban. In fact, the major people who tried to get me banned from these articles seem to have been Simonides and Zero, who themselves do not edit these articles. To make it blunt, they are trying to be ban me out of spite, and not because of any actual problem.

The actual facts of the case were never even presented when the previous Arbitration committee attempted to ban me. We Wikipedians who work on these articles, such as myself, Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism - yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles productively.

For instance, please see WikiProject_Judaism for a perfect example of how I have been working successfully with others on a wide array of Judaism-related articles. In contrast, the people who attempted to smear me and ban me are themselves not party to 99% of the editing on these articles!

Facts:
 * I am not involved in any flame wars. Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when they were not in a flame war.

 * I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars.

 * The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago.

 * Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to a peacul and productive resolution. Ever. Unfortunately, a tiny number of people are angry that our system actually worked.  What kind of people think that peaceful resolutions and long-term cooperation is grounds for a year long ban?

 * In repeated shows of good faith, I repeatedly take week-long or longer Wiki-breaks, and allow other people to have their say without any problem. The tiny number of people trying to ban me do the opposite.

 * I have taken many contentious articles ''off' of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. No one else has done so.

 * I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary.

 * I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this previously. They were unable to come up with a *single* instance of someone in my shoes ever being banned.

In summary, we clearly have a situation where a tiny number of people are banning me despite following Wikipedia policy, despite following standard dispute protocols and finding a peaceful rsolution, and despite me doing all of the above things that - for all other people - have in the past brought kind words and brought the community closer together. RK 22:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/2/0)

 * 1) Accept. I advised Robert to appeal because he has only just been made aware of the ban. I fully respect the arbcom members who ruled in this case earlier, and am absolutely sure they did what they thought was best. However I don't see any harm in examining the evidence again. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 23:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept. Neutralitytalk 23:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept - David Gerard 23:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Recuse Fred Bauder 00:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Accept -- sannse (talk) 00:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Accept. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:52, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * 7) Accept. Nohat 07:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Recuse. RK and I have history. --mav 19:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
1) The one year ban against RK's editing of articles related to Judaism is suspended pending the completion of this case.

 * Aye:
 * I would like to see RK's current editing behaviour on these articles before determining whether the ban is warranted. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:11, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 01:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Worth a try.
 * Personally, I would be more interested in hearing what the other people who frequently edit those articles have to say. →Raul654 01:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 02:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 04:22, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Civility
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave in a calm and mutally respective manner in their dealings with other users. When disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks
2) No personal attacks.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consensus
3) As put forward in Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines, such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and requests for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Previous personal attacks / incivility
1) Prior to the previous case against him, RK engaged in innumerable personal attacks and general incivil practices.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changes in editing habits
2) RK has significantly improved his editing habits since the previous case against him, and after the four-month ban instituted by the previous case has edited articles seen by others to be contentious to him in a fashion consistent with the principles of civility and consensus.

 * ''Passed 5 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks on mailing lists
3) RK has historically taken disputes on en: Wikipedia to the wikien-l mailing list, his mails about the disputes including accusations of anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathies.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Previous ban
1.2) As RK has demonstrated some improvement in editing habits, but not to the status of "model editor," remedy #2 of the previous Arbitration case is hereby revoked and replaced with the measures outlined below.

 * Passed 6 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert limitation
2.2) RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack parole
3.2) RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.

 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Wikimedia mailing lists
4) The personal attack parole shall include posts to Wikimedia mailing lists, such as wikien-l, carrying on disputes on Wikipedia. If he makes any posts which are judged by an en: Wikipedia administrator to be personal attacks - including but not limited to accusations of anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathy - he may be temp-banned for up to a week under the provisions of the personal attack parole, he may be suspended for up to a week from the mailing list in question, and the personal attack period shall be reset.

 * ''Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RK 2

 * As the person who filed the original RfA complaint against RK after yet another foul-mouthed insult, I urge the committee to examine the evidence on which basis the ruling was made. --Zero 23:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WTF? Are people now able to appeal everything ad infinitum or is this just yet another case where RK gets off whenever he performs his patented Oscar-winning victim role? STOP GIVING HIM FAVORS ALL THE TIME AND START IMPLEMENTING YOUR OWN RULINGS!!! -- A very pissed off Dissident (Talk) 18:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I hope that Dissident stops the angry personal attacks. I do not know why he imagines that being given a one-year ban on editing Judaism articles is a "favor", or why he imagines that being allowed to use RFA as all other Wikipedians do is unfair.  The rules for Wikipedia apply equally to all.  It is grossly unfair to hold that I alone am forbidden to follow Wikipedia rules as other people do! The above remarks from Dissident and Zero are angry, and do not seem reasonable.  In any case, neither of their comments have anything to do with the specific case at hand; they seem very confused about the issue.  There is no issue of me being banned from Wikipedia.  The issue, rather, is about a one-year ban on editing Judaism-related articles. Articles, it must be noted, that they themlsevs generally do not edit.  In point of fact - and please see this for yourself - they do not cooperate with others in the WikiProject on Judaism articles, while I do. In contrast, the people who do edit the Judaism articles are not in favor of this egegious ban, and even many Wikipedia Admins and Sysops are confused about this.  RK 20:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

For years, I have seen you terrorize other Wikipedians, only to, when finally called to answer yourself to "higher authorities", act like nothing happened afterwards. Now, I find it incredulous to believe that after all this time you would finally decide to reform yourself, but what I find outrageous is that you dare to put on an acute amnesiac pretense with the air of an upstanding Wikicitizen. Well, you're not and the record is there for all to see. You're an intellectual terrorist and a liar, and for me and I dare say a lot of people who know you, you've already WAY passed the point of assume good faith. Now take a good look at that link again (and don't you dare act like it doesn't exist!) and tell me why the arbitration committee wasn't justified in giving you every punishment they did gave you. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: The ban is especially bizarre and puzzling because the people who edit these articles do not support the ban. This is quite an understatement; most of us ardently oppose the ban and lost a considerable amount of respect for the arbitration process when it was imposed. (I could even start a petition demonstrating this fact, if anyone asks.) Our Judaism-related articles have already suffered enough due to RK's three-month block. 172 10:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dissident - All we have agreed to do is look at the evidence again. Agreeing to hear an appeal is not the same thing as agreeing that RK has been treated unfairly. I understand that you are angry, but let me assure you that we are not soft, we are not stupid, and we are not going to make a descision that will be detrimental to Wikipedia. If you can provide any evidence on the evidence page that you feel will help us to come to a proper descision I would find that very useful. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What evidence can you honestly expect me to supply if RK was just recently unbanned? Is the original evidence page not good enough? In a nutshell, it's clear that one cannot expect RK to refrain himself from frothing at the mouth while hurling insults if things don't go his away, especially when it concerns Anti-Semitism (real or imagined), Israel and/or Zionism. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * RK claims that that the problems he had with Jewish articles had all been solved long ago. If you have any evidence to the contrary, for example RK behaving badly just before he was banned then that would be important. But if you don't have any evidence like that, then it don't fret. Of course the original evidence page is good enough. We will be looking at all of it again. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 08:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks and lies by Zero
I am disturbed by Zero's attempt to confuse peopel by lying about recent contributions to an article, and by personal attacks on me by "messianic Jews". Zero writes:

