text:
Talk:Bliss (photograph)

Location
Hello. Sonoma is in Sonoma County not Napa County. Napa Valley is located in Napa County. Check your article to correct. thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.207.27 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Nothing to do. Article makes no such claim. Photographers are free to wander away from their original goal, location-wise and subject-wise. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Youtube video
A video was recently released (8 April) by Microsoft NL, featuring an interview with the photographer. As usual, several websites are reporting the video, and an editor added it to the external links section. However, most of these posts are little more than a thin wrapper (i.e. no substantial added value), so I replaced the link to point directly to the video. then added info about the camera model, from the video, to the article, and added the video as a reference. removed both instances asserting that the video is an unreliable and self-published source. Arguing that the video is an interview, hence a secondary source rather than a self-published, primary source (which would be the photographer publishing the info himself, say, in his blog), and that we should open an exception to the reliable sources argument, especially since it is meant to be a guideline, I restored the links. Codename Lisa then reverted me per WP:BRD -- eventually admitting that (s)he was the one at fault per that policy, but fair enough; I did feel the edit summary box was too short to express my thoughts properly, so let's discuss this.

I'm afraid Codename Lisa is taking this personally, which of course isn't the case. My belief is that, by common sense, it is more reasonable to assume that the video is authentic, produced by professionals (see the credits in the video description) and published by Microsoft using the channel, among those at their disposal, that made more sense for the specific content type, than to take the stance of "I don't believe that video is an interview with photographer, that it is done by Microsoft and the it is authentic."

With that assumption of authenticity, it would be reasonable to include the source even if it doesn't conform to the letter of the law of Wikipedia's policies, because we as human editors can understand that those rules are meant to prevent blatantly unreliable content (which most likely would do a disservice to readers), not clearly useful information, even if not ideally formatted, as is the case. Therefore I maintain the position that the video should be allowed in the article, at the very least in the external links section, since it's leaving out the information it contains that's "betraying Wikipedia's mission", not the opposite. --Waldir talk 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello,
 * Did you just say the video was taken from a secondary source? I am talking about this sentence: "As usual, several websites are reporting the video". YouTube videos are acceptable when they are embedded inside a reliable source, e.g. a PC World article by an acceptable author that has received editing from the magazine editor. It is the magazine, e.g. PC World, that adds credibility. Stripping the http://www.youtube.com resource is similar to stripping a book of its cover and biographic profile (that contains title, author, ISBN, publisher, etc.), then using it as a source while representing it as "a heap of paper I just found". As Identifying reliable sources mentions, a reliable source has three pillars: Content, author, editor. Please add the secondary source. We are okay.
 * As for fake videos on YouTube; no three person would enter a studio to film person impersonating a Microsoft authority interviewing Bliss photographer. I am afraid the real world is far more relentless. The fake part usually constitutes one word in a sentence that makes the whole different. And yes, things are starting to become personal; not Hollywood personal (at least not me), but like I said, the real world is far more relentless: It is butterfly effect.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 * To butt in here: Lisa is, like too many other editors, overbroad in her application of WP:YOUTUBE. As it states "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites" There are issues with copyright, yes, since the DMCA forbids linking to infringing material. That policy section was written in response to many people linking to unauthorized repostings of videos in articles about songs. But material submitted by the copyright holder themselves—Microsoft as the producer and legal author of the video, as clearly indicated on its page—is not infringement. Links to the video embedded in other sources might be (especially blog posts); a direct link to the video at YouTube is most emphatically not.
 * As for the reliability issue, WP:SPS clearly states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". And, well, if you look at the picture in our article about Charles O'Rear, I think that's clearly him in the video. So what he says about the creation of the image can—and in fact should be—used in the article and cited to the video using cite video and, in subsequent citations, the timestamp of whenever in the video that came up.
 * Abusus non tollit usum. There is a lot of crap and fakery on YouTube, but that has never meant we absolutely can't use anything from YouTube. We just have to be careful. There is no need to resort to secondary sources, or IAR. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 * That would be like a solider going into a battlefield naked, even though he has access to the most advanced flak jackets, not because of a need or even a desire to be naked, but just to irritate his fellow warriors, insisting that it is his right to do so!
 * Just look at the article: It is now publishing the YouTube video four times, once through one of the footnotes, twice through two External links ( and ) and a raw YouTube link. I am afraid I am having a very time finding merit for your argument in the face of all this spam.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

