text:
Talk:Max Reger

Untitled
His students also included the composer Johanna Senfter. By the way, in my edit note I meant the Jecklin recording of the 8th and 9th violin sonatas - the Koch Schwann recording is of the 4th and 5th string quartets, the latter of which is practically contemporary with, and shares at least one theme with, the 8th sonata. (Unsurprisingly both were premiered in 1911.) Schissel : bowl listen 13:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The trivia I added is not fictitious; instead of deleting it, it would be rather helpful and friendly if someone would improve its style (of course it can be deleted if it is really irrelevant). Among my sources are an old German encyclopedia on famous people, the German Wikipedia and several German sites dealing with classical music- the anecdote is quite famous in Germany. It is said that Reger's humour was quite peculiar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.254.157.220 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Theme music
Was Reger's Toccata for organ op. 59 no.5 used in the movie the Godfather when Micheal Corleon sends the hits on the rival mob bosses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.192.104 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
It's not needed here, redundant, clutters the edit window, cramps the text. Hasn't their function been supplanted by Wikidata? Rationale for inclusion seems rather like WP:OWN, no other reason given. Edit summary could have been stated with more clarity. Ewulp (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 * You may want to consider Beethoven where an infobox was added after reaching community consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The rationale for inclusion was, on 9 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 * This infobox looks handy to me. WData is excellent, and helps unify all appearances of a datum – across iboxes, lede sections, and body text [and across multiple articles].  But it says nothing about what makes for useful presentation of data to readers.  There's a fair argument to be had about where an ibox helps and what to include in them (in general, on some meta-ibox thread); and editors of a specific article can discuss it in context.  Is there any special reason why this one would be controversial? –  SJ  +  15:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This section trying to focus on this infobox in this article
It won't surprise you to learn, Gerda, but I too think that this box is rather pointless. When done correctly, infoboxes work well, this is not the case here as the information is sparse and uninformative. All of this information can be found within the lead section and we should rely on correctly written prose rather than bulleted, factoidial lists. It makes us look more professional giving this information in prose form; this kind of IB makes us look amateurish. I do hope this can be rectified soon, as I'm all infoboxed out at the moment.  Cassianto Talk   07:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that we don't need another copy of the same general arguments, which the arbitration case urged us to avoid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Echoing what Cassianto said " all infoboxed out at the moment. " This repeat scenario has really got to stop. There's a new infobox dispute practically every day now, and it's very time consuming to have to deal with. If 1/10 the time went into expanding stubs instead...♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As Gerda has been expanding this article for some time, that doesn't seem to apply... – SJ  +  15:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I refer to a comment Ian Rose made a while ago: "I'd note further that when MOS is equivocal on a requirement, it's common practice for the main editors' preference to be respected." (Laurence Olivier talk, 23 January 2015)- How about that respect (which is not ownership) in both directions? In this case, I expanded the article, am willing to expand it further, wrote more articles on the composers works than anybody else so far, and would like to see an infobox: structured information, serving people not so good in English, among others. I am one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument is made that a person for whom English is a second language may have difficulty gleaning key biographical facts from the lede sentences of a Wikipedia article. I wanted to test this, so I visited German Wikipedia, where few biographical articles have infoboxes. I know almost no German. I wanted to look at an article about somebody I've never heard of, and randomly selected Gustav Knuth. Quickly scanning the article's lede sentence, I understood his dates of birth and death, places of birth and death, that he was an actor, and that he did something notable after WWII involving Switzerland. Then I navigated to the English Wikipedia article on Knuth, and looked only at the infobox, which has the same information, plus some disinformation: The "years active" dates (1935–1982) are badly wrong; a little research reveals that he acted on stage from 1918. Verdict: I learned more that was useful and accurate from the German lede than from the English infobox—and it was easy and quick.

 * For a second trial, I went back to German Wikipedia and randomly selected the Mike Williams article (I did not know who he is). All the essentials are in the lede: Michael D. Williams was born April 14, 1968 in High Point, N.C.; he's known as Mike Williams or Mike IX or Mike IX Williams; he's an American singer, music journalist, and author; he was in the popular 1990s Sludge band EyeHateGod. He has worked on various music related projects including the New Yorker Extreme-Metal-Magazine Metal Maniacs. That's what I learned in 20 seconds of reading in a language I do not understand. Then I navigated to the English article to look at the infobox. It apparently gets his birth name wrong; it says he was born in High Point, N.C. but also says his "origin" is New Orleans—what does that mean?? His listed musical genres are sludge metal and five additional genres, including at least two (doom metal and blues) that are not mentioned in the text of the article, nor are they sourced. His instruments are said to be vocals and synth, although synth is unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. Once again, the infobox delivered some highly structured disinformation, and I think I learned more from the German lede.

 * Sorry to go off-topic (this should be about Reger) but the often-repeated argument that infoboxes serve readers who are not proficient in English has never seemed plausible to me, and this test has done nothing to change my mind. Gerda, you read and write English well enough to contribute very effectively and prolifically here; I can not write even one sentence in German, yet I had no trouble at all finding the key information in the lede sentences of those articles.