 * He is inserting a claim (alleged to be a report that someone says that) Chabad Lubavitch is "developing into a new form of Christianity". RK knows this to be factually false (Chabad do not believe in Jesus Christ, the most that could be conceivably be claimed is that they are adopting some features common to Christianity). RK also knows that Lubavitchers would regard this false claim as exceedingly offensive. But it's his POV and POV pushing is what he does

This can be proven to be a deliberate lie. ''Please do not take my word on this. Contact JFWolff immediately.'' Zero's behaviour constitutes harassment. It is a fact that many historians and scholars of Judaism have been writing about how various Jewish factions have developed into forms of neo-Christianity, including the Donmeh, and now a faction of Chabad (Lubavitch) Judaism. This is very well-known in the field. Zero's disingenuously claims that the existence of this body of scholarly research is only "alleged", which is a provable lie. Entire books have been written on the issue, and scholarly journals have articles on it. Also, Zero attacks bizarre claims that no one is making. For instance, neither I nor anyone else claims that Chabad Jews worship Jesus Christ. That is just silly. Essentially, he is angry at me that I am here at all, and is counting on the entire ArbCom being totally ignorant of the facts. This is not merely acting in bad faith; this is a deliberate attempt to pervert the entire process. Again, do not take my word on this. Please contact JFWolff immediately. RK 18:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Robert what is this doing here? How does Zero's behaviour relate to your appeal? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) I see now that zero posted the above on the evidence page. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing and deleting comments from Discussion pages
I strongly oppose any reversal of ArbCom's previous ruling in this case. RK has been spending a great deal of time pushing his POV on various pages, making personal attacks, and (in at least one case) deleting comments from a Discussion page. All of these are unacceptable. I see no evidence that RK has changed his ways, and no reason why the injunctions imposed at the original Arbcom proceedings should be lifted. Firebug 05:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
H-63 (Michigan county highway)

H-63 is a county-designated highway (CDH) in the Upper Peninsula of the US state of Michigan. The highway parallels the Interstate 75 (I-75) corridor between St. Ignace and Sault Ste. Marie. The road is called Mackinac Trail after the Upper Peninsula branch of an Indian trail used before European settlers reached the area. Originally, the roadway was built as a section of US Highway 2 (US 2) before being added to the CDH system in the 1970s.

H-63 serves as a two-lane alternative to the I-75 freeway across the eastern end of the Upper Peninsula. Between the northern side of St. Ignace, the roadway has connections to two state highways before running concurrently with M-48 near Rudyard. H-63 ends on the south side of Sault Ste. Marie.

Route description
H-63 starts a winding trail at Business Loop I-75 (BL I-75) north of St. Ignace in rural Mackinac County. From there, the highway heads northward towards the Kewadin Casino. The road then passes within viewing distance of I-75 past the Horseshoe Bay Wilderness. As it continues, H-63 has a connection to the southern terminus of M-123 with access to I-75 via a connecting road to M-123. After crossing to the west side of I-75, H-63 has access to I-75 via a connecting road to the western terminus of M-134. The CDH runs to the north and into Chippewa County. As it does so, H-63 turns away from I-75 as the latter curves northeastward. South of Rudyard and into center of the community, H-63 runs concurrently with M-48 for about 3 mi.

From Rudyard northward, H-63 turns northeasterly toward, and runs parallel to, I-75. At Kinross, there is an interchange between I-75 and M-80; H-63 has a brief concurrency with M-80 so that the latter can connect to all of the ramps in the interchange. The trail then crosses to the eastern side of I-75. Near Dafter, the CDH intersects M-28. Along this section, H-63 is roughly a half mile (0.8 km) away from the I-75 freeway at any given point as it continues northward to the Sault Ste. Marie area. H-63 terminates at its intersection with Business Spur I-75 (BS I-75) on the south side of the city.

History
The first transportation route in the area was the Mackinac Trail, used by Native Americans before the Europeans arrived in the area; the trail in the area was the Upper Peninsula branch of a longer route that also connected the modern-day Saginaw with Mackinaw City and the Straits of Mackinac. Until 1933, no roadway was built along the path of the Indian trail. After that year, US 2 was rerouted between St. Ignace and Sault Ste. Marie using the modern routing of H-63. This placed the Mackinac Trail on the state trunkline highway system for the first time. In 1962 and 1963, the state transferred the highway to county control when US 2 was rerouted to follow the completed I-75 freeway. With the transfer to local control, Mackinac Trail became a county road. Later, it was given the H-63 designation after October 5, 1970, as part of the County-Designated Highway System. The designation on the 1971 state map follows the routing used today.

title: H-63 (Michigan county highway)


text:
Talk:Baháʼu'lláh's family

Descendants or Family?
Should this article only include descendants of Bahá’u’lláh or should his notable siblings/parents/cousins be included here?penultimate_supper (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Díyá'u'lláh Section Looks Awkward
Raised the same concern in the Shrine of Baha'u'llah page. "Why" exactly is the "section" written like "this"? I edited out some of the quotes on the Shrine of Baha'u'llah page, however I do think that there must be some way to make it look less clunky. SeriousTIEM (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Baháʼu'lláh's family


text:
Hide and Q

"Hide and Q" is the tenth episode of the first season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, and originally aired on November 23, 1987, in broadcast syndication. The story was originally written by Maurice Hurley but went under numerous re-writes by the show's creator Gene Roddenberry. The episode was directed by Cliff Bole, and saw the return of John de Lancie as Q.

Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures of the Starfleet crew of the Federation starship Enterprise-D. In this episode, Q returns to the USS Enterprise following his original encounter with the crew in "Encounter at Farpoint". Q transports the bridge crew to a landscape where they are attacked by humanoids and grants Commander Riker (Jonathan Frakes) the powers of a member of the Q Continuum, which he is forced to use to resurrect both Worf (Michael Dorn) and Wesley (Wil Wheaton). Riker promises never to use the powers again, but after a rescue mission he breaks down and grants each of the bridge crew a wish, which they refuse, with Riker subsequently rejecting his new powers. Q is recalled to the Continuum in failure.

Writer Maurice Hurley requested and later regretted that he be credited under the pseudonym C.J. Holland in protest against Roddenberry's re-writes. The problems with the scripting of the episode changed the way the staff handled subsequent script developments for the series. Bole subsequently praised the abilities of de Lancie during the course of filming the episode. Reviewers thought that while the episode was predictable, the relationship between Q and Picard (Patrick Stewart) was praised, and "Hide and Q" received average overall scores.

Plot
The Enterprise is en route to Quadra Sigma to aid colonists caught in a methane explosion when Q reappears and demands that they abandon their mission to compete in a game. He teleports Commander Riker and the bridge crew, with the exception of Captain Picard, to a barren landscape, stating that the rule of the game is to stay alive. Yar (Denise Crosby) protests, and Q transports her back to the bridge of the Enterprise in a "penalty box", warning that only one player can be in the box at a time and she will cease to exist should another player replace her.