 * It's not that hard to change all those to links to the original. If you would like me to do it (I see other opportunities for improvement in any event), I certainly can. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I tried. reverted. I think there has been a oversight here: Links that appear in citations must not appear as external links. (So [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bliss_(image)&diff=604164495&oldid=604003564 this edit] is wrong.) Also, external links policy forbids cascading links; e.g. link to a specific source must not appear when there is already a generic link that facilitates access to the same resource. All this plus what said earlier about embedded YouTube videos would make [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bliss_(image)&diff=604164851&oldid=604164565 this edit] and overkill, although Green later realized that Gizmodo is used as a source and deleted it.
 * Right now, no less than three sources show the 2010 image and embed the YouTube Video. We certainly have a lot of layout templates but they are not meant to be used in an article all at once; it is like hanging ourselves because we have a gratis noose. Too much layout and little meat kills the article.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * " Links that appear in citations must not appear as external links". There is nothing in WP:ELNO that supports this interpretation of policy. I think it makes perfect sense to sometimes include a citation link in the xlinks section as well; readers may not want to hunt through the footnotes to find the link they were looking for.
 * I have not been able to start doing the edits I had been contemplating; hopefully I will have the time tonight. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Then try reading WP:ELLAYOUT. Besides, the best place of saying something theoretical about "hunting" is not in article that is facing bombardment (the literal opposite). Click any of the three sources and there you go. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ELLAYOUT says only "... nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section" (Emphasis mine). So we can make occasional exceptions. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi. Exceptions need a reason and I provided a reason for not making an exception in Waldir's reply thread above. Of course, strangely enough, you are going by my sarcastic suggestion that I posted in Waldir's talk page and he linked it here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I didn't even read that remark, much less was aware of its existence, until I read your comment above. Exceptions need a reason? OK, I can understand: Much of the news coverage of this was triggered by Microsoft NL's posting of the video on the occasion the company discontinued free support for XP. Readers are aware of the video when they do the Google search that put this article near the top. They may well want to go straight to the video. If they scroll down to do so, it's in a place where it can easily be found without having to squint.
 * Remember, we write and edit for the benefit of readers, not our policies. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Have you ever watched The Pursuit of Happyness? "Benefit of readers" is one of those elusive concepts that we are doomed to pursue ferociously but never catch! You assume that the benefit of the user is to look for the video, to find it here and moreover find it here via a direct YouTube link. I don't assume so. We live in world in which the majority of people do not have access to cheap broadband Internet; hence YouTube is an expensive commodity. Not all of them try this specific search term if they do look for the video and not all of them click on Wikipedia. Not all of them assume we are in love with External links. So much assumptions there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Why wouldn't you assume so? The quality of a reader's Internet connection is beside the point ... if they can't get YouTube, they won't be looking for it here anyway, and (more to the point) none of the links that have it embedded will be of any use to them. But, all the same, including the link won't take anything away from those users' experience of the page and help the users who can get streaming video (And wouldn't the first place you'd look for that be a section entitled "External links"?
 * Lisa, I am afraid your English skills are not up to this discussion. You are communicating quite effectively that you feel passionately about this, but to me it seems like you change the reason why everytime you comment. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I am afraid the comment on my English skill is too close to argumentum ad hominem than I am comfortable with. That I strayed off subject along with you was only out of politeness; otherwise my reason is what I said earlier: The YouTube source, by itself, does not meet the standards set by WP:RS, i.e. it is a questionable source because two out of three elements required by WP:RS are missing: The creator of the work cannot be reliably identified and there is no editorial oversight by the publisher. I offered a compromise: Use a secondary publication that offers these two, e.g the Gizmodo article or Softpedia article, a win-win. You can have either the compromise along with my respect and best wishes in all your endeavors, or just the respect and best wishes alone.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the latter option, because as I have said you are applying policy too rigidly there (which again I feel is a result of your inability to fully understand the interactions between all the policies that have been brought into this discussion. I get the feeling you were familiar with the bright-line rule established by WP:IRS, thought it meant a blanket ban on any YouTube links, and thus just completely ignored my citation to the contrary from WP:YOUTUBE. To say this video "cannot be authenticated" is getting into the car of skepticism, turning the key, revving the engine and driving it off the cliff of logic. It's the kind of logic that leads to the moon landing conspiracy theories. Remember, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", and I don't think you're a small mind. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Daniel, I find it quite unfortunate that you mix good arguments with personal attacks. You really have good points, but make it hard for one to simply agree with you if that implies agreeing with the tone and contents of your comments regarding Codename Lisa. Such interactions (and btw I'm referring to Codename Lisa's sarcastic remarks as well, both in my talk page and elsewhere, which are unwarranted) only add noise to the discussion, cloud the assessments of the participant's objective arguments, and prevent a clean consensus to emerge. Insofar as that helps the discussion (and FWIW), I'll say that I strongly agree with all your statements except those referring to Codename Lisa rather than the content of the article. --Waldir talk 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way; I appreciate your support but it is not enough, sometimes, to point out why people are wrong—you need to explain why. I have been harsh in my rhetoric, but I do not feel I was the only party who was. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, in briefly reviewing my side, I tried to avoid attacking Lisa personally. I think there's something in policy that says you comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone feels that criticism in the vein of "You are a smart person making a stupid argument" is a personal attack, then they need to take a few deep breaths. Lord knows I've been on the receiving end of that a few times. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

2010 picture
A user on Flickr took an updated picture seen here, and says the 2006 picture on Wikipedia "was taken from the wrong location, approximately 350' farther Northeast, it is of the correct hill, but it is shot in the wrong direction." -- Green  C  17:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

price
There is the story around that the photographer had to deliver the photo in person because its value was too high so that fedex et. al. refused to transport is. Does anyone know the real price? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.9.75 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the interview (and now in the article) he cannot disclose the exact amount since he signed a confidentiality agreement. Another paper reported that it was in "the low six figures", and I've got that in there now, too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Excessive linking
Apparently, someone have not seen the word "not" in WP:NOTLINKFARM. This article has too many links, sources and off-topic contents for so little actual contents.

Maybe it is best to merge this article instead of padding it with external links and redundant citations. Fleet Command (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I disagree with that characterization, and the deletion of links, including the entire External Links section. I won't edit war over it but will start an RfC to bring in outside opinion. As for "merging this article" that would have little support from me for one. -- Green  C  01:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, you might want to say in your RFC that I don't think I deleted anything. Google Maps link appear at the top right of the article. (Only it is more neutral: There are more services.) The Flickr link appears in citations already. The YouTube equivalent appears in every one of the citations. (Well, not every one; a lot.) I just cleaned up the messy repetition. Fleet Command (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can say it yourself. The external links sections are not the same as geocoords, it's a courtesy to users who may not know about or use the geocoords feature. And the YouTube link is not anywhere else in the article .. the same content is in some of the citations but most readers will never click through and read citations, again the EL is a courtesy to users to highlight significant content. Same with the Flickr image, it is discussed in the article and is the sort of thing one would expect to be inlined and not buried in a citation, the template is a courtesy to users to highlight certain images, that's why the template exists. -- Green  C  02:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "I won't edit war over it". Well, I am at a loss as to what this is. (Not really; I am pretty sure it is edit warring.) Fleet Command (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of external links
This is a two-part RfC on the whether to include external links or not in the article.

Question 1:
 * Should the external media template be used? As seen here:

Please answer '''1. Yes or 1. No'''

Question 2:
 * Should the article have an External Links section? As seen here:

 * External links
 * Google Street View of the hill
 * Video interview with the photographer. Microsoft NL, 8 April 2014.