 * I note that the German Wikipedia article on Reger has no infobox. No German Wikipedia biographical articles I've checked have them, except in a few appropriate categories (e.g. sports figures, where the boxes are a fine solution to the problem of presenting a great mass of statistics in a concise format). I looked at some talk pages, and didn't see any infobox wars raging. Gerda, you may be in a position to answer a question I've wondered about: How has German Wikipedia dealt with the infobox issue? Ewulp (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 * The only sentence I know in German is .  Cassianto Talk   11:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I know only my ever repeated: "Some love them, some hate them, I just find just them useful." (I thought differently in 2012, as you can see on the talk of Samuel Barber.) Thank you for your effort, Ewulp, but this is the English Wikipedia, Reger in a line with Shakespeare, Michelangelo and Kafka, and Beethoven, as mentioned above. So many words about so little ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Reger in a line with Shakespeare, Michelangelo and Kafka, and Beethoven" is the reason for an infobox? So few words about even less. It would advance this discussion if you would please respond to a question I asked in all earnestness: Why does German Wikipedia not suffer from these time-wasting infobox disputes? Do you know anything about this? They seem to have a sensible policy—is it a policy? Ewulp (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't know the German Wikipedia. I had all the infobox discussions I needed for life and a few more, sorry. The ones I like to remember about composers: Robert Stoepel (2013), Ludwig van Beethoven (2015), Peter Maxwell Davies (2016). I will never convince you by argument, and you will never convince me by argument, so why not stop arguing and let people add an infobox (as long as it's not incorrect) if they like it, and others leave an article without it, if they like it. I just mentioned this discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no equivalence between the liberty to "add an infobox" or "leave an article without it". What about removing infoboxes? Editors who don't like infoboxes, and who remove them from articles—even when they're the main contributor—are not left in peace, as those who add them expect to be. Most of us don't dare ever make such an edit. Ewulp (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right, Ewulp. In fact, I'd happily spend the rest of the day providing diffs to evidence this; but the weather is far too nice.  Two recent displays of disgusting behaviour can be found here and here, where the author has worked extremely hard to research and write the article up to FA standard, only to have it all ruined by a group of people who couldn't care less about writing decent content.   Cassianto Talk   10:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I could give you examples of how they got their will, such as the Frank Sinatra compromise, but the weather is too nice. Why are these comments under "this article"? - First to remove an infobox, then to start a discussion, and then to mention time-wasting seems a bit strange to me. Ewulp, you could have just left it in peace. - I don't particularly like the "common practice" of main editors (see Laurence Olivier, where the main editors had an infobox for years, until new main editors came and removed it, which I and others found questionable, - I think removing something that others created is different from adding something that might help others - even if only a few others), but as long as that practice is common, it should at least work both ways. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ibox removal is not common. You've mentioned two examples, one of which is a compromise, not a removal. So you've named *one* example that happened a year-and-a-half ago. I have removed only a single infobox from a single article this year (Reger, and I was instantly reverted by you). On the other hand, drive-by adding of infoboxes is very common. In only the last seven days, you have added infoboxes to Elisabetta, regina d'Inghilterra, Othello, La Cenerentola, Semiramide, Mos in Egitto, and Death in Venice. Five of these six are articles you have not previously edited. There seems to be an assumption that if an article is missing an infobox it must be because the main editors forgot to add it or was too tired, not that the main editors thought it better not to have one. "Removing something that others created" is pretty trivial when the thing created is an infobox; they take seconds to make. I've made them myself for articles (e.g., Interior (Degas)) where I thought they would do little harm and perhaps some good. It was easy; so easy that an editor could tag hundreds of articles in a single afternoon. And some do. Keeping infoboxes out of articles is much, much more effort than adding them. That's why so few editors do it, and are so seldom successful.
 * Finally, the reason I started a discussion is because you reverted my edit, and we have a rule that calls for discussion rather than edit warring. You could have just left the edit in peace... Ewulp (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I add infoboxes to operas, because I love them (operas, I mean) and the project is open to them, actually introduced them in 2013, to be used. Compare the clarifying discussion on the project talk. The infobox replaces the same content in a navbox. - I don't add drive-by, but systematically, as Viva-Verdi added to all operas by Verdi. Long live his memory. - Yours is another comment that seems to belong under a different header. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It belongs under your comment about Sinatra and Olivier. But this is the only header we have. Ewulp (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We were discussing Sinatra and Olivier, because two examples were introduced where a "group" of people allegedly displayed "disgusting behaviour": Catherine Zeta-Jones and Josephine Butler. The weather is still (too) nice, but I object to the view that a "group" was active. I commented (because they are two more examples of where new main editors removed what others had created before them) but spoke only for myself. See if it was disgusting, - if yes I will modify. I can't help that other users arrive at similar looks on the topic of the removals, - that doesn't make us protesters a "group". - I changed the header, to "trying to focus ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ps: In the case of Butler, the new main author, who reverted the infobox (that was there for years) six times in three weeks (reverting four different people), only plans to expand to FA, while I waited here until I expanded at least a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerda, Is there a reason why you keep quoting my use of the words "weather far too nice" and "disgusting behaviour"? Do you not think it's disgusting to destroy a FAC and to then deprive a nicely written article the chance to achieve FA status and for its author not to be rewarded for all their hard work and research? I do, and so would millions of other people. Also, why don't you answer Ewulp's point: .  The pro-infobox crowd have a canny knack to not actually answer the points raised and instead, steer the discussion around to what a travesty it is for the project and to those who rely on metadata blah, blah, blah...   Cassianto Talk   09:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't describe anybody's actions as disgusting, so need quote marks. - I just factually say that an infobox was reverted six times, reverting four different people. - I don't think a FAC can be "destroyed". I didn't take part in the FAC, didn't watch it, leave it to others to evaluate. I only commented the removal of the infobox on the article talk. I told the main author to try again, their talk. - To Ewulp's point: I add infoboxes in the good faith that they improve the quality of an article, even if the main editor(s) may not think so, therefore I say "try" infobox, following (from the opera discussion) "it's bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time to start a talk page discussion before adding any infobox anywhere on Wikipedia." - Only two of the infoboxes I added in 2016 were reverted, the others were accepted. - The concept "pro-infobox crowd" is wrong. How many times do I have to say that I speak only for myself, but can't help if others share my view? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the FAC can be destroyed; and it has been, systematically, with each and every pro-infobox comment. unfortunately for and his pals, the nominator is the only one who can ever take it to FAC in the future as it is he who has done all the work on it. Personally, I would consider you to be one of the key members of the "pro-infobox crowd":  you are a supporter of infoboxes, as evidenced pretty much everywhere where there has been an infobox discussion, and you were among a group of people who you admit "share[d] your view". If that doesn't make you a member of such a group I don't know what does. Anyway, that's not for here and this'll be my last comment on the matter.   Cassianto Talk   11:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I have a language problem, - I am in the (large) group of people who think infoboxes are useful (probably the majority of Wikipedia editors), yes, but I am in no "crowd" (sounds negative to me, sorry), and certainly not in any group having to do with the withdrawal of the FAC at which I didn't even look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe the problem to be the cause of a language barrier; I think it has more to do with the fact that you don't want to recognise a fact when you see one. You clearly know what I mean when I lump you in with a crowd as you've admitted to being in a "(large) group of people who think infoboxes are useful". The crowd I'm likening you to be a member of is the same group of people.  And for group/crowd, they are essentially the same thing. The disruption at the talk page caused the editor to throw the towel in, and frankly,  I don't blame him.   Cassianto Talk   14:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the logic by which you seem to hold anybody who supports infoboxes for the withdrawal of the FAC. It seems particularly unfair to the editor who supported to restore the infobox but also supported the FAC. I caused no disruption on the talk, and seem to be the only one of those who commented in the talk interested in the Reger article. I'd urge you to differentiate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you think an FAC is the best time to hold an !vote? I would counter that and say that it was the most inappropriate time to hold one. I also wasn't born yesterday; it was designed to introduce 1:e to the nomination but the plan was  thwarted by the nominator who withdrew it before such flags were waved; not by you, but there were others there who would have done it. There is certainly a time and a place for such discussions and that was not it. I'm also not convinced by your attempt to turn Moxy into a saint; he was chief disruptor, so I'm not at all ashamed with how I've spoken to him.  I'm also not fooled by his support at FAC, frankly. I refuse to fall out with you over this, Gerda.  My problem is not with you but with the whole idea that people think they can just suddenly turn up to ruin all the hard work of others under the premise that they are there to "aid the reader".  Enough space has been taken up with this here now.  After all, this isn't the correct place to be holding this discussion.    Cassianto Talk   19:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (after rehearsal of inspiring music): "Perhaps you think an FAC is the best time to hold an !vote?" - No, I don't think so. I think a FAC is not the right time to remove an infobox. Keep the two topics separate if you want to avoid what you call "ruin". (Or just don't remove it at all. You know how you can opt out out to even see one, if it bothers you so much.) Do you remember Michael Hordern? I promised you not to speak up, but also that I would not look away the next time I noticed a longstanding infobox removed. It happened to be the actress, - I didn't even notice there was also a FAC. Back to music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I got pinged ..have no clue who this article is about thus have no comment on any box. As for what happened at "Featured article candidates/Catherine Zeta-Jones" all could have been avoided if one person did not get involved and give bad advice  that put the main FA contributor on the wrong path... all would have went well if that one editors was not  there  to begin with. What has to be looked at is the actions that lead to  overall problems.....was it worth not having an FA article because of a box....I think not....all are aware of the problems so why go out of your way to cause problems like this is beyond me.-- Moxy (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Another mind-boggling attack on a fine and stable article for no apparent reason. Since Cassianto invited me here with a ping, let me just comment that the topic on this article is again a no-brainer. Gerda has spent six years working on the bio and is a main editor who took it from a bare stub to a readable and informative biography. She added nearly 8,000 bytes of detail, or nearly 1,500 words of text and citations. Then two editors out of the blue attack the infobox. Ewulp has contributed nearly zilch, equal to 13 bytes, a few words. Cassianto and Blofeld have added absolutely nichts, nothing. Dr. Blofeld, who was one of the key editors on other bios, such as Sean Connery, Maureen O'Hara and Carole Lombard has no problem with their infoboxes. So why do a drive-by attack on this one? --Light show (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't invite you anywhere, Light show. I pinged you as I don't talk behind people's backs. I don't enjoy conversing with you; frankly, I'd rather stick forks in my eyes.   Cassianto Talk   19:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Answer specific questions

 * "It's not needed here, redundant, clutters the edit window, cramps the text." (Ewulp, the beginning above)
 * No infobox is needed. (No image is needed. No table is needed. No map is needed. They are all roads to access the information better and in different ways than plain prose. They are all additions, taking nothing away.)
 * Every infobox is redundant, by definition.
 * "Clutters the edit window, cramps the text": your perspective. For me, it offers a welcome structured approach: structured content and structured display. (I see all infoboxes with nicely rounded corners, btw. Copy table.infobox {border-radius:16px;} to your common.css if you want to see the same. If you don't want to see them opt them out, ask RexxS.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I am bothered by the ibox in this article not because I see it, but because I don't think it serves the reader well to load the top of the article with redundancies. If redundancy is as desirable and as unobjectionable as you suggest, wouldn't a second identical infobox alongside the first one would be twice as beneficial? Three would be better still. Imagine eliminating all the prose from this article, and replacing it with one long infobox filled with nothing but attribute-value pairs. Imagine a 300-page biography in infobox form. Trying to "read" such a thing would be painful and unenlightening, or do you disagree?