Q returns to the bridge shortly after to propose a wager to Picard, explaining that the Q Continuum is testing Commander Riker to see if he is worthy of being granted their god-like powers. If Riker accepts them, Q wins command of the starship; if he refuses them, Picard makes Q promise to never interfere with humanity again. Meanwhile, Riker and his team are attacked by what Lt. Worf reports as "vicious animal things" dressed as Napoleonic soldiers wielding energy-firing muskets. Q returns to Riker and tells him that he has granted him the powers of the Continuum. Riker uses them to return his crew mates to the ship, but he remains behind to question Q’s intentions. Q explains that he and his kind are interested in humanity because of their potential for growth and evolution, suggesting that humanity could eventually surpass the Q. Q wishes for Riker to accept the powers and become part of the Q Continuum so they can understand the human "compulsion" for growth. Riker rejects this, and in response, Q teleports the bridge crew back to the surface, unarmed. The crew are attacked once more by the soldiers, and both Worf and Wesley Crusher are killed. Riker uses the powers of the Q to return the crew to the Enterprise again, bringing both Worf and Wesley back to life.

Riker makes a promise to Picard never to use the powers again and the ship arrives at Quadra Sigma. A rescue team beams down and discovers a young girl who has died. Riker is tempted to save her, but in the end he refuses to do so out of respect for his promise; however, he quickly shows signs of regret at this decision, which he expresses to the captain. Tensions rise as Riker's behavior towards his captain and crew change and he becomes continually tempted to use his powers. At Q's suggestion, and with Picard's blessing, Riker uses his powers to give his friends what he believes they want: he turns Wesley into an adult, offers to make Data (Brent Spiner) human, gives La Forge (LeVar Burton) his sight, and creates a Klingon female companion for Worf. Ultimately, however, all the recipients reject their gifts. Picard declares that Q has failed, and when Q attempts to go back on his word, he is forcibly recalled to the Continuum. Picard is pleased to see Q gone, and praises Riker for confirming his trust in his "Number One".

Production
Writer Maurice Hurley requested that his contributions to this episode appear under the name of C.J. Holland because of the number of extensive re-writes by the show's creator Gene Roddenberry. Hurley later described the situation as a "misunderstanding" as the situation was subsequently resolved and proved to be a turning point for the series in how scripts were produced. Subsequently Roddenberry spent less time conducting detailed re-writes. Some of the elements of Hurley's original story expanded on the back story of Q's species, explaining that there were only three Qs but another hundred thousand residents on their planet who required relocation as the planet was dying. These elements didn't subsequently make it into any future episodes. The episode marked the return of John De Lancie as Q. Cliff Bole was returning as a director for the series, and knowing that de Lancie would appear as Q, Bole watched "Encounter at Farpoint" in order to maintain Q's tone. He found after shooting began that his research wasn't required as de Lancie slotted back into his previous role naturally. Bole later described the episode as "a lot of fun" and de Lancie as "a joy and a creative guy to work with". De Lancie would next return in the second season episode "Q Who". Meanwhile, the removal of the character of Deanna Troi from this episode alongside three other episodes made actress Marina Sirtis believe at the time that she was about to be cut from the show. Elaine Nalee guest starred as a female survivor, while William A. Wallace appeared as the adult Wesley Crusher.

The theme of the episode, where a humanoid gains the powers of a god is a recurring theme from Star Trek: The Original Series, having featured in several episodes including the second pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "Charlie X". The most similar episode from TOS is "Plato's Stepchildren", where the character Alexander also rejects god-like powers in a similar manner to Riker in "Hide and Q". The premise would once again be revisited in the season six episode "True Q".

Reception
"Hide and Q" aired in broadcast syndication during the week commencing November 22, 1987. It received Nielsen ratings of 11.0, reflecting the percentage of all households watching the episode during its timeslot. This was higher than both the episodes broadcast before and afterwards.

This episode was noted for the use of Shakespeare in the Star Trek franchise, in particular when Captain Picard talks to the Q entity.

Several reviewers re-watched Star Trek: The Next Generation after the end of the series. Keith DeCandido for Tor.com thought that the plot was predictable, describing Riker being written as "so paint-by-numbers the color is practically dripping off the screen". He praised the relationship between Q and Picard, stating that de Lancie was having such "fun with the role that the episode itself is also fun despite its flaws". He gave "Hide and Q" a score of five out of ten. Zack Handlen re-watched the episode for The A.V. Club, and thought it was an example of where TNG avoided characterisation in favour of a morality play. He thought that the episode was a mess, with the highlights being Picard reciting Shakespeare and the Napoleonic monsters. He rated the episode as a C−.

Star Trek: The Next Generation actor Wil Wheaton reviewed the episode for the Huffington Post after the end of the series, describing John de Lancie in his role of Q as "brilliant casting and masterful acting", and thought that overall the episode was reminiscent of the original series and had some good points. However he thought the script had the characters lecturing the viewer on occasion, based on the idea that ultimate power will lead to corruption. He gave the episode a score of B−.

Home media release
The first home media release of "Hide and Q" was on VHS cassette on July 1, 1992. The episode was later included in the Star Trek: The Next Generation season one DVD box set, released in March 2002, and in the Star Trek: Q DVD box set from the fan collection series of sets. It was released as part of the season one Blu-ray set on July 24, 2012.

This episode was released in the "Q Continuum" collection of LaserDisc. The collection was released on July 30, 1997 and was published by Paramount Home Video; it retailed for 100 USD. The set included the 2-part "Encounter at Farpoint", "Hide & Q", "Q Who?", and "Deja Q" on 12 inch optical discs in NTSC format with a total runtime of 230 minutes. The collection came in a Tri-Fold jacket that also included a letter from actor Jon De Lancie.

title: Hide and Q


text: User talk:68.78.147.148

title: User talk:68.78.147.148


text:
Charles Christopher Parry

Charles Christopher Parry (August 28, 1823 – February 20, 1890) was a British-American botanist and mountaineer.

Biography
Parry was born in Gloucestershire, England, but moved to the United States with his parents in 1832, settling first in Washington County, New York. He studied medicine at Columbia University, and botany under John Torrey, Asa Gray and George Engelmann.

He moved to Davenport, Iowa in 1846 where he practiced as a doctor for a short time before joining the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey (1848–1855) as surgeon and botanist. He made extensive plant collections along the U.S.-Mexico border in California, and later in Colorado, Utah and other western states, many of which proved to be new species.

Important plants he was the first to describe include the Torrey pine and Engelmann spruce, which he named in honour of his mentors.

Dozens of plants are named after him, including the Parry Pinyon, Parry's Lily, Parry's primrose, and Parry's Penstemon. In addition, the genera Neoparrya in 1929 (Apiaceae family), and Parryella in 1868 (Fabaceae family) were also named in his honor.

Parry made the first barometric measurements of the heights of many of Colorado's mountains. Although he did not reach the summit, he estimated the height of Longs Peak, and he was the first to climb and measure Grays Peak. Parry Peak (4,082 m / 13,391 feet) in Colorado is also named after him.