Please answer '''2. Yes or 2. No'''

-- Green  C  02:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Flawed RfC
This RfC is flawed. The nominator failed to mention that these link are already part of the citations: The Google Map link appears at the top of the article; the YouTube Video and the Flickr image virtually appear in 50% of citations. It tricks people who want the content but not the grotesque look of the article to answer "yes". This RFC is basically a ballot that conflicts with WP:ELLAYOUT. Policies and guidelines represent the consensus of the majority and polling does not override a consensus. 188.245.53.140 (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * 1. Yes - The external media template lists three criteria for inclusion, which this picture meets. #3 says "readers will expect this type of media in the article" since the picture is discussed directly in the article. 2. Yes - Providing external links is a courtesy to readers and even if some of the content is duplicated in reference sources, which not all of it is. Two links is hardly a "link farm". -- Green  C  06:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, I've done it in other articles (see Perp walk for a current example) where the opportunity for readers to personally view a fair-use image or video enhances their understanding of the topic yet does not meet our fair-use criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC) 2. Yes, it should have an xlinks section with a link to the YouTube posting of the video interview with the photographer, since while that makes up much the article's sourcing readers who may want to view it for themselves may not know how to find it in the references. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, though, I don't see how the Street View image of the hill adds anything. Any reader who wants to find it can get to it via the coords link. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, external media seems like a reasonable choice to allow readers to access the media that the text is talking about. I do think a better choice would be to use a fair use image, although I'm unsure whether the fair use policies impose a limit on the number of FU images that can be used in a single article. The ideal choice would be, of course, to contact the author and get him to release the photo under a free license for use on Wikipedia. 2. Yes, an external links section clearly adds value to the article given its current contents. The video interview contains lots of extra subtle details that even a full transcript would miss, and the Street View link allows readers to explore the area, see more pictures nearby, get directions to get to the location and learn more about the subject of the article, etc. I see no reason to omit that info from the readers. --Waldir talk 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. No. Not sure what this adds looking at the link and the description given, that it "reportedly closely resembles the 1996 photograph", is very weak justification. 2. Yes sort of. The you tube video looks fine, but I see no merit in including the google maps view. It adds nothing that is not already seen in the article. AIR corn (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. No. Too bulky, not directly related to subject. 2. Yes/No mixture Google Maps link is okay. (No, the coordinates tag DOES NOT do what the Google Maps link does.) The YouTube video is seen in three citations plus the further reading section Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One link to rule them all Instead of (1) and (2), use this link, posted by User:Waldir below. That Google Maps link is just another expensive way of showing a photo. For a true map see the geocoords. Fleet Command (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that that link was suggested by, not me. I still think there's no problem in linking to the youtube video directly, but that article at least shows some effort in writing up the content rather than simply lazily describing what the video is in one/two paragraphs and then embedding it, so if consensus tends toward using that link, I won't object. --Waldir talk 09:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes: That's what it's for; by not doing so, you are essentially burying excellent information in Wikipedia's equivalent to fine print. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Other discussion
I think we should take this opportunity to also discuss the inclusion of mere wrappers of the video interview, which is the case of the Gizmodo link (in a separate "Further reading" section, no less!). As I mentioned in another discussion thread on this talk page, I am against including such links, which add next to nothing to the video and are merely leeching off the content that the video itself provides. Thoughts? --Waldir talk 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A reliable source is one that is receives peer review or editor's review. YouTube CAN have that but this one does not. Gizmodo provides that. It means someone checked it and thought it is attention-worthy. Besides, YouTube always authenticates Microsoft whenever it posts video; this one does not have "Verified Identity" mark. All the more reason to use a secondary source. 188.245.53.140 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain that little orange box that says "Microsoft" on the YouTube page then? Besides, in another one of the sources we've used (one of the Napa Valley local papers I think), O'Rear mentions clearly that he's got a Dutch TV crew coming over to interview him. I would also note that the many newspaper outlets accept this as genuine, too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's user's avatar or badge (or whatever). Anyone could make it. The "Verified Identity" logo is a check mark with a colored box that leads to an FAQ page about what is Verified Identity, how to obtain it and what it represents. Fleet Command (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's strange that Microsoft post anything on YouTube. Microsoft has Channel9 and TechNet Video. Fleet Command (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not Microsoft itself, it's Microsoft's Dutch subsidiary that produced the video. They might not have the Verified Identity or whatever ... I mean, how many people on YouTube do? Honestly, you're looking for the possibility of doubt to justify your position, and confusing it with reasonable doubt. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How could that possibly be my objective when simply not stripping the material naked would defeat my purpose? With all due respect, you have first assumed that the video is genuine, then constructed all your arguments upon it, trying find an explanation with anything inconsistent with this assumption. Look, we're straying into commenting on person, so I am stating my final position explicitly: I prefer a PC Magazine article with the embedded YouTube video instead of the YouTube video itself. If you have something against this, either we respectfully agree to disagree or I alone respectfully disagree. (Or of course, the third option is to take my opinion in the survey section as a compromise.) Fleet Command (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure English is your first language, so let me say it more directly: I think you are contorting logic to find a justification for not using the video directly as a source because, having learned that we can and do link to YouTube videos contrary to what you seemed to have thought, you can't accept that. And what exactly do you mean by "stripping the material naked"? Sounds rather violent to me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this new: Personal attack on my English, accusation of contorting logic and "other stuff exists" argument. I am entering Deny Recognition mode, so if anyone wants to tell me something, the place is my talk page. But no "let's ignore such and such policy because Emerson said such and such" kind of message please. Fleet Command (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't get to dictate what arguments the rest of us use. If that is your idea of rational debate, you and your longtime companion Lisa can stay away from this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! I have previously been accused of being a tag-team buddy or sockpuppet of and . But this is new! No offense, Fleet Command, I must say, in comparison to the legendary Mark, you are a serious downgrade.  But I am afraid, Daniel, Fleet Command has carte blanche to revert anything that comes to his talk page; so, yes, he/she does get to dictate what arguments the rest of us take there.
 * Now, both of you, look, I can also accuse Daniel and of being tag-team buddies or meatpuppets but I don't simply because such baseless uncivil discussions are not conducive to a team-work atmosphere. We are not here on an accusation-vilification campaign. Judging by the vote count, the supporting side has already won but I don't feel I have lost or am defeated because most of the participants here are my beloved friends. Another thing is: Both of you will forget this discussion and whether you won or lost but it would take a longer time to forget that "person X offended me". Now instead of posting hurting comments (direct or indirect), let us be friends who have a disagreement, okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi, . As this guest user explained (must be my doppelgänger!) and I said it in another discussion, "leeching off content" is contentious labeling for having received review. But you might be interested in this link: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Creates-Short-Documentary-About-Windows-XP-Bliss-Wallpaper-Video-437190.shtml