 * When we want somebody to understand something, we usually use sentences. All day long we communicate using sentences; it's natural. You mention images and tables—a picture can display in an instant a detailed scene not easily expressed by words; a table can organize data usefully. But when images and tables are judged to be merely redundant, they often get deleted from articles. Lemon provides an example. Incidentally, I like the infobox in that article. An infobox can provide the taxonomy of a lemon. But an infobox cannot tell you very much about Max Reger, and what it can tell you is already in the lede, where it is more easily read. This is because the structure of the lede sentence in a Wikipedia biographical article is structured and predictable: The position of words in the sentence clarifies meaning for those who are not skillful in English. Unfamiliar words rattling around in a box are merely puzzling. The ibox slows down the more skillful reader, who finds only the same information twice, a waste of time. It also introduces ambiguity and miscomprehension: The lede says very plainly that Reger was "a professor at the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig"; the ibox only identifies the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig as an "Organization" related somehow to Reger. Perhaps the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig is a music school he founded, or a greenhouse where his modern fan club meets. If this infobox has value that outweighs the nuisance it creates, it has not been revealed here. Ewulp (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for a well-phrased thoughtful response. Identical infoboxes, interesting idea, - how about identical images ;) - Thank you for amusing me! - You say: "a table can organize data usefully", - I say: an infobox can organize data usefully. An infobox can also do that predictably, while the lead is free. The lead - per MoS - should not contain places of birth and death, - someone looking for that will get faster to the information in the box. - The infobox could mention "professor", - or could mention no organization, - parameter questions are different questions. - Did you know that the Italian Wikipedia has no infobox for people but a template for the biographical data that translates to a lead sentence, see it:Maria Carbone? That would be an alternative, but I find the box more attractive, and a lead governed by a template would be rigid. Therefore I'd prefer to keep two things separate: the predictable structure of core information in the box, and the nuanced flow of a lead, as two ways of access to the same information, serving readers with different needs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Regarding the value of infoboxes to various audiences: reusers of articles tend to find them extremely useful. The value is partly a concise display format; and partly having basic details about a topic (here: biography) organized in comparable ways across thousands of people.  Mobile displays can easily offer a separate "infobox" section for those who want such a view.
 * I wonder if one type of solution (generally) would be to make them easy to collapse and make invisible for those who don't want to see them. –  SJ  +  15:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This section for improving the article
Instead of more words above: The article is mediocre, still, and would profit of improvement. More than hundred of Reger's compositions don't have an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it later.  Cassianto Talk   11:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Recipe for a stub on a Reger composition:
 * Go to Max Reger works and pick one. You will normally find two sources there to begin with, a free score and the link to the Max-Reger-Institut coverage.
 * Follow example Geistliche Gesänge, Op. 110 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Link the article where mentioned, perhaps even create new links (in the genre, for performers etc.). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Better example: Vier Tondichtungen nach A. Böcklin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources, quoted from my talk page
I found a lot of books about him at the Internet Archive. All are from before 1923, so they're considered to be public domain in the US. Some of the books are set in script type. I've skimmed them and they look like they would be good material. There are a lot of photos in them-his parents and childhood home, his wife and children and even a death photo of him. Using photos from them, I'd suggest they be uploaded here at WP with a Pre-1923-abroad license, since they may not be in the public domain elsewhere. The books can be downloaded from the Internet Archive in PDF format.

 * Max Reger : Abriss seines Lebens und Analyse seiner Werke 1922
 * Max Reger und Karl Straube 1907
 * Max Reger; Darstellung seines Lebens, Wesens und Schaffens 1921
 * Max Reger 1921
 * Max Reger; eine Studie über moderne Musik, mit einem Bildnis und vielen Notenbeispielen 1911 We hope (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I place it here, because I will archive soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A proposal has been initiated to merge List of works by Max Reger into List of compositions by Max Reger
A proposal has been initiated to merge List of works by Max Reger into List of compositions by Max Reger. The merge proposal discussion is at Talk:List of compositions by Max Reger. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Works section
The entire (now shorter) first paragraph of the Works section is unsourced and includes unsupported subjective language -- "enormous", "well known" and "Many of his works" -- all more dubious than the wording, now removed, about his relative prominence during his lifetime and the greatly diminished public performance of his work in more recent years. As my edit summary stated, I think that a reference is not urgently required to state that his work is less performed in public recently. The Schoenberg reference is not a peer reviewed statistical study, but it does reflect reality from the point of view of a writer who was well aware of what was being performed at that time. It's generally sufficient for an uncontroversial statement.

At any rate, I'm inclined to remove the short first paragraph, given the discomfort with it, and perhaps we should start from scratch on the beginning of that section?  SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Go ahead. - I felt uneasy about the phrasing, but am always reluctant to delete the efforts of others, - silently hoping the same will be done to mine ;) - I made Reger works, and hope that will be read, not the little prose bit which will always be selective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Gerda. Frankly, for our readers who know little of Reger, the old text -- including the parts that offended another editor recently, gives them good information. It's not up to academic standards, but we could tag with better source needed or similar improvement tags. I don't think we should descend into idle concert program notes chatter, but on the other hand we shouldn't remove context that's correct but not precise.  Thanks for your reply.  SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate these tags, which discredit the information in the eye of the reader. What can we do? - I "dissolved" the cne for the premiere in Breslau, easily, such a well-known fact. But as when exactly Reger wasn't fashionable any more, I have little interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We know he was mainstream during his lifetime. We know he was little-performed anywhere in the world as of post-WW2. Regardless of the detail or even whether that is a useful narrative, we know that it is true. I think it's pointless to nitpick over whether there's a peer-reviewed academic study of the matter. I agree it is not worth the battle it's apparently raised.  SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not call it a battle. The tags appeared today, and perhaps Jerome has a solution. I have no time to dig into performance history of Reger's works, but dislike tags enough to rather say nothing than something discrediting ("failed verificaion"). He studied close to where I live, therefore interest is probably higher than elsewhere. This years Winterspiele were supposed to be crowned by the Breslau piece, but it didn't happen, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well jumping to tags and denigration of adequate though not perfect sourcing like the NY Times article is battle, but you and I are pacifists. Yes maybe there will be some constructive progress. Otherwise, we can just blow it up and work on more substantive article content. Regards.  SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On Bach's birthday, I work on BWV 227, and first of all, I'll take in some fresh air ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfect. We still have fresh air! <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to provoke such a storm in a teapot! If it makes any difference, my curiosity was drawn to Kosboot's deletion of "unsupported opinion", and SPECIFICO's subsequent restoration of the claim, "with a reference". When I checked the reference, I could not find anything in it that even remotely touched on the recent performance history of Reger's music, so I tagged the reference as failing to verify the claim. I really have no idea whether performers' interest in Reger's music has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same since the beginning of the present century. It is almost certainly true that it has not been as high as during the composer's lifetime, but that is more than a hundred years of history now. I first got to know Reger's music in the 1960s, and he was certainly not as often-performed then as, say, Brahms (my direct comparisons being the clarinet quintets and sonatas). Since the late 1980s I have observed a general increase of interest in the lesser masters of the late-19th and early 20th century. Some cases (Alexander Zemlinsky, for example) have amounted to wholesale resurrection of the reputation of almost entirely forgotten names. Even if Reger might be among those, my generalization is only a personal feeling, far from a reliable source. I am interested in seeing some real data, or at least respectable, well-informed opinion on the matter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well snarky summaries and tags rarely support any constructive mode of collaboration. That unsourced text you seized on did not say that the number of performances has declined during any recent period of time. Rather it made the WP:SKYBLUE statement that he's less performed/known now than during his lifetime. It sounds as if you agree with that. Now, my impression is that he's a bit more often performed in the most recent 30 years than the preceding 30 years, in part -- as stated in as what you scornfully called a critic's opinion -- due to the performances of the Serkins and the larger American chamber music circle around them. At any rate, the part that you picked at/on is not perfectly sourced, but it is uncontroversial and better-sourced than the program-note chitchat about "enormous output" etc.  As I said, given the high standard you set, I was about to remove that whole first paragraph. I'll leave it to you to look back and maybe improve the whole thing. No harm done either way. Thanks for your reply. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I shall do my best to avoid snarkiness (I thought I already had done, but apparently not). The text that Kosboot seized on (and which for that reason caught my attention) was "Few of his compositions are well known in the 21st century". No doubt this should have continued "in comparison with his own lifetime", though that in turn would leave a question-mark over the 84 intervening years. Personally, I would be happier with a more general statement about the decline in prominence of his work after his death, rather than pinning things directly to the 21st century but, in general, yes of course I agree with you. Those "program chit-chats" to which you refer often include bold but unsupported claims about this or that neglected composer making a triumphant comeback in recent years. More often than not, this means that there has now at last been a single performance of one of the composer's works, whereas there had been none at all for over forty years. "Well known" is a relative term, of course. A few years ago, on one of the Google Groups, there was a silly proposal to measure the fame of "classical" composers according to the number of recordings found on the ArkivMusic sales site. The winner, of course, was not Bach, or Beethoven, or Vivaldi, but Franz Xaver Gruber. I believe that Gruber has now been demoted to some extra-classical category, but the serious issue is: how can we objectively determine "well-known-ness"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say, for that particular subject - "less known than in his lifetime"- that if we all know it's true we can safely put it in the article. Some reasonably credible source will have said it and we can hope an editor will find a good source. Schoenberg is OK for that casual statement, and it's still informative. The program notes part that I think is more of a problem is "enormous output" or "best known" or similar writing. That's not really descriptive, just enthusiastic hand-waving. This article is pretty sparse and not bad for what it is. There are other music articles that have outright nonsense in them, like the Alfred Brendel article that tells readers he's been picked the "8th greatest pianist of all time." That bit was fiercely defended when I raised concerns on the talk page some years back. I don't have access to the rest of that Musical Quarterly issue on Reger. Maybe there's some good material to be found there. Zemlinsky was beneath obscure 40 years ago, and now is at least a recognizable name to many listeners, so he really made a comeback. Reger is interesting partly because he and much of his music is so weird and worthwhile at the same time. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I just revisited the Clarinet Quintet, after a long absence. "Weird and worthwhile" certainly fits. I may have access to that Musical Quarterly issue. I shall see what I can discover. Thanks for rekindling my interest in Reger.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to be snarky but simply use the tools that the majority of editors on WP use. It's so easy to read and think in terms of the prose one finds on liner notes and programs, e.g. "Not heard as much," "gone through a period of decline," "more popular than x since the 1930s" etc. To me it's all unsupported literary prose.  It's also very unnecessary in WP unless one is writing reception history. Just say what the works are and leave it at that - that's my attitude.  I've been on the music scene since the early 1970s and I don't recall Reger ever being neglected.  It could be that certain performers promulgated him more than others and once those artists were off the scene, the perception might appear as if he's gone in decline.  But unless you can find an authoritative source to support that, there's no reason to say it at all.  Stick with facts. - kosboot (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Snark was not about you. But there is now a reasonably good source, the Harold Schoenberg article, about Reger's relative obscurity. I don't know what scene you inhabit, but if you live in a place where Reger has consistently in the public eye with frequent performances, that's a very unusual zipcode. The performers cited in the Schoenberg article were virtually the only ones programming his work at the time of that article. As a result of their performances and recordings, the frequency has increased, not decreased, since then. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't disagree with you about Reger. But I want to put before you the example of Mahler.  Mahler went through a big resurgence in the 1960s U.S. mainly due to Bernstein - at least that's how program notes state it.  You can find examples of prose saying that he was neglected and only resurrected because of Bernstein. Of course that's nonsense; Mitropoulos and Walter were programming him with regularity. In fact, I think from 1920 to the present there was not a NY Philharmonic season that didn't have some Mahler on it.  This is an example of very typical music promotion: that to raise the profile of a performer, publicity states that he/she was the first, or the most, or championed, etc. etc. So I'm always wary of such statements unless they're backed up by solid hard facts. In general I think it's better to eschew such prose altogether (although I see the NY Philharmonic did not program Reger very much in the 1940s and 1950s.) - kosboot (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right about Mahler. But of course Bernstein may have thought he was Mahler so there's that.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Max Reger