His archive is held at Iowa State University.

title: Charles Christopher Parry


text:
Janice Kawaye

Janice Hiromi Kawaye (born April 4, 1970) is an American voice actress known for her roles as Jenny Wakeman/XJ-9 in My Life as a Teenage Robot, Ami in Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi, Kim and Kam in Class of 3000, Gi in Captain Planet and the Planeteers, and Lysithea in the Fire Emblem series.

Early life
Kawaye was born in Los Angeles, California to parents who are both of Japanese descent. She is fluent in Japanese.

title: Janice Kawaye


text:
Xcel Energy

Xcel Energy Inc. is a U.S. regulated electric utility and natural gas delivery company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, serving more than 3.7 million electric customers and 2.1 million natural gas customers across parts of eight states (Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and New Mexico). It consists of four operating subsidiaries: Northern States Power-Minnesota, Northern States Power-Wisconsin, Public Service Company of Colorado, and Southwestern Public Service Co.

In December 2018, Xcel Energy announced it would deliver 100 percent clean, carbon-free electricity by 2050, with an 80 percent carbon reduction by 2035 (from 2005 levels). This makes Xcel the first major US utility to set such a goal.

History
Xcel Energy was built on three companies: Minneapolis-based Northern States Power Company (NSP), Denver-based Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), and Amarillo-based Southwestern Public Service (SPS). Southwestern Public Service Co. (SPS) dates its origins to 1904 and the Pecos Valley in New Mexico when Maynard Gunsell received an electricity franchise for the city of Roswell, New Mexico and its 2,000 residents. The financial strain of creating this new enterprise soon overwhelmed him and he sold the franchise to W.H. Gillenwater, who named his utility the Roswell Electric Light Co. He later sold the company to an investment firm in Cleveland, Ohio, which already owned the Roswell Gas Co.

Northern States Power Company's timeline begins with the organization of the Washington County Light & Power Co. in 1909. When H. M. Byllesby began building his utility holding company across the Northwestern region of the US, he renamed it the Consumers Power Co. in 1910 and which was renamed the Northern States Power Co. in 1916. While the bulk of NSP's territory grew across central and southern Minnesota (starting from the Twin Cities), it acquired territory in North Dakota (centering on Fargo, Grand Forks, and Minot) and extended southwest into South Dakota (centering on Sioux Falls). NSP's system also extended east into Wisconsin, but because of utility ownership laws in that state, it was operated as an entity separate from the rest of the company.

Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) was formed in 1923 to provide an electric generating station for the Denver area. By 1924, it had acquired most of the electric companies in northern and central Colorado. Originally a subsidiary of Cities Service Company, it became an independent autonomous operation in November 1943. By this time, it served 80 percent of Colorado's gas and electricity needs. As demand for energy continued to grow, so did PSCo. Eventually, the company merged with SPS to form New Century Energies (NCE) in 1995.

Northern States Power and Wisconsin Energy Corporation had planned to merge into a new outfit that was to be called Primergy - but in 1997, the merger fell through because of the time it was taking to gain the required approvals from state and federal agencies. After the failed Primergy merger, NSP (both the Minnesota and Wisconsin companies) merged with New Century Energies to form Xcel Energy. In 2005, Xcel sold Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power to Black Hills Corporation. Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power had been a subsidiary of PSCo since the 1920s, and had become an operating company of NCE after the merger with SPS.

In December 2018, Xcel Energy became the first major US utility to pledge to go carbon-free, aiming for 80% carbon reduction by 2030, and 100% reduction by 2050.

Utility industry magazine Utility Dive awarded Xcel Energy its 2018 "Utility of the Year" award for its plans for add 12 wind farms, its project with Google to develop new ways for customers to personalize energy management, and its plan to retire 50 percent of its coal-powered capacity by 2026 (and replacing it with a combination of renewable energy, efficiency, and natural gas).

On May 20, 2019, Xcel Energy announced its intent to close all of its remaining coal-fired plants in Minnesota by 2030 while compensating by increasing solar production capacity by 1,400%. It also declared its plans to continue operating its Monticello nuclear plant near Monticello, Minnesota until at least 2040.

On March 16, 2023, Xcel Energy announced that a significant unplanned release of radioactive water from its Monticello nuclear power plant took place on November 21, 2022, which was reported only to state and federal authorities but was concealed from the public until now. Xcel estimated the leak to be 400 thousand gallons of contaminated water containing radioactive tritium. The leak occurred in a water pipe that runs between two buildings.

Generation portfolio
Across Xcel Energy's eight-state service area, 49% of the power provided in 2021 came from carbon-free sources: biomass, hydroelectric and nuclear plants, solar panels and wind turbines.

Xcel Energy currently has 13 coal plants with a capacity of 7,697 MW. Seven of those plants are operated in Colorado. Xcel Energy owns and operates three wind farms. In October 2011, Xcel Energy set a world record for electricity from wind power, with an hourly penetration of 55.6% of production from wind.

Xcel Energy generates over 500 megawatts of hydroelectric power from 27 plants in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado. This accounts for only four percent of their electricity generation. They also purchase large amounts of hydro-generated electricity from Manitoba Hydro.

Biomass electricity comes from organic fuel sources. Xcel Energy has contracts for about 110 megawatts of electricity from biomass generators. Two in northern Minnesota are fueled by forest harvest residue, such as treetops and limbs. A third facility, brought on line in 2007 in western Minnesota, generates power using turkey litter.

Xcel Energy's Bay Front plant in Ashland, Wisconsin, is a three-unit generating station that has become a model for the creative use of fuels: coal, waste wood, railroad ties, discarded tires, natural gas, and petroleum coke. Two of the three Bay Front operating units already use biomass as their primary fuel. Xcel Energy recently proposed a plan to install biomass gasification technology at Bay Front. The waste-to-energy facilities use waste that would otherwise end up in landfills. The Wisconsin waste-to-energy plant burns wood waste in combination with refuse-derived fuel (RDF).

Xcel Energy owns and operates two nuclear power plants: and stores the spent fuel from these nuclear plants on site in independent spent fuel storage installations. (ISFSIs).
 * Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant near Monticello, Minnesota
 * Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota

System information and transmission
Xcel Energy operates the fourth largest transmission system in the United States, spanning 10 states. In 2011, Xcel Energy's transmission system was worth $3.3 billion.

The transmission system is operated on a non-discriminatory basis under the open access requirements of the Federal Government. This means that all wholesale buyers and sellers of electricity can use the transmission system under the same terms and conditions used to serve Xcel Energy's own retail customers. The transmission lines are utilized to carry 115,000 volts, 230,000 volts, and 345,000 volts. There is also a 500,000 volt transmission line that runs from the Dorsey Substation outside of Winnipeg, Manitoba in Canada to the Chisago Substation located in Chisago County just north of St. Paul, Minnesota.

Grid security
In 2017, Xcel Energy partnered with the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center to create a new "threat information sharing community" intended to share cyber and physical security intelligence with the energy sector. The new community is called the Energy Analytic Security Exchange (EASE). It is run by the FS-ISAC Sector Services team; FS-ISAC is an organization that gathers cyber and physical risk intelligence for the financial services industry. Additionally, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) manages the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which is another resource that the energy sector uses to gather threat intelligence.