 * This link might resolve the entire RFC in one fell swoop.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

, How is #1 "Not directly related to the subject"? It's exactly the same as the 2006 picture. It's hard to see how more directly related these pictures could be, they are a chronological sequence of the same shot, something which numerous reliable secondary sources have reported on. And the picture is discussed in the article, it's not window dressing, the relation is established. -- Green  C  16:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. The subject of the article is the 2001 wallpaper on Windows XP. It is natural that millions of photos are taken from the same location afterwards, especially in this age that every mobile phone has a 20 Gigapixel camera. We already have another photo with equal merit (from the same location, not the original) with free license. I say put that in the External links section, if it is not in citations already. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This particular picture is out of the ordinary due to its quality, fidelity to the original, original information concerning location, and citation by the press. It's not just someone's cell phone snapshot, which I agree would be out of place in the article. -- Green  C  19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is so significant, it merits an upload with fair-use rationale. But unfortunately, I don't think so. All of these except the quality are circumstantial conditions that on their own, do not add due weight. Even so, if the photo has a section of its own, then the box is already pointless. "Someone's cell phone snapshot" is also contentious labeling. "Someone's cell phone snapshot" have received award from Wikimedia Commons and Flickr, occasionally having made it to the Picture of the Year competition. Overall, I think external media must be used only in exceptional cases. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * external media says to use the template when Fair Use is unavailable, and since FU won't work for this article, it's a good solution. external media doesn't say "only in exceptional cases", rather "readers will expect this type of media in the article", which is the case since the picture is discussed in the article, and we usually show pictures when they are discussed. Editors should have the freedom to do it this way without being required to meet the high bar requirements of FU, that is why the external media template was created. -- Green  C  22:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind my joining in, I think you are taking words out of its context. Doc pages are just meant to have brief but vague description of the use case and teach the syntax. They don't have policy values beyond that of an essay, unless you know for sure there is consensus behind them. WP:NOTLINKFARM, WP:EL and WP:ELLAYOUT all point to the fact that external links in Wikipedia are unwanted unless they contribute significantly to the quality of the article. In its current state, the article looks like those street advertisers (I am hoping I am being polite by avoiding the commonly used word) in busy streets who would try to force a flyer into your hand, face, pocket, handbag/purse and even your paper cone of fries just to deplete their stack of flyers. They don't care that collecting these flyers for the paper recycling bin of your house is probably not the reason you came out.