text:
User talk:Lichtkind

= Perl Main Article =

Thanks for your note. I do not like the Perl article on the English Wikipedia. I think it is disorganized and unprofessional. It seems to me it would be best to throw it away and start over. I have never done this because I didn't want to put in the effort required to do a good job. -- Dominus 13:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Lichtkind


text:
Talk:Gnutella2

The introduction of 'Gnutella 2' didn't cause a "shism"
It created aversion against Mike, who had without any discussion with other Gnutella developers grabbed the gnutella2.com domain name and started on his own to create an incompatible protocol whoose name sounded like it was a followup on Gnutella.

So I'd replace "shism" with "aversion", as shism suggests the Gnutella developers where split by "Gnutella 2", which casts them into a light which is just plain wrong. Most Gnutella developers where very much united in being pissed that one single individual suddenly claimed the rights to the name "Gnutella 2". - ArneBab 6. August 2008

Removed snippet
I removed the snippet posted below.

Reason: very much biased style.

It cites one singe developer as "developers who have come after the flame war" and follows up with "still maintain ... (GGEP) allows for" which suggests that GGEP doesn't allow for flexible additions, while the cited developer just said "it's cleaner with Gnutella 2".

 * While developers who have come after the flame war have said that this feature makes it much easier to code a client for Gnutella2 than Gnutella, Gnutella developers still maintain that the Generic Gnutella Extension Protocol (GGEP) allows for flexible additions to the Gnutella 0.6 protocol.

"Weak points"
I just read

"It adopts an extensible binary packet format and an entirely new search algorithm, both weak points on the Gnutella network."

and the search algorithm definitely isn't a weak point of the Gnutella network, just like the original packet format allowed for quite a lot extensions, so this statement is misleading.

The link compression makes using a new binary format not that much of a step forward - it mainly split the network (while LimeWire introduced rich XML queries in a compatible way - without splitting the network). - ArneBab (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that the packet format should be amended to mention that every current gnutella peer uses [GCEP]. The reference 12 was probably written with the original Gnutella packet format in mind.  Many of the issues mentioned about the gnuella protocol circa 2002 have been addressed in different ways (and different time frames) by both protocols.  There is a discussion on the GDF about current deficiencies of the gnutella  .  They would be better references.  At the very least, the article should be clear that it is referring to the state of affairs approximately 5-7 years ago. Bpringlemeir (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 * 100% true. BTW, as for the G2 documentation, have a look at g2.trillinux.org, it's short but still very complete. Some client specific features are not listed, however...
 * mfg, OldDeath - 22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Alleged license violations
I have removed content related to alleged licence violations for various reasons however, my edit was reverted

This content can not stay in wikipedia for several reasons:

 * No reliable sources, not even any source whatsoever
 * Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence - Not only is the accusation badly sourced, accusations of this nature require even better references than "normal statements"
 * Burden of evidence - similar in spirit to the entries above - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it"
 * Possible Original research and/or Synthesis - it is not our job, as editors, judge is something is a violation, no matter how obvious it might seem.
 * Possible libel - quoting from the policy "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" and "[…] It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. […]"
 * Likely violation of Biographies of living persons policy - while this article is not about a person, the (poorly-sourced) statements about the developer(s) violating copyright law can be easily viewed as a breach of policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis is from the policy, not mine)
 * WP:NPOV - giving undue weight to un-sourced accusations

Please do not re-add the statement suggesting a violation until reliable sources are found. --SF007 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, I won't disagree as I am unable to find a valid web source myself (except for some leaked copy of the Foxy code which I downloaded by chance two years past, but that would count as "own research", wouldn't it?). I'm not sure why Foxy is contained in this comparison article anyway, as it does not allow connections from any other G2 client. So maybe we could simply remove the program from the comparison list because of it's incompatibility and thereby avoid the problem altogether.
 * What do you think?
 * mfg, OldDeath - 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gnutella2


text:
Leopold, Grand Duke of Baden

Leopold (29 August 1790 – 24 April 1852) succeeded in 1830 as the Grand Duke of Baden, reigning until his death in 1852.

Although a younger child, Leopold was the first son of Margrave Karl Friederich of Baden by his second, morganatic wife, Louise Karoline Geyer von Geyersberg. Since Luise Karoline was not of equal birth with the Margrave, the marriage was deemed morganatic and the resulting children were perceived as incapable of inheriting their father's dynastic status or the sovereign rights of the Zähringen House of Baden. Luise Karoline and her children were given the titles of baron and baroness, in 1796 count or countess von Hochberg.

Baden gained territory during the Napoleonic Wars. As a result, Margrave Karl Friederich was elevated to the title of Prince-Elector within the Holy Roman Empire. With the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, he took the title Grand Duke of Baden.

Hochberg heir
Since the descendants of Charles Frederick's first marriage to Karoline Louise of Hesse-Darmstadt were at first plentiful, no one expected the Hochberg children of his second wife to be anything except a family of counts with blood ties to the grand ducal family, but lacking dynastic rights. Count Leopold von Hochberg was born in Karlsruhe, and with no prospects of advancement in Baden, followed a career as an officer in the French army.

The situation of both the grand duchy and the Hochberg children became objects of international interest as it became apparent that the Baden male line descended from Karl Frederick's first wife was likely to die out. One by one, the males of the House of Baden expired without leaving male descendants. By 1817, there were only two males left, the reigning Grand Duke Charles I, a grandson of Charles Frederick's, and his childless uncle Prince Louis. Both of Charles's sons died in infancy. Baden's dynasty seemed to face extinction, casting the country's future in doubt.

Unbeknownst to those outside of the court at Baden, upon the 24 November 1787 wedding of then-Margrave Charles Frederick to Luise Karoline Geyer von Geyersberg, he and the three sons of his first marriage signed a declaration which reserved decision on the title and any succession rights of sons to be born of the marriage. Although Luise Karoline's children were not initially legally recognised as of dynastic rank, on 20 February 1796 their father clarified in writing (subsequently co-signed by his elder sons) that the couple's sons were eligible to succeed to the margravial throne in order of male primogeniture after extinction of the male issue of his first marriage. The Margrave further declared that his marriage to their mother must "in no way be seen as morganatic, but rather as a true equal marriage".

On 10 September 1806, after the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire and the assumption of full sovereignty, Charles Frederick confirmed the dynastic status of the sons of his second marriage. This act was, yet again, signed by his three eldest sons, but was not promulgated.

On 4 October 1817, as neither Grand Duke Charles nor the other sons from his grandfather's first marriage had surviving male descendants, Charles proceeded to confirm the succession rights of his hither-to morganatic half-uncles, elevating each to the title Prince and Margrave of Baden, and the style of Highness. He asked the princely congress in Aachen on 20 November 1818, just weeks before his death, to confirm the succession rights of these sons of his step-grandmother, still known as Countess Luise von Hochberg.

But this proclamation of Baden's succession evoked international challenges. The Congress of Vienna had, in 1815, recognised the claims of Bavaria and Austria to parts of Baden which it allocated to Charles Frederick in the Upper Palatinate and the Breisgau, anticipating that upon his imminent demise those lands would cease to be part of the Grand Duchy. Moreover, the Wittelsbach king of Bavaria, Maximilian I Joseph, was married to Grand Duke Charles's eldest sister, Caroline of Baden. The female most closely related to the last male of a German dynasty often inherited in such circumstances, in accordance with Semi-Salic succession law. As a result, Maximilian had a strong claim to Baden under the customary rules of inheritance, as well as his claims under a post–Congress of Vienna treaty of 16 April 1816.