Advanced Grid in Colorado
In 2016, Xcel Energy announced the Advanced Grid Intelligence and Security (AGIS) initiative, a long-term effort related to power reliability, distributed generation, and information sharing with customers. Through the initiative, Xcel would build an "intelligent grid" in Colorado in order to improve grid security. The company filed a request for permission with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission for the program, which would cost $500 million.

Programs
Since 1998, Xcel Energy's Windsource program has allowed customers to designate that part or all of their electricity comes from a renewable energy source. In 2015, about 96,000 people were enrolled in Windsource. In 2011, more than 2.3 million electric and 261,800 natural gas customers took part in Xcel Energy's energy efficiency programs for homes and businesses.

Xcel Energy also offers customers incentives to install solar panels. At the end of 2011, more than 10,600 photovoltaic systems had been installed, with a capacity of about 121 megawatts (DC). In early 2011, Xcel Energy suspended the solar rebate program before reaching a settlement a month later with representatives of solar power companies to restore the solar incentive program until it is fully reviewed by the Public Utilities Commission.

Controversies
On August 1, 2002, Xcel Energy Inc. was sued because of engaging in "round-trip" energy trades that provided no economic benefit for the company, and because the company lacked the necessary internal controls to adequately monitor the trading of its power. Xcel paid $80,000,000 in a settlement.

The Cabin Creek Fire occurred on October 2, 2007, at Xcel Energy's Hydropower Generation plant in Georgetown, Colorado. On June 1, 2011, Federal prosecutors opened their charges that Xcel Energy was criminally liable for the deaths of the five RPI workers. On June 28, the jury found Xcel Energy not guilty. On December 19, 2011, RPI Coating pleaded guilty to workplace safety violations and paid $1.55 million in a cash settlement. The company took responsibility for the deaths of five workers and the injuries to three. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board conducted an investigation of the incident. Its report can be found on the CSB website. It is considered one of the worst unmitigated incidents to occur in a permit-required confined space.

The parent company to Xcel Energy, and later Xcel Energy itself have operated the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant since 1973. Over that time, nuclear waste produced by the power plant has been stored adjacent to the Prairie Island Indian Community. The homes of some members of the community are within 600 yards of the nuclear waste containment site and, sitting within the banks of the Mississippi River, the island is very vulnerable to seasonal flooding. While in 1991, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission capped the storage of nuclear waste on the island to 17 casks, the legislature has since permitted this number to increase. Environmentalists and members of the Prairie Island Indian Community have been working since 1994 to have this nuclear waste transported away from their reservation due to the combined risk of the temporary design of the storage facility, unpredictable flooding and single evacuation road in the event nuclear waste is released from containment.

Xcel Energy faces more than 200 lawsuits filed by victims of the Marshall Fire, which started on December 30, 2021, Boulder County, and spread across Superior and Louisville counties in Colorado. Two people died and more than 1,000 homes and commercial properties were destroyed, resulting in more than $2 billion in property damage. It was the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history. The official investigation blamed the fire on a loose wire owned by Xcel and a week-old fire started by members of the Twelve Tribes that was smoldering.

Following the Smokehouse Creek Fire in the Texas Panhandle, which began February 26, 2024, Xcel Energy acknowledged that its facilities played a role in the ignition of the fire. The fire became the largest wildfire in Texas History, burning more than 1 million acres and resulting in at least two deaths and extensive property damage and livestock losses. An investigation by the Texas A&M Forest Service found that power lines ignited the fire.

title: Xcel Energy


text:
User:Sarnya

Travels
I enjoy spending my time travelling whenever I have saved up enough money, which is not too often.

 * May 2023: Montreal, Quebec City and Charlevoix, Quebec.
 * May 2019: Cancun, Mexico.
 * December 2018: Buffalo, New York.
 * August 2018: New York, New York.
 * April 2018: Cancun, Mexico.
 * December 2017: Buffalo, New York.
 * August 2017: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
 * April 2017: Montreal, Quebec.
 * February 2017: Cancun, Mexico.
 * July 2016: Waterbury, Vermont.
 * June 2016: Baltimore, Maryland.
 * May 2016: Ann Arbor, MI.
 * April 2016: Palm Springs, California, Los Angeles, and Encinitas, California.
 * May 2015: Cleveland, Ohio.
 * April 2015: Frankenmuth, Michigan.
 * October 2014: Sebastopol, California and San Francisco, California.
 * June 2014: New York, New York.
 * May 2014: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
 * March 2014: Greenville, South Carolina.
 * October 2013: Burlington, Vermont.
 * August 2013: New York City.
 * July 2013: Montreal, Quebec.
 * June 2013: Chicago, Illinois.
 * May 2013: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
 * April 2013: Cancun, Mexico.
 * December 2012: Detroit, Michigan.
 * October 2012: New York City.
 * September 2012: London, England and Paris, France.
 * November 2011: Cancun, Mexico.
 * July 2011: Montreal, Quebec.
 * November 2010: Santiago, Chile, Valparaiso, Chile, Vina del Mar, Chile, Mendoza, Argentina and Buenos Aires, Argentina.
 * October 2010: Boston, Massachusetts.
 * May 2010: New York City.
 * September 2009: New York City.
 * May 2009: Iceland.
 * December 2008: Guanacaste, Costa Rica.
 * October 2009 Montreal, Quebec.
 * December 2007: Las Vegas, Nevada.
 * September-October 2007: Frankfurt, Heidelberg, Munich, Berlin and London, England.
 * March-April 2007: Tokyo, Mt. Fuji and the Izu Peninsula.
 * December-January 2005/2006: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan via Greyhound from Toronto. It was a 45 hour bus trip but I enjoyed every minute of it.
 * December 2005: Las Vegas, Nevada and The Grand Canyon.
 * February 2005: Los Angeles, California, San Diego, California and Tijuana, Mexico.
 * February 2004: Washington DC and New York City, New York.

Concerts
I also enjoy going to concerts...Here's a list of all the ones I've been to the best I can remember.