 * The reason people visit this article for the first time is the 2001 wallpaper of Windows XP. In that light, forcing a link at the top, middle and bottom of the article to another photo is detrimental. Fleet Command (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The Documentation for external media is in-line with EL policy, the only difference is you disagree that the links are appropriate for the article (point #3 of the Documentation) - which is fine, it's just an opinion either way. We are having an RfC to determine broader consensus. -- Green  C  05:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You wanna go what logic? Alright, allow me to quote from it then: "'The external media template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS.'"
 * Well, File:Bliss (location).jpg is available! Also: "'At that time, the link included in this template may be considered for inclusion as a regular WP:External link in the ==External links== section.'"
 * Why not? Birds of the same feather after all, aren't they? Fleet Command (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that Lisa/FC insist on proof for everything that goes against their argument, yet find it utterly unnecessary to back up their own with any? Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Erm... Daniel, the hyperlinks that participants provide are supposed to be proofs. In fact, do I need to quote you to prove we actually discussed my proof in "§Youtube video" above? Like I said above, such discussions are not conducive to a teamwork atmosphere that is Wikipedia. So, let us be friends who disagree, okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "proof" above consisted of sweeping denials of some of my arguments, elision of others, hysterical hyperventilation about how Wikipedia is going to go straight to hell in a handbasket if we do this, insistences that the video is fake, and an insanely bureaucratic standard for proving that it isn't. When you were confronted with language in the documentation for the external links template that contradicted what you said about how it was supposed to be used, you basically used the "No true Scotsman ..." fallacy to dismiss it. All the same, I am glad that you stated flat out that you interpret various sections of policy to minimize external linkage. I feel those sections are qualified by the ones I cited. It is hardly the only issue where Wikipedia policy on different pages can give rise to contradictory interpretations. That's why we need more people responding to this RfC. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You undergo a lot of hardship to project an unpleasant image of yourself – and for a tiny link too – and I must say you have succeeded. The very low factual accuracy of your allegations is another matter entirely. Unwatching this page now. Feel free to write a reply a hundred times more outrageous if you wish. No regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You claim to be insulted, yet you imply that I'm lying. You get mad when I use an Emerson quote, yet you sweepingly referred me to a movie to support one of your own arguments. This is not what I expect from an eight-year veteran of Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we please get back to the original question? I would really like to know whether other editors feel the current "further reading" section is justified, and whether the Gizmodo article provides sufficient extra content besides embedding the video to warrant inclusion in the article, regardless of being a reliable source (I think the Softpedia link, on the other hand, is at least acceptable regarding the content argument). I don't feel I can simply hijack the RfC to add a new question, but if you guys agree, I'll do so, in order to collect structured feedback about this. --Waldir talk 20:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, since I feel now that the edits I have done to improve the article are complete. I don't feel the "further reading" section is justified, since it doesn't offer the additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article" that it should. It is basically just another news article like those already used as sources, several of which already have the video embedded. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the Gizmodo link is probably superfluous to the YouTube link. Suggest a bold edit to remove the Further Reading section, and see if anyone objects/supports, before taking to RfC. I've lost track of who is for or against what in the article. -- Green  C  00:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This section/link is an alternative to RfC's proposal inserted by the opposition – more inline with my proposal of "one link to rule them all". (The Gizmodo link contains both the image seen in the Google Maps link and the YouTube video.) Because of this, the fate of this section directly depends on the outcome of the question 2 of the proposal. Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie. Fleet Command (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Layout problem
Fleet Command (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The "See also" section was created to hold the portal bar but since there are no See also links it creates a lot of white space so I moved the portal bar down and moved one of the images up to collapse the whitespace until someone adds see also links. -- Green  C  15:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 * And now you've made the problem vertical instead of horizontal; template collides with references, making a scene of it. Why don't you move it way up? Why noy move the whole section under history? Fleet Command (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 * How is it now? Restored the 'see also' section and used Template:Clear to force the section header underneath everything before it. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Remains no different from the screenshot that I posted. The correct response to a problem is solving it, not haggling about it. Fleet Command (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Fujifilm's brilliant colours
choosing Fuji film for its brilliant colors. I think the photographer wanted to note that he used Fujifilm's Velvia, because it is a landscape film and boosts some colours to a level above reality, which is known among us photographers. And sometimes it's just called "the Fuji". But now it sounds like an ad for Fujifilm, which states that they offer film with brilliant (= good) colours and others don't. Like if he was paid for it. --92.76.140.58 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info. I made some changes based on your recommendation and what it says in Velvia. -- Green  C  15:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bliss (image). 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/20111201181845/http://www.hanne-mugaas.com/artblog/2007/04/paris_was_yesterday.html to http://www.hanne-mugaas.com/artblog/2007/04/paris_was_yesterday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623084314/http://www.300m3.com/sidor/sidor_2008/2008_8.html to http://www.300m3.com/sidor/sidor_2008/2008_8.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Should we add a In popular culture section?
I have seen examples of Bliss in popular culture such as in Paper Toss, two of the levels contain this as a desktop picture. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture in same spot
Hey! Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this. I don't edit Wikipedia but someone who does can do something with it. There's a reddit page that has another similar picture of higher quality than the ones up. https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5eiyjp/i_took_a_photo_in_the_same_spot_where_the_windows/
 * We need the picture to be freely licensed for reuse and modification; creative commons attribution or attribution share-alike are the most common licenses. --GRuban (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bliss (Windows XP Background).tif

Add new language: Bahasa Melayu
Azran457 (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bliss (photograph)


text: User talk:24.102.6.205

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

title: User talk:24.102.6.205


text: Talk:Spend a Night in the Box

title: Talk:Spend a Night in the Box


text:
Council of Ministers (Poland)

The Council of Ministers of the Republic of Poland (Polish: Rada Ministrów Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej) is the collective executive decision-making body of the Polish government. The cabinet consists of the Prime Minister, also known as the President of the Council of Ministers (Prezes Rady Ministrów), the Deputy Prime Minister, who acts as a vice-chairman of the council, and other ministers. The current competences and procedures of the cabinet are described between Articles 146 to 162 of the constitution.

Nomination
The process of forming the Council of Ministers begins with the nomination of the prime minister by the President of Poland. The prime minister will then propose the composition of the cabinet, which must then be approved by the president. Despite the president's nominating role in choosing a prime minister and approving the composition of the cabinet, however, the presidency's role is strictly limited, as the president must respect the majority wishes of the Sejm. Furthermore, the president is forbidden to select a different cabinet composition than the one already selected by the prime minister. Following their nomination, all members of the cabinet take the oath of office within the Column Room of the Presidential Palace, in a ceremony officiated by the president.

Within fourteen days of its appointment, the cabinet, headed by the prime minister, is obligated to submit an agenda to the Sejm together with a vote of confidence. Should the vote of confidence fail, the process of government formation passes to the Sejm, which will then nominate a prime minister within fourteen days, who will then again propose the composition of the cabinet. An absolute majority of votes in the presence of at least half of all Sejm deputies is required to approve of the cabinet, which the president will then accept and administer their oaths of office. Should a vote of confidence fail again, the process of nomination is handed back to the presidency, who must again appoint a prime minister, who will then nominate other members of the cabinet. If the vote of confidence fails a third time, the president is obliged to shorten the Sejm 's term of office and order new elections. However, since the adoption of the Constitution of 1997, all cabinets have successfully received a vote of confidence for their mandates, and have never required all of the reserve protocols of government formation to take place.

Composition
The Council of Ministers is headed by the prime minister, known also as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. The prime minister directs the cabinet's activities and acts as its representative. Furthermore, the prime minister ensures the implementation of the cabinet's policies, coordinates and controls the work of his or her ministers, and issues regulations. The prime minister may also be assisted by a deputy prime minister, who acts as a vice-chairman to the cabinet. Both the prime minister and deputy prime minister can discharge the functions of a minister. The constitution does not further describe the deputy prime minister's functions in the government, though the office's tasks are instead dictated by the Prime minister, and it is not considered an autonomous state organ. The deputy prime minister's position is normally offered to representatives of the government's junior coalition partner. Deputy prime ministers also take on other ministerial positions.

The rest of the cabinet is composed of ministers, whose tasks and governmental administrative portfolios are selected and organized by the prime minister. Cabinet ministers may originate from the Sejm and Senat. Ministers may also be selected from outside of the legislature. Two categories of ministers exist. First are the 'department ministers,' who exercise authority and responsibility within the central government's administration, including ministries, subordinate departments and other institutions. Less important members of the cabinet are the 'ministers without portfolio,' who do not direct any of the government's administrative bodies, yet perform tasks designated to them specifically by the prime minister. Regulations by any member of the council of ministers can be overruled by the cabinet upon a motion by the prime minister. The Premier is also empowered to reshuffle or remove members from the cabinet.