Nonetheless, in 1818 Charles granted a constitution to the nation, the liberality of which made it popular with the people of Baden and which included a clause securing the succession rights of the offspring of Luise Karoline Geyer von Geyersberg. Another dispute was resolved by Baden's agreement to cede a portion of the county of Wertheim, already enclaved within Bavaria, to that kingdom.

To further improve the status of Prince Leopold, his half-brother the new Grand Duke Louis I arranged for him to marry his great-niece, Sophie, daughter of former King Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden by Grand Duke Charles's sister, Frederica. Since Sophie was a granddaughter of Leopold's oldest half-brother, Charles Louis, this marriage united the descendants of his father's (Grand Duke Charles Frederick's) two wives. Sophie's undoubted royal blood would help to offset the stigma of Leopold's morganatic birth.

Finally, on 10 July 1819, a few months after Charles's death, the Great Powers of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia joined with Bavaria and Baden in the 1819 Treaty of Frankfurt which recognized the succession rights of the former Hochberg morganatic line.

When Louis I died on 30 March 1830, he was the last male of the House of Baden not descended from the morganatic marriage of Charles Frederick and Luise Karoline Geyer von Geyersberg. Leopold von Hochberg now succeeded as the fourth Grand Duke of Baden.

Reign
Leopold was interested in the liberal ideas of his time, granted concessions to his subjects in 1848, and in the spring of 1849 declined to oppose the movement (see Revolutions of 1848 in the German states) which finally broke down all barriers and forced him to flee from the country on the night of 13 May. In August, he was reinstated by the troops of Prussia and the German Confederation. He acted with the greatest forbearance after regaining his power. During the last years of his reign, he admitted his son Frederick, who later succeeded him, to a share in the government. He died in Karlsruhe.

Marriage and issue
On 25 July 1819, Leopold married in Karlsruhe his half-grand-niece Sophie of Sweden (21 May 1801 – 6 July 1865). Sophia and Leopold had the following children:

 * Princess Alexandrine of Baden (6 December 1820 – 20 December 1904) she married Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on 13 May 1842. They had no children.
 * Prince Louis of Baden (1822–1822).
 * Louis II, Grand Duke of Baden (15 August 1824 – 22 January 1858). Louis suffered from mental illness and as a result, his brother Prince Frederick acted as Regent.
 * Frederick I, Grand Duke of Baden (9 September 1826 – 28 September 1907) he married Princess Louise of Prussia on 20 September 1856. They had three children:  Frederick II, Grand Duke of Baden (9 July 1857 – 9 August 1928); Princess Victoria of Baden, later Queen of Sweden (7 August 1862 – 4 April 1930); and Prince Louis of Baden (12 June 1865 - 23 February 1888).
 * Prince Wilhelm of Baden (18 December 1829 – 27 April 1897) he married Princess Maria Maximilianovna of Leuchtenberg on 11 February 1863. They had two children: Princess Marie of Baden, Duchess of Anhalt (26 July 1865 – 29 Nov 1939) and Prince Max of Baden (1867–1929), German Chancellor, and later the heir to the Grand Duchy.
 * Prince Charles (Karl) of Baden (9 March 1832 – 3 December 1906) he married morganatically Baroness Rosalie von Beust (created Countess von Rhena) on 17 May 1871. They had one son, Count Frederick von Rhena (1877–1908).
 * Princess Marie of Baden (20 November 1834 – 21 November 1899) she married Ernst Leopold, 4th Prince of Leiningen on 11 September 1858. They had two children: Princess Alberta of Leiningen (23 July 1863 – 30 August 1901); and Emich, 5th Prince of Leiningen (18 January 1866 – 18 July 1939).
 * Princess Cecilie of Baden (20 September 1839 – 12 April 1891) she married Grand Duke Michael Nicolaievich of Russia on 28 August 1857. They had seven children.

Titulature
The title and rank of Leopold and the other children of Grand Duke Charles Frederick by his second, morganatic wife, Luise Karoline Geyer von Geyersberg was initially ambiguous as stipulated in his parents' marriage contract (co-signed by his dynastic half-brothers at their father's behest), the daughters at least bearing their mother's (inaccurately attributed) baronial title, while only legally acquiring the title of Reichsgraf von Hochberg from 1796 when she was granted that rank by the Holy Roman Emperor. Leopold and his full siblings were not officially elevated to the title of margrave until 1817 when they were publicly de-morganitised. But their father had, in fact, allowed its use for his morganatic children at his own court in Karlsruhe at least from his assumption of the grand ducal crown in 1806, simultaneously according the princely title to the dynastic sons of his first marriage. However, from 1817 his male-line descendants of both marriages were internationally recognised as entitled to the princely prefix, which all used henceforth.

The title of Margrave of Baden has been borne as a title of pretence by Leopold's senior-most descendant and heir, each as the head of the House of Zähringen, since the death of the last reigning Grand Duke, Frederick II, in 1928.

Honours

 * Knight of the House Order of Fidelity
 * 1830: Grand Cross of the Order of St. Stephen
 * 31 August 1843: Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold

title: Leopold, Grand Duke of Baden


text:
LGBT rights in Mali

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Mali face legal and societal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Although same-sex sexual activity is not illegal in Mali, LGBT people face widespread discrimination among the broader population. According to the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, 98 percent of Malian adults believed that homosexuality is considered something society should not accept, which was the highest rate of non-acceptance in the 45 countries surveyed. The Constitution of Mali has outlawed same-sex marriage since 2023.

The United States Department of States points to laws in Mali which prohibit "attacks on morality", and states these laws are used to target LGBT persons; these laws are actively enforced.

Legal status
Private, adult, consensual and non-commercial same-sex sexual acts are legal in Mali and have never been criminalised. While legal, the prevailing cultural and religious beliefs of most Mali citizens view same-sex sexual activity and non-traditional gender roles as immoral.

There are provisions against "public outrages on decency", under which LGBT and transgender individuals are disproportionately prosecuted. Article 224 of the Code pénal allows for penalties of up to two years in prison and a fine of up to 200,000 FCFA (West African CFA francs) for offences. It may be used against LGBT people who engage in public displays of affection, for example.

The age of consent is set at 15 years; it does not differ for same-sex participants.

Discrimination protections
There are no anti-discrimination laws to protect the LGBT community from harassment and abuse on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Also, societal discrimination is widespread.

Adoption and family planning
Article 522 of the "Code des Personnes et de la Famille", which was passed by the National Assembly on 2 December 2011 and subsequently signed into the law by the president of Mali, forbids same-sex couples from adopting children.

Mali's new constitution, adopted by referendum in June 2023, includes a clause limiting marriage to a union of one man and one woman.

Living conditions
According to Dr. Dembelé Bintou Keita, the director of ARCAD/SIDA, an HIV/AIDS organization in Mali that provides health care for men who have sex with men (MSM), Malian society is not tolerant to MSM. They "have no rights and certainly no right to claim their sexual orientation. All cultural beliefs towards MSM are negative." MSM are forced into bisexuality or underground sexual practices that put them at high risk of sexually transmitted and HIV infections. "Men who are attracted to other men are forced to get married so that they will not bring shame to the family ... but they still have men as sexual partners."

The U.S. Department of State's 2011 human rights report found that,

title: LGBT rights in Mali


text:
Western conifer seed bug

The western conifer seed bug (Leptoglossus occidentalis), sometimes abbreviated as WCSB, is a species of true bug (Hemiptera) in the family Coreidae. It is native to North America west of the Rocky Mountains (California to British Columbia, east to Idaho Minnesota and Nevada) but has in recent times expanded its range to eastern North America, to include Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Michigan, Maine, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, and has become an accidental introduced species in parts of Europe and Argentina.

This species is a member of the insect family Coreidae, or leaf-footed bugs, which also includes the similar Leptoglossus phyllopus and Acanthocephala femorata, both known as the "Florida leaf-footed bug". Western conifer seed bugs are sometimes colloquially called stink bugs. While they do use a foul-smelling spray as a defense, they are not classified in the stink bug family Pentatomidae. In Chile, it has been confused with kissing bugs (Triatominae), causing unjustified alarm.

Description
The average length is 16 – with males being smaller than females. They are able to fly, making a buzzing noise when airborne. Western conifer seed bugs are somewhat similar in appearance to the wheel bug Arilus cristatus and other Reduviidae (assassin bugs). These, being Cimicomorpha, are not very closely related to leaf-footed bugs as Heteroptera go; though both have a proboscis, but only the assassin bugs bite even if unprovoked, and L. occidentalis like its closest relatives can be most easily recognized by the expanded hindleg tibiae and by the alternating light and dark bands which run along the outer wing edges on the flaring sides of the abdomen.