 * July 2023: Weezer in Toronto.
 * May 2023: Blink 182 in Toronto.
 * December 2022: Arcade Fire in Toronto.
 * July 2022: Rage Against the Machine in Toronto.
 * June 2019: Vampire Weekend in Toronto.
 * May 2019: The Strokes in Toronto.
 * August 2018: The National in Toronto.
 * December 2017: The National in Toronto.
 * November 2017: Arcade Fire in Toronto.
 * February 2017 Japandroids in Toronto.
 * May 2015: Death Cab for Cutie in Toronto.
 * March 2015: Sleater-Kinney in Toronto.
 * March 2014: Arcade Fire in Toronto.
 * January 2014: Jay-Z in Toronto.
 * July 2013: Jay-Z and Justin Timberlake in Toronto.
 * May 2013: Vampire Weekend in Toronto.
 * December 2012: Alexisonfire in Toronto.
 * August 2012: Sigur Ros in Toronto.
 * September 2011: The Shins in Toronto.
 * July 2011: The Arkells in Muskoka, Ontario.
 * March 2011: Mark Kozelek in Toronto.
 * August 2010: Arcade Fire in Toronto.
 * August 2010: Interpol in Toronto.
 * June 2010: Arcade Fire in Toronto.
 * April 2010: Julian Casablancas in Toronto.
 * March 2010: Muse in Toronto.
 * January 2010: Basia Bulat in Toronto
 * October 2009: Metric in Toronto.
 * October 2009: Them Crooked Vultures in Toronto.
 * August 2009: Modest Mouse in Toronto.
 * June 2009: No Doubt and Paramore in Toronto.
 * May 2009: City and Colour in Toronto.
 * April 2009: Death Cab for Cutie in Toronto.
 * December 2008: Broken Social Scene in Toronto.
 * October 2008: The Smashing Pumpkins in Toronto.
 * August 2008: Eddie Vedder solo in Toronto.
 * August 2008: Mates of State in Toronto.
 * March 2008: Jose Gonzalez in Toronto.
 * February 2008: Angels and Airwaves in Toronto.
 * February 2008: Cat Power in Toronto.
 * September 2007: City and Colour in Toronto.
 * September 2007: Basia Bulat in Toronto.
 * July 2007: The White Stripes in Toronto.
 * June 2007: Interpol in Toronto.
 * May 2007: The Arcade Fire in Toronto.
 * May 2007: My Chemical Romance in Toronto.
 * April 2007: Modest Mouse in Toronto.
 * February 2007: Silverchair in Toronto.
 * October 2006: Death Cab for Cutie in Toronto.
 * September 2006: Mates of State in Toronto.
 * March 2006: Oasis in Toronto.
 * October 2005: Death Cab for Cutie in Toronto.
 * September 2005: The White Stripes in Detroit.
 * May 2005: Green Day in London, Ontario.
 * October 2004: The Von Bondies in London, On.
 * October 2004: Melissa Auf Der Maur in London, On.
 * September 2004: KMFDM in London, On.
 * September 2004: Billy Talent in London, On.
 * March 2004: Alexisonfire in London, On.
 * March 2004: Pilate in London, On.
 * July 2003: Matthew Good in Sarnia.
 * July 2003: Blink 182 in Sarnia.
 * July 2003: Sum 41 in Sarnia.
 * September 2002: Sloan in London, On.
 * July 2002: Our Lady Peace in Sarnia.
 * February 2002: Weezer, Saves the Day and Ozma in Hamilton, Ontario.
 * September 2001: Econoline Crush in London, On.
 * August 2001: The Tea Party in Sarnia.
 * July 2001: Collective Soul in Sarnia.
 * September 2000: Sleater-Kinney and The White Stripes in Toronto.
 * July 2000: Moist in Sarnia.
 * July 2000: Dave Matthews Band in Detroit.
 * May 2000: The Tea Party in Sarnia.
 * April 2000: The Smashing Pumpkins in Ann Arbor.
 * March 1999: Silverchair in Detroit.
 * June 1999: Ozzfest '99 - Black Sabbath, Rob Zombie, Deftones, Slayer, Primus Godsmack, System of a Down in Detroit.
 * February 1999: Black Sabbath, Pantera and The Deftones in Detroit.
 * September 1998: Limp Bizkit, Korn, Rammstein, Ice Cube and Orgy in Detroit.
 * March 1998: Mighty Mighty Bosstones in London, On.
 * November 1997: MXPX and The Get Up Kids in London, On.
 * May 1996: Marilyn Manson in Hamilton.

Favourite Quote
"It's not until you've lost everything are you free to do anything." - Fight Club.

title: User:Sarnya


text:
Hallett

Hallet may refer to:

Places

 * Cape Hallett, Northern Victoria Land, the location of a scientific base in Antarctica
 * Hallett, South Australia, Australia
 * Halletts Bay, on the eastern shore of Lake Taupo in New Zealand

United States

 * Hallett, Missouri
 * Hallett, Oklahoma
 * Hallett Nature Sanctuary, New York City, US
 * Hallett Peak, a mountain in Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park, USA

Other uses

 * Hallett (surname)

title: Hallett


text:
Halltown

Halltown may refer to:

 * Halltown, Alabama, USA
 * Halltown, Missouri, USA
 * Halltown, West Virginia, USA

title: Halltown


text:
Adalia

Adalia may refer to:

People with the surname

 * Khryss Adalia (1946–2008), Filipino film director

Other uses

 * The ancient name of Antalya, Turkey
 * "Adalia" (character), a fictional character in songs by Madina Lake
 * Adalia (genus), a genus of ladybirds in the family Coccinellidae

title: Adalia


text:
List of Indiana locations by per capita income

Indiana has the twenty-seventh highest per capita income in the United States of America, at $20,397 (2000). Its personal per capita income is $28,783 (2003).

Indiana counties ranked by per capita income
Note: Table data is from the 2010 United States Census Data and the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.


text:
Talk:Floor numbering

Untitled
So, what's the US convention on "Lower-ground floor" (LG)? In the UK, this is where there is something useful below the ground floor, e.g. an office lobby, a shopping area below ground level, etc. In many cases, there is a "basement" level below this.
 * I don't always pay much attention to this, but I think the U.S. analogue is "Lower level" (LL)--Pharos 20:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC).

 * In some places (ie. Carleton University, which has an underground tunnel system) the below-ground level is called the first floor, the ground level the second floor, and so on. Carleton is something of a special case (being fairly sloped, so that sometimes the tunnels open onto higher floors, even the fourth in one case), but the same scheme exists elsewhere, as noted in the article. Thus there's actually yet another method shifted by one from the typical North American numbering. - toh 21:53, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

 * This numbering (from 1, with the ground level usually being 2) seems to be common practice at universities, including in Australia (where we generally follow UK practice of G,1,2,3...). I imagine it's because the first digit of room numbers at universities tells you which floor the room is on. FiggyBee 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

American convention
I highly disagree with the assertion that the American convention is always to label the bottom floor as '1' rather than 'G'. I think at least half of the buildings here have a "ground" floor if not more, and I think the statements to the contrary throughout the article are a major issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.182.58 (talk • contribs)

I don't know if I agree with the above. But actually, I think the entire article blurs the distinction between floor numbering and elevator button labeling. --24.128.69.169 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

can remove chinese chars
Actually no need for chinese chars in this article.

Open question
Are there any buildings without any numbered floors? --84.61.9.161 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

14th floor in China
seems that 14th floors also tend to be omitted in China

Fire safety
Unusual floor numbering has occasional hampered fire fighting efforts. The article should mention this. 70.20.136.170 06:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof? — RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Floor numbering


text:
Northern States Power Company

Northern States Power Company was a publicly traded S&P 500 electric and natural gas utility holding company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that is now a subsidiary of Xcel Energy.

History
The company's founder, Henry Marison Byllesby, had worked for two electric utility industry pioneers before getting into the business for himself. He was one of Thomas Edison's draftsmen when the Pearl Street Station was being built. He then worked for George Westinghouse, starting as a sales agent and working his way up to vice president of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. Byllesby's next job was with the Thomson-Houston Co. (one of General Electric's two predecessors) before settling down in Chicago in 1902 and establishing the H. M. Byllesby Co., which provided engineering and management services to electric utilities.