The style of the government and the roles of its ministers are not constitutionally mandated, depending instead on the prime minister's personality.

Stature
The constitution entrusts the cabinet to craft and implement the most important regulations and policies of the state. As such, the constitution delegates executive power to the cabinet. Although the constitution does not equate the council of ministers as 'the government,' due to the powers of the prime minister, the competences of other ministers, independent bodies, and the direct representatives of the prime minister and the cabinet (voivodes) to the voivodeships who supervise the regional administrations, the cabinet carries out various governmental features. This includes the legislation and implementation of policy conducive of governing the state. Due to its constitutional mandate, the council of ministers acts as the main pillar of political authority, directing state administration, Poland's foreign policy, and much of the republic's domestic policy, unless some competences are reserved (by statute) to other organs or to local authorities.

Parliamentary and legal responsibilities
Due to the republic's parliamentary system, the Council of Ministers are collectively and individually responsible to the Sejm for the operations of the government. The cabinet must respond to questions from Sejm deputies during each sitting session of the chamber. The cabinet must also respond to interpellations within 21 days of their submission. Despite being responsible to the Sejm, the cabinet is not responsible to the Senat, and does not rely on the upper house's confidence to continue its term of office.

During sessions of the Sejm, members of the Council of Ministers, including the prime minister and deputy prime minister, are seated in the government box within the chamber's plenary hall. The seating area faces the central lectern, located on the lectern's right side.

The Sejm can pass a vote of no confidence on an individual minister if the motion receives the support of at least 69 deputies. If the motion is successful, passed by a majority vote, the president will recall the minister from office. Similarly, if the Council of Ministers loses its majority support within the Sejm, the cabinet can be forced to resign in a constructive vote of no confidence. The motion must be approved by at least 46 deputies, and then passed by a majority vote. In such an event, a new prime minister must be simultaneously appointed. The prime minister is also empowered to call a vote of confidence in the cabinet, requiring a majority vote from at least half of all present deputies. In the event of the prime minister's resignation or death, the president can either accept or refuse the cabinet's resignation of office. Following a parliamentary election, the premier must submit the cabinet's resignation in the first sitting of the newly elected Sejm. After its resignation, the cabinet is entrusted to continue administering state functions until the appointment and oaths of office of the new government.

Legally, the Council of Ministers is also held accountable to the State Tribunal for infringements upon the constitution or other legal statutes. Upon a motion by either the president or by 115 deputies, a member of the cabinet can be charged to be brought forth to the State Tribunal, and then require the approval of at least three-fifths of all Sejm deputies to begin the proceedings.

Meetings
The Council of Ministers convenes every Tuesday at the Chancellery. The prime minister may also call special cabinet meetings during extraordinary situations.

Cabinet Council
Additionally, the president is empowered to convene a cabinet council, when the head of state presides over the Council of Ministers. The convening of such a cabinet council is strictly at the president's discretion, who will decide an issue or set of issues important for discussion and deliberation. The president may bring the cabinet's attention to issues of particular importance and ask for information as to the intentions or actions taken by the government. However, meetings of the cabinet council do not possess the same legislative competences as cabinet meetings.

Other resources

 * Constitution of the Republic of Poland (in English)

title: Council of Ministers (Poland)


text:
Planté (crater)

Planté is a lunar crater that is situated near the eastern inner wall of the much larger crater Keeler. Just to the east, attached to the exterior of Keeler, is the large crater Heaviside. Planté is located on the far side of the Moon and cannot be viewed directly from the Earth.

This crater has a sharp-edged rim and an interior floor that is wider along the southeastern half, possibly due to slumped material or ejecta deposits. A small crater lies across the northern rim and part of the inner wall. There is no central peak, but a small crater is located just to the west of the midpoint. Low ridges radiate from this crater rim across the floor to the northeast.

A small crater on the northern slope of the interior of Planté was a designated control point, CP-2, during the Apollo 8 mission. Measurements taken from orbit on this point improved the accuracy of mapping of the lunar far side, although they were likely surpassed by subsequent Apollo missions.

The crater is named for Gaston Planté, a French physicist (1834-1889), and the name was approved by the IAU in 1979.

title: Planté (crater)


text:
Talk:Shae Marks

Templates
Please see the talk page for Suzi Simpson regarding templates. Jester2001 20:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image removed
OrphonBot removed an image of her as a bomis babe. :s Mathmo 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shae Marks


text:
Kalanchoe orgyalis

Kalanchoe orgyalis a species of flowering plant in the Crassulaceae family. It is a succulent commonly known as copper spoons due to its leaf shape.