Their primary defense is to emit an unpleasant-smelling alarm pheromone; however, if handled roughly they will stab with their proboscis, though they are hardly able to cause injury to humans as it is adapted only to suck plant sap and not, as in the assassin bugs, to inject venom.

Ecology
In its native range, the western conifer seed bug feeds on the sap of developing conifer cones throughout its life, and its sap-sucking causes the developing seeds to wither and misdevelop. It is therefore considered a minor tree pest in North America, but becoming sometimes more harmful e.g. in conifer plantations. However, it is not monophagous and even adaptable enough to feed on angiosperms if it has to, though it seems to prefer resiniferous plants that are rich in terpenes. As these are produced by plants to deter herbivores, it might be that in evolving its ability to overcome these defenses, L. occidentalis actually became somewhat dependent on such compounds.

Its host plants in the native range include conifers such as Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and white spruce (Picea glauca). Outside the native range, it is found on species such as eastern white pine (P. strobus) and red pine (P. resinosa) in eastern North America and Europe, and mountain pine (P. mugo), black pine (P. nigra), Scots pine (P. sylvestris) and pistachio (Pistacia vera) in Europe.

The eggs are laid in small groups on the needles or leaf stems of its host plants, and hatch in spring. The nymphs go through 5 instar stages before moulting into adults. In the United States, the species is univoltine, but in southern Europe, it completes two generations a year, and in tropical Mexico even three. In the northern parts of its range, these bugs start to move about widely by September or so to seek crevices for overwintering; they may become a nuisance in areas with extensive conifer woods, as they will sometimes enter houses in considerable numbers. They have the potential to become structural pests, as it has been found that they will sometimes pierce PEX tubing with their mouthparts, resulting in leakage.

Range and invasiveness
This insect is common in its native range along the temperate and warmer regions of the Pacific coast of North America and has steadily expanded eastwards. On its native continent, L. occidentalis has been located as far northeast as Nova Scotia.

In Europe, this species was first reported in 1999 from northern Italy; it had probably been accidentally imported with timber and, as it seems, more than once, as its presence was subsequently reported from that country almost simultaneously from locations a considerable distance apart. By 2007, it had established itself in the northern Balkans (Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia), the Alps (Austria, Switzerland), and parts of the Czech Republic, France, Germany and Hungary; in 2003, it was found to occur in Spain, though this population probably derives from a separate introduction. The 2007 records from Weymouth College (England) and Ostend (Belgium) might also represent one or two further independent introductions. In late 2007, it was found at Wrocław and Miechów (Poland); these animals probably represent a further range expansion out of the Czech Republic. During the autumn of 2008, a large influx of this species arrived on the south coast of England, indicating natural immigration from continental Europe. In late 2009, a large group of western conifer seed bugs invaded Koç University in Istanbul, Turkey. The same thing happened in October 2012 in most of the cities of the French Alps, like Moûtiers. In 2017 it appears for the first time in the Southern Hemisphere, with several records from Chile.

It was also first recorded from Tokyo, Japan in 2008, and some additional records from Tokyo and Kanagawa Prefecture have been added until 2009.

In 2010 the first detection was made in Ukraine, in Dniprorudne, and the next year in Russia, in Rostov-on-Don.

In 2020 it was first reported in Finland.

On October 21, 2020 the first sighting in Andorra was posted to iNaturalist, and in September this species was found in Kozhukhovka in Kyiv region, Ukraine.

Present in North Macedonia.

title: Western conifer seed bug


text:
Middlemore

Middlemore is a suburb of the former Manukau City, one of the four cities that made up the conurbation of Auckland, in northern New Zealand, until 2010.

The suburb is located on flat land at the southern end of the Ōtāhuhu isthmus, at the end of an arm of the Tamaki River and 18 kilometres southeast of Auckland city centre. It is located on State Highway 1, and the North Island Main Trunk railway passes by the Middlemore Hospital.

Middlemore's most well-known landmarks are Middlemore Hospital and the Auckland Golf Club course, which surrounds the hospital grounds. Adjacent to both the golf club and Otahuhu College is the private secondary school, King's College.

History
The name 'Middlemore' refers to a region that was once known as Kohuora and was farmed beginning in the 1840s by William Thorne Buckland, who was joined by his younger brother, Alfred Buckland, in 1850. the Middlemore name came from a home that was originally owned by Richard Fairburn, the son of Anglican missionary William Thomas Fairburn, the house is now a part of the nearby Auckland Golf Club clubhouse.

The suburb of Middlemore sits on the previous site of the Waokauri / Pūkaki portage, which allowed overland connections for canoes between the Waitematā and Manukau harbours.

Demographics
Middlemore covers 0.72 km2 and had an estimated population of as of  with a population density of  people per km2.

Middlemore had a population of 33 at the 2018 New Zealand census, a decrease of 72 people (−68.6%) since the 2013 census, and a decrease of 240 people (−87.9%) since the 2006 census. There were 18 males and 15 females, giving a sex ratio of 1.2 males per female. The median age was 44.9 years (compared with 37.4 years nationally), with 6 people (18.2%) aged under 15 years, 3 (9.1%) aged 15 to 29, 15 (45.5%) aged 30 to 64, and 9 (27.3%) aged 65 or older.

Ethnicities were 63.6% European/Pākehā, 18.2% Māori, 27.3% Pacific peoples, and 18.2% Asian. People may identify with more than one ethnicity.

The percentage of people born overseas was 27.3, compared with 27.1% nationally.

Although some people chose not to answer the census's question about religious affiliation, 27.3% had no religion, 54.5% were Christian, and 9.1% were Hindu.

Of those at least 15 years old, 3 (11.1%) people had a bachelor's or higher degree, and 3 (11.1%) people had no formal qualifications. The median income was $21,900, compared with $31,800 nationally. 3 people (11.1%) earned over $70,000 compared to 17.2% nationally. The employment status of those at least 15 was that 9 (33.3%) people were employed full-time.

title: Middlemore


text:
User:Ysw1987

Welcome to my user page. I was born in Hong Kong. I used to be living in Kwun Tong.

Links
My User Pages on: Wikibooks, Wiktionary

WikiProject Hong Kong

List of Hong Kong Wikipedians on Chinese Wikipedia

/Babel /Sandbox /Userboxes

zh:User:Ysw1987

title: User:Ysw1987


text:
Talk:Single-8

Point
Is there really any point in this article. It seems everything that needs to be said is in 8 mm film. -- Egil 14:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kodak Red Herring
"It was widely believed by Single 8 enthusiasts that this would offer superior film positioning, but the reality was that Super 8's plastic pressure plate could be moulded with far smaller tolerance than Single 8's metal version could be machined."

This appears to be a Red Herring from the Kodak PR department. The Single 8 system does offer better film positioning, but the flatness of the pressure plate is not the only issue.

The pressure plate in a movie camera does not actually press the film against the film gate but rather it is stopped by rails (or other stops) to form a channel with a depth slightly greater than the film thickness. So, what matters is the precision of this channel, not the flatness of the pressure plate. Actually, the film is stiff enough that the flatness of the plate makes little difference.

It should also be pointed out that the so-called pressure plate in a Super-8 cartridge is not even a flat plate.

There are other factors which include the mass of the plate, the length of the film gate, the friction between the plate and the film. design of the film claw, etc..

However, the main issue is that it is not possible to fit a film gate in the camera and a plate in the interchangeable Super-8 cartridge with as much precision as with Single-8 where they are both part of the camera.

I note that I was an assistant manager of a camera store while Single-8 was sold.

Tyrerj (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 * This was not a red herring from the Kodak department but was in fact well known in the 8mm film fraternity. There was even an article on the subject in a popular (movie) camera magazine in the UK at the time.  They checked the the precision with which the pressure plates and film gates were manufactured, and discovered that the plastic parts between different cartridges were seldom more than 0.0002 inches (yes I got that right with 3 zeros) different.  The best machined metal parts could manage was 0.001 inch (and then only on top end cameras).  They also made the discovery that the plastic pressure plate was usually moulded specifically for the film actually in the cartridge.  In particular, on Kodak cartridges, the plate in the sound cartridge had 2 channels moulded into it to accommodate the 2 sound stripes on the enclosed film.  These were missing from the silent film pressure plates.  It was also found that other manufacturers whose film was of slightly different thickness also allowed for the change in the pressure plate mouldings.