Byllesby acquired the Stillwater Gas & Electric Co. of Stillwater, Minnesota in 1909, and reorganized it as the Washington County Light & Power Co. This was the first company added to Byllesby's Consumers Power Co., which then added three companies in North Dakota in 1910 (Minot Light & Telephone Co., Red River Power Co., and Union Light, Heatng, & Power Co.). Over the next few years, Consumers Power Co. grew rapidly as companies across the Twin Cities and central Minnesota were acquired and linked with transmission lines. These lines linked Minneapolis, St. Paul, Shakopee, Faribault, Mankato, Northfield, Coon Rapids, Rockford, Delano, Watertown, and even distant places such as Crookston and Pipestone. The last addition to the company's territory was when a group of towns around Waconia was acquired from Interstate Power Co. in 1956.

There may have been confusion with an unrelated company by the same name in Michigan, so in 1916, the company changed its name to Northern States Power Co. The company acquired the Minneapolis General Electric Co. the same year, and continued its acquisitions, with 42 more systems added over the next seven years. The company has always been publicly traded, and which consistently did well enough to pay a cash dividend to shareholders every year since 1910.

While the bulk of the company's territory has always been in Minnesota, it has some territory in and around the larger towns in North Dakota (Minot, Grand Forks, and Fargo) as well as southeastern South Dakota (Sioux Falls area). Its territory also extends east across Wisconsin and into the upper peninsula of Michigan, but due to state regulations requiring local ownership of all utilities, this portion of the territory is operated as a separate subsidiary: Northern States Power-Wisconsin.

To power this vast territory, the company built numerous power plants, many of which have long since been retired and decommissioned. Some capacity was extended withtransmission lines and substations. The currently operational nuclear power plants are Prairie Island (1974), and Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (1971). Sherburne County Generating Station (Sherco) and Allen S. King in Bayport are the last to be fueled by coal. Three other coal-fired plants, Riverside, High Bridge, and Black Dog, have been retrofitted to run on natural gas.

By 1986, the company had grown to be included among the S&P 500 list of 500 of the largest companies in the United States. By that time it had accumulated nearly $1.2 billion in long-term debt. NSP served the agriculturally based region of its headquarters state of Minnesota, and also the neighboring states of North Dakota and South Dakota to the west. These territories were served through its subsidiary, NSP-Minnesota.

Primergy merger
On May 3, 1995, Northern States Power Company and Wisconsin Energy Corporation each filed a Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-K to combine in a merger-of-equals transaction to form Primergy Corporation, which would be a registered public utility holding company, and to be the new parent of both NSP and of the operating subsidiaries of WEC. It would be the tenth largest investor-owned electric and gas utility company in the United States, based on market capitalization at that time of about US$6.0 billion, and with 1994 combined revenues of US$4.2 billion and with total assets of more than US$10.0 billion. Shareholders of NSP common stock would own 1.626 shares of stock of Primergy for each share of NSP stock they owned, and WEC shareholders were to receive one-for-one shares of Primergy.

At that time, Richard A. Abdoo, served as chairman, president and chief executive officer of Wisconsin Energy. James J. Howard served in the same positions with Northern States Power. With the new Primergy Corporation, Howard would become chairman and CEO, and Abdoo would serve as vice chairman, president and chief operating officer. Further, with Howard scheduled to retire in July 2000, Abdoo would then succeed him as chairman of Primergy.

Wisconsin Energy's two then-existing utility subsidiaries, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) and Wisconsin Natural Gas Company (WNG) were to be consolidated under a new subsidiary name, Wisconsin Energy Company. Under that name, it and Northern States Power Company would continue to operate as the two principal subsidiaries of Primergy Corp. Also, NSP-Wisconsin would merge into the operating subsidiary Wisconsin Energy Company. The headquarters of the two utilities would remain distinct and separate in their existing respective state locations--Milwaukee for Wisconsin Energy and Minneapolis for NSP. The merged company would have been headquartered in Minneapolis (with NSP as the nominal survivor), but incorporated in Wisconsin. The Primergy board of directors were to be equally split, composed of six from each company. The merger deal was expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of 1996.

By 1997, approvals had been granted by the state regulatory commissions in Michigan and North Dakota, but not by the commissions in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Approvals from the Securities & Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice were still pending. On May 16, 1997, both CEOs announced that the boards of directors of both companies had voted that day to terminate the merger plan. Howard stated that the problem was that the regulatory agencies were changing their merger policies as they were considering the companies' filing. In particular, Howard blamed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which had issued a decision earlier in the week remanding the case back to the companies, for further negotiation among themselves. "There is simply no end to this process in sight," stated Howard. Abdoo said the decision to end the merger factored in that after two years of already waiting, the further likely wait of at least six months of delay would significantly reduce the benefits of the Primergy transaction.

The delay had put the merger five months behind schedule and had reduced earnings for both utilities by a total of US$58 million to that point, costs which had not been passed on to consumers. Adding to the discomfort was a growing gap between the performance of the two companies by early 1997. Wisconsin Energy's stock had by then fallen about 13% since early 1995 when the deal had been announced, due to other ongoing problems that had developed within the company, including issues with its Point Beach Nuclear Generating Station in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. But Northern States Power's stock had risen by 6%. The case was considered to be a bellwether in the utilities industry, putting an end to the rapid pace of mergers and acquisitions that had been ongoing up to then.

Xcel merger
However, in 1998, after the failed Primergy merger, NSP merged with New Century Energies of Denver, owner of Public Service Company of Colorado and Southwestern Public Service, to form Xcel Energy.

Additional resources

 * The Historical Records of Northern States Power Company's predecessors are available for research use at the Minnesota Historical Society.

title: Northern States Power Company


text:
Talk:The Donnas

Cleanup
I cleaned up the article and removed the parts about the anti-Donnas club and the Donnas vs. Ragady Anne stunt. I couldn't think of a way to make it sound professional, and I believe that info is currently outside the scope of this article. DaveTheRed 01:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Albums
I added "EP" to the format of the Raggady Anne record so it is not assumed to be a single. I moved the self-titled Donnas album to the first position in the list of The Donnas' albums because it was the first one released, even if Lookout re-released it after they released American Teenage Rock 'n' Roll Machine. I corrected the record label that originally released the self-titled album. (Radio X and Super*Teem! were both imprints of Darin Raffaelli.)
 * Someone changed the year of Lookout's release of the self-titled album from 1998 to 1997; I corrected that. Is there a format to use to indicate that it was first released (on vinyl only) by Radio X in 1997 (I don't know where to find the exact date) and then re-released by Lookout (with bonus tracks) on the date now shown?

I see Spend the Night is now indicated as having gone gold. When was it certified gold? Citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.151.182 (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The RIAA's Web site indicates that it has not achieved Gold status, so I removed that notation. --anon.70.18.9.226 (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is missing their first three singles released on Super*Teem Records. An elementary review of the Lookout! reissue of the first album on CD will reveal this information. I don't own the 7"s, and I sold my copy of the LP because it was lucrative. I think all the information needed is in the liner notes of the CD. If I owned it I would add it myself. Also, I did not see mentioned that the original release of the LP came with a 20 page booklet/fanzine with all the lyrics of the first 3 Donnas 7"s and the first LP...all on Super*Teem. This is also reminds me that Darrin Rafaelli needs a wiki page of his own. Thanks for listening. --eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericapnea (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He has one at Darin Raffaelli. -- Amalthea Talk 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability
The piece doesn't seem to establish much notability Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 08:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? The article establishes that they've released six albums as well as the fact that their music has appeared in films, videogames, and commercials.  WP:BAND only requires the release of two albums.  ShadowHalo 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DonnasLogo.png
Image:DonnasLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Punk rock?
Just because they deny affiliation with the genre doesn't mean that The Donnas music doesn't fall into that category. I think it should be included in the genres, maybe with a note out to the side that they don't like that label. But, musically, that is the way to label them, and the purpose of this article is to provide information and look at things in a clinical manner.