title: Kalanchoe orgyalis


text:
Talk:Earthquake cloud

Requested merge
Earthquake_cloud → Earthquake_light — Regarding this issue I strongly disagree. This are two distinct phenomena, eventhough the cause is most likely the same; the effects cloud/light are evidently different in nature. That merits two separate articles, unless a more comprehensive article integrates them such as Earthquake_signs for instance. Abestrobi (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with the merge (Oppose). Earthquake clouds are not the same as earthquake lights. Earthquake clouds involve not only the rainbow-coloured clouds, but other phenomena such as rapidly-appearing clouds, as well as five distinct types of clouds visible on satellite photos, sometimes stretching for hundreds of kilometres, are also considered earthquake clouds. Also, earthquake lights and clouds are not always seen together, and books that I've read often talk about one and not the other, or keep them seperate topics. Also, the book I'm reading suggests that earthquake clouds may come as much as 103 days prior to the predicted earthquake. The photos from the Sichuan earthquake suggest they are the same thing, but there are still many different types of what are said to be earthquake clouds, some quite different from the ones observed. Earthquake lights can also come as a bright sky glow at night, or it can also happen during the day. Historical records suggest earthquake clouds can also appear like a long thin line, or appear as coloured bands of clouds with thunder and lightning that lead to excssive rain, or long-lasting snake-like black thread-like clouds that appear out of nowhere. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Predictions
Zhonghao Shou, a retired chemist in California, has made dozens of earthquake predictions has some prediction become true?
 * According to the page, he claims 70% accuracy. So at least he claims that some predictions have come true. Not sure if these predictions are published openly beforehand or not in such a way that would enable verification of his claim. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. his website is directly linked from the article. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To discuss about merging with earthquake light follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthquake_light Lpele (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, 'Using the earthquake vapour theory to explain the French airbus crash'(Shou Zhonghao) will be published in Remote Sensing Letters (an authoritative magazine in U.K.), Volume 1,Number 2, June 2010. In this paper, Shou proposed a hypothesis based on different data and figures to explain the sudden disappearance of airplane happened on 1 June 2009. Other air crashs may also relative with earthquake vapour such as Yemen air crash (30 June 2009), Iran air crash (15 July 2009) and Ethiopia air crash (25 January 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashao (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge/Move/Redirect to Earthquake Weather
Somebody just haul off and do it. We don't need two articles for Earthquake Lights and Earthquake Clouds, and who knows what other weird in-the-sky phenomena somebody might create another redundant article for.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Quality
This article is really a template of everything that can be wrong, duplicated paragraphs, run-in sentences, awful organization. I say it should be completely redone, or better since there is no scientific evidence for these clouds, it should be removed altogether and put a footnote in Urban Legends or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.212.139 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Earthquake cloud


text:
Yamaha GX-1

The Yamaha GX-1, first released as Electone GX-707, is an analog polyphonic synthesizer organ developed by Yamaha as a test bed for later consumer synths and Electone series organs for stage and home use. The GX-1 has four synthesizer "ranks" or three manuals, called Solo, Upper, and Lower, plus Pedal, and an analog rhythm machine. The GX-707 first appeared in 1973 as a "theatre model" for use on concert stages, before the GX-1 was publicly released in 1975.

Overview

The Solo rank features a 3-octave keyboard with 37 keys that are full width but shorter than standard. Directly above the Solo keyboard runs the Portamento keyboard - a ribbon controller which can be used to play continuously variable pitches roughly corresponding to the Solo keyboard note below. The Portamento keyboard overrides the solo keyboard if used simultaneously. The Solo rank has only a single oscillator, but has a dedicated low-frequency oscillator (LFO), pitch envelope generator and ring modulator.

The Upper and Lower ranks each have a full-sized 5-octave, 61-note keyboard. They are both 8-voice polyphonic, with two oscillators per voice. Each poly rank has a dedicated LFO, and there is a common "random" modulation generator. The Upper rank also has horizontal aftertouch which can be assigned to pitch, volume or filter, and a polyphonic glide function.

The Pedal rank has a 25-note pedalboard. It is monophonic, with but no LFO. Performance controls include a "swell" pedal with footswitch, and a spring-loaded knee controller.

All four ranks use a common voice-card design (called a tone generator in Yamaha parlance) to produce their sounds. Each voice card features a voltage-controlled oscillator with multiple waveforms, 2-pole high-pass and low-pass voltage controlled filters, and two envelope generators for filter modulation and VCA control. There is also a variable band-pass filtered sawtooth wave, and high-pass filtered square wave on each card. There are a total of 36 voice cards in a GX-1, containing 36 oscillators, 72 envelope generators, and 144 filters. Due to the extensive use of epoxy-potted sub-modules, a complete set of GX-1 voice cards alone weighs more than a Polymoog.

Preset sounds are stored on "tone modules" - small cartridges which each contain 26 fixed value resistor-dividers. These produce voltages which drive the voice cards, each resistor controlling one parameter of the sound. The tone modules are installed in compartments on the top panel of the synth. An optional "tone board" programmer could be inserted in place of a tone module, providing a full set of knobs, switches and sliders to control the parameters of a tone manually. Tones created this way could then be "programmed" onto a variable tone module using the Tone Module Setting Box. The Upper, Lower and Pedal ranks all have a dual-voice structure, where a different tone is assigned to each of the two voice cards per note. A set of hidden "wave motion" controls allows the second tones of the Upper and Lower ranks to be de-tuned. In the Pedal rank, the second tone is doubled on two voice-cards, both of which have a separate de-tune control.

The GX-1 console weighs 300 kg. The pedalboard and stand add 87 kg, and each of its speakers, four of which can be connected to the GX-1, weighs 141 kg (Which together equals a total of 951 kg, or 2096 lb).

The GX-1 cost $60,000 (equivalent to $ today) and was premiered in the US in 1973 at the NAMM Convention. The exact production number is unknown, but thought to total fewer than 100. At least 13 GX-1s are known to exist outside Japan, the remainder are presumed to have stayed in Japan.

Notable users
A number of artists used the Yamaha GX-1 extensively in their recordings:
 * Keith Emerson of Emerson, Lake & Palmer in their albums Works Volume 1, Works Volume 2, Love Beach, and In Concert, as well as various soundtrack projects in the late 1970s and early 1980s, including their eponymous Emerson, Lake & Powell album, as well as in the concert film of their 1977 Works Orchestral tour and in the music videos for "Fanfare for the Common Man" - filmed at The Montreal Olympic Stadium in winter - "Touch and Go" and "Black Moon". Emerson described touring with the GX-1 as a "roadie's nightmare" because of its 600 lb. mass. Hans Zimmer later bought one of Keith Emerson's old GX-1s.
 * John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin used a GX-1 on their 1979 album In Through the Out Door. Jones also used it on Led Zeppelin's 1979 concerts at Knebworth. He later sold his to Keith Emerson.
 * Stevie Wonder is said to have bought two, one of which is on display at Madame Tussauds in Las Vegas. He referred to the GX-1 as the "Dream Machine" because of its three keyboards that allowed him to layer different sounds simultaneously and allowed him to create lush and very convincing orchestral sounds. Wonder used the GX-1 in particular on his 1976 album Songs in the Key of Life and his 1979 soundtrack album Journey Through "The Secret Life of Plants". One of the two is now owned by Pete Townshend of The Who.
 * Benny Andersson of ABBA used a Yamaha GX-1 on several ABBA tracks as well as on tour. He still keeps it at his Riksmixningsverket studio in Stockholm, along with many other old synthesizers and keyboards.
 * Hans-Jürgen Fritz of Triumvirat, a German progressive rock trio influenced by Emerson, Lake & Palmer.
 * Rick van der Linden of Ekseption, whose solo album GX1 was played entirely on it.
 * Richard Wright of Pink Floyd allegedly owned one for a brief time, but it did not make an appearance on any recordings. It can be seen pictured in the album sleeve of Is There Anybody Out There? The Wall Live 1980–81.