 * I take your point about the use of the term 'pressure plate' as this is not the ideal way to position a film in a gate. It shouldn't really a pressure plate, but that is the term used to describe it and often that's what it does.  Some 8mm projectors used a pressure plate actually pressing against the film in the gate (notably Eumig in all their projectors).  These invariably resulted in londitudinal scratches on the film (for which Eumig were very famous).  Well designed projectors could actually avoid any contact with the film as it ran through the gate.  I ended up with a Bosch made projector (sold under the Agfa brand - and I still have it) with such a gate and the only films that I have in my not inconsiderable archive that are scratched are those that I made while still owning a Eumig projector. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Konan
I doubt that Konan really means "the" Single8-system. Instead it sounds more like they've invented one of the many carts for "8mm wide film with Reg8-perforation" (as opposed to the cameras for the 16mm-wide Double8-film) as many of these systems have been referred to as "Single 8 m/m" in English, e.g. the ones introduced by B&H or Agfa. Another reason: It was Kodak that invented the "8mm Type S"/"8mm Type Super" used by both Super8 and Single8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.3.26 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Single-8


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Mersea

 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 keep. – Rich Farmbrough 18:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

West Mersea
Poorly written and highly POV. Might be recoverable if someone would take the time to rewrite the whole thing. — Stevie is the man!  Talk 14:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * A valid topic to be in WP, but very badly written. Rewrite and Keep. Maybe ask UK Wikipedians' notice board for someone to look at it? Qwghlm 22:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Real place with community of interest. However, article as it stands is useless. Would vote to keep decent stub. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command, O great ones. New stub provided. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 03:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll change my vote to Keep the new stub. Thanks Grutness! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 14:27, 27 Apr 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.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kultur

 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 keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Kultur
What is described here is some right wing ideology, which no doubt existed in Germany before 1945, but to do this under the title "Kultur" is utter nonsense. "Kultur" is simply German for "culture". This page should therefore be deleted. Perhaps one can move some parts elsewhere to describe this ideological thinking which existed but is not denoted by the German word "Kultur". LARS 14:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of the contents of this article could be salvaged under another title though. Jeltz talk  14:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep somewhere. This page is referenced by multiple other pages. — RJH 15:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The title of this page is inappropriate and misleading. Delete. However, the content should be moved, maybe to Kulturkampf or to a page describing German nationalism (which is currently a redirect to nationalism). Martg76 20:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Kulturpolitik and öffentliches Kulturwesen in the age of nationalism in Germany. A small number of non-nazi era articles contained a link to this article. Two of them said "this is a German term meaning something between culture and civilization". However, this is not true. German has two distinct words, "Kultur" and "Zivilisation", just like English. Of course, different countries had different ideals of what "culture" should mean, but e.g. during the Weimar republic, Germany's understanding was not outside of the range of meanings in different English speaking countries at different times. Sebastian (talk) 23:39, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with reservations. Needs cleanup. Ideology existed and is cross-referenced. Megan1967 05:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: someone seems to be systematically removing links to this article, which seems quite premature while VfD is being debated. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * That was me. Sorry, i see that this may not have been the best time to do it. I wanted to be able to write: "Move" (see above) – so i removed the ones that shouldn't refer to the proposed move target. These were the following:
 * — this one could possibly link to the proposed target. Sebastian (talk) 08:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Redirect for the page created by Sebastian (+ cleanup of this page). Pavel Vozenilek 12:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * — this one could possibly link to the proposed target. Sebastian (talk) 08:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Redirect for the page created by Sebastian (+ cleanup of this page). Pavel Vozenilek 12:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect for the page created by Sebastian (+ cleanup of this page). Pavel Vozenilek 12:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep but also with the above mentioned reservations. Needs cleanup and format (?).--Numerousfalx 14:35, 2 May 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kultur


text:
Talk:Super 8 film

Ektachrome
The article mentions Ektachrome to replace Kodachrome when manufacture and processing ended for the latter. But Ektachrome was available much earlier to allow for available light filming, I believe at ASA 160. Gah4 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An Ektachrome film did become available in the 1970's. You are correct in that it was 160 ASA. However, the film was designated as a 'type G' (as opposed to the more usual 'type A' for the super 8 format). It was a daylight balanced film that was allegedly usable in artificial lighting.
 * In theory, it could only be used in cameras that were designed to accept it as it was missing one of the notches normally present in type A super 8 cartridges (the lower one). Its absence moved the daylight conversion filter out of the optical path. The camera also had to operate with 160 ASA film (coded via the upper notch). Earlier cameras, which ignored the notch and always assumed artificial light film, could not officially be used with type G film. However, if the camera was able to detect that 160 ASA film was loaded, it was possible to use it by changing the camera to artificial light mode (removing the daylight conversion filter). 81.154.179.214 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had to look up to be sure, that Type A is 3400K and Type B is 3200K. It seems that Type F is 3800K for clear flash bulbs. As well as I can tell, type G is somewhere in between. The idea of the higher speed was to avoid artificial light, so not much reason for type A. But also, people are much less bothered by too warm balance than too cold. Something lit by birthday candles (if I remember right, one example) will be expected to be warm. Or one could use external filters. Gah4 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In theory, it could only be used in cameras that were designed to accept it as it was missing one of the notches normally present in type A super 8 cartridges (the lower one). Its absence moved the daylight conversion filter out of the optical path. The camera also had to operate with 160 ASA film (coded via the upper notch). Earlier cameras, which ignored the notch and always assumed artificial light film, could not officially be used with type G film. However, if the camera was able to detect that 160 ASA film was loaded, it was possible to use it by changing the camera to artificial light mode (removing the daylight conversion filter). 81.154.179.214 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had to look up to be sure, that Type A is 3400K and Type B is 3200K. It seems that Type F is 3800K for clear flash bulbs. As well as I can tell, type G is somewhere in between. The idea of the higher speed was to avoid artificial light, so not much reason for type A. But also, people are much less bothered by too warm balance than too cold. Something lit by birthday candles (if I remember right, one example) will be expected to be warm. Or one could use external filters. Gah4 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had to look up to be sure, that Type A is 3400K and Type B is 3200K. It seems that Type F is 3800K for clear flash bulbs. As well as I can tell, type G is somewhere in between. The idea of the higher speed was to avoid artificial light, so not much reason for type A. But also, people are much less bothered by too warm balance than too cold. Something lit by birthday candles (if I remember right, one example) will be expected to be warm. Or one could use external filters. Gah4 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Type G was a daylight balanced film. It's important characteristic was that it was more tolerant of colour temperature changes than the then available Kodachrome film. The higher speed coupled with Ektachrome being a substantive film meant that the grain was much more noticeable. 81.154.179.214 (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The Ektachrome that is available now for super 8 is completely different to the Ektachrome from the 1990s even up to where it was end of lined in the late 2000s. The two film stocks have nothing in common with each other except the name. The original Ektachrome was a vivid colour (VC) film stock designed to provide richly saturated colours (especially blues). The current Ektachrome is a daylight balanced filmstock that produces colour accurate colours as near as possible to what you saw them originally. The current Ektachrome like Ektar 100 was designed from the ground up to be scanned also, the fact that it can be projected is just a benefit of Kodak making it a positive film --120.22.132.33 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you define completely different. If it is still E6, it isn't completely different, but might be a lot different. I doubt Kodak completely started over, but also that it isn't exactly the same. Gah4 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you define completely different. If it is still E6, it isn't completely different, but might be a lot different. I doubt Kodak completely started over, but also that it isn't exactly the same. Gah4 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Super 8 film


text:
Kid Capri

David Anthony Love Jr. (born February 7, 1967) is an American DJ and rapper, better known by his stage name Kid Capri.

Early life
Kid Capri was born in Brooklyn but spent most of his youth in the Bronx. As an 8-year-old, Capri would scratch records on his father's old Zenith stereo system. As he grew older, he began selling his DJ mixtapes on the streets and performing at local gigs.

Career
Grammy Award-winning DJ and producer Kid Capri is known as an innovator and pioneer of DJ culture.

Kid Capri was the first DJ to perform on major networks like BET and VH1. He starred in the popular HBO series, Russell Simmons' Def Comedy Jam. In 2017, he returned for the Netflix Def Comedy Jam’s 25th Anniversary Special. Kid has produced tracks for artists such as Snoop Dogg, Jay-Z, Madonna, Heavy D, and 50 Cent. He has years of touring experience with high-profile artists like Jay-Z, Aaliyah, Salt-N-Pepa, Timbaland, and most recently RBRM. Kid won a Grammy for producing a song on Jay-Z's album, Hard Knock Life. In 2017, Kid narrated Kendrick Lamar's entire DAMN album.; the only hip hop album to ever win a Pulitzer Prize. Kid premiered his vocals at Jennifer Lopez's Jennifer Lopez: All I Have Las Vegas residency, which lasted from 2016 to 2018, during the portion of her show dedicated to The Bronx.

Kid Capri deejayed for seven seasons of Def Comedy Jam. He produced tracks for Boogie Down Productions, Heavy D, Big L and Grand Puba. He eventually released an LP on Warner Brothers Records titled The Tape in 1991. He appeared in the film Who's the Man? in 1993. In 1997, Kid Capri signed with the Track Masters' Columbia Records-distributed label after he appeared on the 1997 Puff Daddy and the Family World Tour. He subsequently released Soundtrack to the Streets in 1998.

In 2003, Kid Capri performed at the BET Awards. Afterwards during that same year, Martha Stewart personally requested Kid Capri to be a DJ at her Christmas party. NSYNC also hired Kid Capri to perform as a DJ at one of their private parties. He also DJ'ed for the 2003 TJ Martell Foundation Gala, which featured Mary J. Blige, Mya, and Liz Phair, among others.