 * The only Donnas album that can be classified as punk rock is the first one. The ones that followed are clearly hard rock in the same vein as AC/DC and KISS. I recall reading of a backlash from the punk rock community after the release of their second album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.133.65 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Disagree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.147.96 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * With which comment do you disagree? The first one or the response to it? --anon. 162.83.142.243 (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Don't you just love those kind? :) :) Sorta like if you asked someone, "Does the movie begin at 8 or at 9?" ..... and receive the answer of, "Yeah". :) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All-female?
Is it necessary to point out that they're all female? I mean... I guess the term all-female should be included at some point, but in its heading?

shut up, you know nothing about females. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommysproducts (talk • contribs) 17:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "all-male" for Incubus or Green Day or Goo Goo Dolls or any other all-male band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

 * No, nor does it say "all white" or "all non-blind". But all-women rock bands (sadly) remain enough the exception for that to be quite worth noting. - Jmabel | Talk 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all sections visible
Why aren't all the sections of the article visible? The discography and external links, for example, aren't visible, although they're there when one goes to edit this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.189.68 (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maya Ford redirect?
Just wondering why, rather than having no page at all, the page for Maya Ford redirects here?

Christopherbailey (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have unlinked Maya Ford, if that's what you mean. Maikel (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why have you unlinked Maya Ford? Now that is just bad, if you don't got a good reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.20.140 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't a Wikipedia article for Maya Ford. In my opinion, there shouldn't be an article for any of her bandmates, either. --anon. 141.149.53.97 (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the cleanup tag?
I have reviewed the page and I do not see how it violates quality standards. Maybe the listings do, but if so, only barely. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gold Medal CD/DVD Recall
I remember that shortly after the release of the "Gold Medal" CD only version, Atlantic also released a CD/DVD version which was soon recalled due to a technical error where the last track was not fully recorded on the CD. The original CD version was not effected by the recall. Don't know if this is worth mentioning. GaryZ45RPM (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wig Wam Bam lyrics
The lyrics sung to Wig-Wam Bam are radically unlike the Chapman-Chinn "Hiawatha and Minnehaha" version the Sweet recorded. Does anyone know (the internet in general doesn't seem to, as of today) who wrote the Donnas' "cream in my jeans" version, and why they aren't credited? I've heard in the past that it's simply not legal to "rewrite" songs if not parody or satire, and so everyone just pretends it didn't happen and stays happy, but that's just rumor. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.178.36 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

False Date
The main picture of the band says it was taken in 2005. If it was taken in 2005, why does it say "'98" on it?? 68.193.242.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Perhaps the photographer had neglected to set the correct date and time on his or her camera. --anon. 141.149.51.67 (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The image page now shows it was taken in November 2004. I will edit the caption in the infobox accordingly. 71.183.131.17 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Only Girl Band in Palo Alto? Nope, wrong.
This band was not the only girl band in their hometown of Palo Alto when they started (the Article is wrong on this). Another band of girls the very same age played shows in Palo Alto under the name "Pussy Mansion". They also had a decent amount of press at the time, even being featured in Vogue Magazine. Here is one article on the other girl band (will look for more before updating): http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Girls-Aloud-Who-says-having-a-garage-band-is-a-3021396.php Dogtownclown (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated the article accordingly a few days ago. Dogtownclown (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fact or opinion.
"Despite their lack of recent activity, The Donnas remain one of the most popular female bands of all time". Unless they asked every single person in the world this poll is going to be opinion & not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.113.179 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Donnas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071030032253/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/artists/thedonnas/biography to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thedonnas/biography

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Donnas. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429010529/http://www.thedonnas.com:80/ to http://www.thedonnas.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Donnas


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrotum head

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scrotum head
Proposed for speedy but not a candidate, I'm bumping it to VfD. I didn't research it and am not voting. -- Curps 01:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, not notable, band promo. Megan1967 02:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's incredible how these bands keep "pushing boundaries" and "defining the genre" daily. --Sn0wflake 04:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and re-define for describing Zionists, Nazis, and other racists.
 * Delete--ZayZayEM 04:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. BenSamples 06:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Band vanity. jni 07:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 20:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --BM 20:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 20:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Scrotum Head article has "pushed the boundaries" and is "beginning to expand in new forms of" self-promotion and vanity. Zzyzx11 00:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * delete Yuckfoo 03:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Smeghead. Mixed 03:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. author has removed any attempts of advertisment
 * Keep. doesn't look too bad
 * Keep.


text:
Gülseren

Gülseren Yıldırım (born 1973) is a Turkish-French singer, whose output covers a wide range of genres, including pop, Latin, techno, and traditional Turkish music. Despite having lived in France for most of her life, she was selected to represent the country of her birth in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005, held in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Early life
She was born in Istanbul, Turkey. Having moved to Paris at the age of seven, Gülseren took a number of steps as the years progressed to remain engaged with her Turkish background. She studied at the French university INALCO, which specialises in Eastern culture, and she also gave Turkish language lessons to Parisian children.

Musical career
Between 1997 and 1999, she forged her experience as a singer by giving nightly performances at the Parisian cabaret venue "Les Trois Mailletz", which showcases jazz and world music. She also performed in venues across Europe, in particular returning to Turkey on many occasions.

Gülseren tried her hand at acting when she played herself in the made-for-television Dutch film Roos and Rana, which hit screens in April 2001. The film focused on the relationship between two girls, one Dutch and the other Turkish, and how it impacts upon their families.

In early 2005, Gülseren threw her hat in the ring in the competition to represent Turkey at the Eurovision Song Contest. After tentative plans for a public televote were dropped, the selection of the country's Eurovision entry instead rested with a seventeen-strong jury, for whom Gülseren's performance of "Rimi Rimi Ley" proved to be the decisive favourite. The song was uncompromisingly faithful to Turkish musical traditions – somewhat in contrast to the country's entries in 2003 and especially 2004 – and was criticised by 2003 Eurovision winner Sertab Erener for lacking the broad international appeal necessary to achieve a good result. However, it can also be seen as a response to the result of the 2004 contest, in which identifiably 'ethnic' songs, including the Serbia and Montenegro entry, proved to be successful vote-grabbers.

Due to the placing of Turkey's 2004 representatives Athena on home soil in Istanbul, Gülseren had the fortune of being immune from the tough battle to avoid elimination at the semi-final stage on 19 May, and instead qualified directly for the grand final on 21 May in which she finished 13th with 92 points. Turkey participated in the semi-final of the 2006 contest in Greece after finishing 13th in the 2005 contest.

title: Gülseren