Kid Capri was involved in his own record label, No Kid'n Records. He was featured on the itshiphop.tv show The Breakdown, in which he talked about his current and future projects, his views on Japan's hip hop scene, and the origin of his stage name. On July 29, 2007, Kid Capri made an appearance during Rock the Bells 2007 as Rakim's DJ. Kid Capri also made an appearance as Rakim's DJ during the Rock the Bells 2008 show on July 19, 2008, in Tinley Park, Illinois.

Kid was featured as lead judge on Smirnoff's Master of the Mix, the BET reality TV competition in search of the nation's best DJ. In March 2012, Kid was commissioned to remix "Masterpiece", an exclusive track featured on the special Smirnoff Nightlife Edition of Madonna's album, MDNA. He joined her for the album release party in Miami as a part of Winter Music Conference, and the album was released on March 26, 2012. Kid was also featured on Kendrick Lamar's song "ELEMENT." in which he has vocal parts in the intro and closing.

Kid Capri deejayed for Jay-Z's Oscar party in 2018, as well as DJ Khaled's birthday party. During the 2018 Global Spin Awards, which was held during NBA All-Star weekend, Kid received the Red Award in honor of DJ Red Alert from Snoop Dogg.

On May 15, 2021, Kid Capri was a Bronx Walk of Fame inductee.

In 2022, Kid released an album titled The Love. The Love is part of Kid Capri's third studio album, which marks his return to the music scene after a 25-year hiatus. Released on the DJ's 55th birthday, the album features 19 tracks, to which all he wrote, produced, and performed, including the previously released single "Slap Key." Kid's last full-length offering, Soundtrack to the Streets, dropped in 1998 and featured collaborations with Jay-Z, Snoop Dogg, and Busta Rhymes, among others. The Love features Capri's daughter, R&B singer Vina Love.

Kid has been featured multiple times on the We TV show Growing Up Hip Hop: New York, which debuted in 2019.

Kid collaborated with The Hoodies, brothers E-Class and Young Poppa, to produce the Hidden Gems album in 2023. The album's songs were reminiscent of hip-hop produced in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The 2003 BET Awards Tribute to Jam Master Jay honored slain Run-DMC DJ member with an all-star mix-off, which included Kid Capri as host and DJ on the decks. Twenty years later at the 2023 BET Awards, Kid Capri hosted and curated Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary segment featuring various medleys to honor the genre, with Kid himself mixing live atop mutual-artist performances. Attendees were surprised when Kid welcomed a casual walk-on guest and MLB Hall of Famer, Derek Jeter, for this golden homage to music history.

Until the fall of 2023, Kid continued to host "The Block Party" on SiriusXM FLY every weekend, bridging the gap from throwbacks to new tracks.

Albums and mixtapes
Kid Capri's albums and mixtapes are given below.

Videos

 * "Crossover" (1992 off EPMD's Business Never Personal)
 * "DWYCK" (1992 off GangStarr's Hard to Earn)
 * "Put It On" (1995 off Big L's Lifestylez ov da Poor & Dangerous)
 * "We Celebrate" (2007 off Ghostface Killah's The Big Doe Rehab)

Cameos and roles in film

 * Who's the Man? as himself (1993)
 * A Get2Gether as Dee Jay (2005)
 * Def Comedy Jam 25 as himself (2017)

title: Kid Capri


text:
Talk:Biosphere (musician)

Move and cleanup
This page should be moved to Biosphere (musician) since it's not a band, just one guy. 80.203.115.12 14:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who's going to? --Gravity Control

Never mind, I already did. --Gravity Control

Ok, so, I changed a lot. Mostly it was just spelling, grammar, and general usage of the English language, but I feel that there are a couple key issues that need to be addressed: - IMHO, Biosphere's early albums are in no way comparable to Aphex Twin's SAW 85-92. SAW stands as an amateur work, and enjoys rather sub-par production. Biosphere and come and gone from Bel Canto & Bleep at this point, he was in no way an amateur. That; and his production skills on his early work trumped those of RDJ. The comparison is, at best, forced. I left the comparison to SAW-II later in this article, as I feel it makes a little bit more sense, but I still feel the comparison is meaningless. Unless someone steps up to defend the inclusion of a reference to SAW II, I intend to remove it when I find something better to stick in its place. The reference to Coil, actually, makes a great deal of sense, and I feel that it should stay. - I don't feel that Biosphere's early work was ambient techno by any means, and changed that reference to be ambient house. Ambient Techno, as I see it, refers to things such as Monolake's "Gravity", Plastikman's "Consumed", and just about anything on the Basic Channel label with the possible exception of Scion. Again, I feel this comparison to be forced. A comparison with the ambient-house stylings of The Orb makes a great deal more sense to me.

There remains a lot to be fixed in this article - I think the trivia section needs work - but I'll get to that soon. Sorry if these edits made anyone angry, feel free to argue my points as always. Kobresia 06:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The chronology in the "1991-Present" section could be improved. A 2006 album is mentioned before the 2004 performance in Detroit, for example. bneely 18:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. I'll get on that. Kobresia 20:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Kobresia...hmm. Isn't that a flower? Because, I don't know. I wouldn't call a song something like Jonquil or Daisy. -- Gravity Control

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Biosphere (musician). 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/20120204141803/http://www.junkmedia.org/index.php?i=193 to http://www.junkmedia.org/index.php?i=193
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420132604/http://unsound.pl:80/en/festival/news/2008 to http://unsound.pl/en/festival/news/2008
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050114103052/http://www.mic.no/mic.nsf/doc/art2003072514223315188372 to http://www.mic.no/mic.nsf/doc/art2003072514223315188372
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429045502/http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk:80/interviews/biosphereiw.htm to http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk/interviews/biosphereiw.htm

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) 00:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Biosphere (musician)


text:
LGBT rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) face discrimination and legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal for both males and females in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, although LGBT individuals may still be targeted for prosecution under public indecency provisions on occasion.

Homosexuality is generally considered immoral, a view espoused and promoted by church groups influential within the nation. The Congolese LGBT community experiences discrimination and hostility, and is commonly stigmatised by the wider community and officials. Same-sex couples, and households headed by same-sex couples, are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples.

Laws regarding same-sex sexual activity
Same-sex sexual activity is legal in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Age of consent is equal, regardless of sex. Homosexual acts have never been explicitly outlawed in the country's history. Before the foundation of the state in 1960, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was ruled by the European colonial power Belgium. In Belgium, homosexual acts were decriminalized in 1794.

The U.S. Department of State's 2021 Human Rights Report found that individuals who publicly engaged in same-sex consensual activities, such as, for example, kissing, were sometimes prosecuted under public indecency provisions "which were rarely applied to opposite-sex couples."

Recognition of same-sex relationships
There is no legal recognition of same-sex unions. There has been a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, since 2006. The first paragraph of article 40, in the current Congolese constitution, states that "Every individual has the right to marry the person of their choice, of the opposite sex".

Discrimination protections
There is no anti-discrimination law protecting sexual orientation.

Transgender rights
Trans women in the DRC are believed by many to be "sorcerers" and responsible for much of the country's ills, leading to significant violence and discrimination against them.

Living conditions
The U.S. Department of State's 2021 Human Rights Report found that:

In comparison, the State Department's report for 2010 said: "Homosexuality remained a cultural taboo, and while harassment by state security forces continued, there were no reports during the year of police harassing gays and lesbians or perpetrating or condoning violence against them."

Public opinion
In 2014, 98% of Congolese said they were against same-sex marriage while only 2% supported it.


text:
The Cult of Ray

The Cult of Ray is the third solo studio album by American musician Frank Black. Black opted to produce The Cult of Ray himself, after Eric Drew Feldman produced his first two albums.

The album title is a reference to author Ray Bradbury. The album's final song is a tribute to Shazeb Andleeb, who was beaten to death at Narbonne High School in Harbor City, California (a school Black attended), in May 1995.

Chart performance
The Cult of Ray peaked at number 1 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart and number 127 on the Billboard 200 in 1996.

Personnel
The core musicians employed on this album would eventually be dubbed The Catholics and would continue as Black's backing group for the following seven years (albeit with a changed line up).

 * Musicians
 * Frank Black – vocals, guitar (right channel)
 * Scott Boutier – drums
 * David McCaffery – bass
 * Lyle Workman – lead guitar (left channel)
 * Matt Yelton – backing vocals on "Men in Black", "You Ain't Me", "The Adventure and the Resolution" and "Dance War"
 * Nick Vincent – drums and bass on "I Don't Want to Hurt You (Every Single Time)"
 * Technical
 * Frank Black – producer
 * Matt Yelton – engineer
 * Billy Bowers – assistant engineer
 * Greg Fidelman – assistant engineer
 * Jim Champagne – assistant engineer
 * Eddie Miller – assistant engineer
 * Mike Baumgartner – assistant engineer
 * Ian MacPherson – assistant engineer
 * Andy MacPherson – mixing
 * Bob Ludwig – mastering
 * Inertia – design

title: The Cult of Ray