title: Yamaha GX-1


text:
I Love Lisa

"I Love Lisa" is the fifteenth episode of the fourth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on Fox in the United States on February 11, 1993. In the episode, Lisa gives Ralph Wiggum a Valentine's Day card when she sees that he has not received any. Ralph misinterprets Lisa's gesture and, much to Lisa's dismay, relentlessly pursues her with affection. Lisa snaps at Ralph and angrily tells him they are not together and that she never liked him. Heartbroken, Ralph channels his feelings into his performance as George Washington in the school's President's Day pageant. After a thunderous applause from the audience, he is able to accept Lisa as just a friend.

The episode was written by Frank Mula and directed by Wes Archer. Michael Carrington guest-starred as Sideshow Raheem. Al Jean, show runner of the episode, came up with the idea for the story when he remembered that he had received a valentine from a girl in third grade that read "I Choo-Choo-Choose You". The episode features cultural references to songs such as "Monster Mash" and "Break on Through", and to the cartoon character Droopy.

Since airing, "I Love Lisa" has received mostly positive reviews from television critics; Entertainment Weekly placed the episode twelfth on their top 25 The Simpsons episodes list. It acquired a Nielsen rating of 14.9 and was the highest rated show on the Fox network the week it aired.

Plot
The second-grade students at Springfield Elementary School ridicule Ralph Wiggum's strange behavior. On Valentine's Day, the students give each other Valentine's Day cards. None of the students give Ralph cards, causing him to cry. Seeing this, Lisa gives Ralph a card out of sympathy. Ralph cheers up, develops a romantic interest in Lisa, and walks her home from school. Lisa is unsure how to tell Ralph she is not interested in him.

At Marge's suggestion, Lisa tells Ralph she is not ready for a romantic relationship. Ralph asks his father, Chief Clancy Wiggum, for advice on romance; Chief Wiggum tells Ralph to be persistent. Ralph invites Lisa to come with him and his father to the taping of Krusty the Clown's upcoming 29th Anniversary Special, and Chief Wiggum blackmails Miss Hoover into giving Ralph the part of George Washington in the school's President's Day pageant, in which Lisa plays Martha Washington.

Lisa reluctantly goes to the taping of Krusty's special with Ralph. When Krusty starts interviewing audience members, Ralph takes the opportunity to declare that Lisa is the love of his life and that he intends to marry her. Furious, Lisa loses her temper and tells Ralph she never liked him and only gave him a Valentine card because she felt sorry for him. Later, at home, Bart, having taped the event, replays the scene to Lisa which shows Ralph's humiliated, deeply hurt reaction; Lisa feels ashamed of herself. Wiggum comforts Ralph and attempts revenge on Lisa by smashing the taillight on Homer's car, but is alarmed when Homer warns him that one day, honest citizens will retaliate against the corrupt police. On the night of the President's Day pageant, Lisa tries to apologize to Ralph, but he ignores her. Ralph proves to be a remarkably effective and eloquent actor, gaining the approval of the audience and even reducing Groundskeeper Willie to tears. Lisa approaches Ralph on the swing set after the performance and gives him a new card with a picture of a bee on it, reading "Let's 'Bee' Friends". Ralph laughs at the pun and happily accepts the offer of friendship as Wiggum fondly watches them from his car.

Production
This was the first episode Frank Mula wrote for The Simpsons. Mula had previously worked with Simpsons executive producer Sam Simon at another Gracie Films show. This was the first season four episode that Wes Archer directed. Jeff Martin and Mula wrote the music for the President's Day pageant. Michael Carrington guest-stars in the episode as Sideshow Raheem, one of Krusty's old sideshows from the 70s.

The story of "I Love Lisa" originated from a personal episode of Al Jean's life; when Jean was in third grade, he received a valentine from a girl that read "I Choo-Choo-Choose You". Years later, Jean wondered if the girl had really liked him. He told writing partner Mike Reiss about it, and they thought it could be an idea for an episode where Lisa could give such a valentine to Ralph Wiggum, who would then take it too far. At that time, Ralph and Chief Wiggum were not established as being related. Jean thought it would be funny if Ralph was Wiggum's son, considering both characters are "fat and dumb". Despite this, Ralph's last name was already revealed to be Wiggum in the episode "Kamp Krusty".

A technique the staff used to come up with stories and ideas was to think "what holiday haven't we done on The Simpsons, or done lately?". As they had done several Halloween and Christmas episodes before, the staff liked the idea of doing a Valentine's Day episode.

Cultural references
The title plays on I Love Lucy. The song "Monster Mash" by Bobby "Boris" Pickett bookends the episode, which begins on Valentine's Day and ends on President's Day (Marty, the disk jockey on KBBL, played the wrong record.) Ned Flanders serenades his wife, Maude, to Rod Stewart's "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy?" (1979). The orchestral version of Tony Bennett's "Stranger in Paradise" can be heard in an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon. The name of the cartoon, "My Bloody Valentine", is a reference to the band of the same name. Homer's conscience, which tells him that stealing is wrong, speaks with the voice of Droopy. Principal Skinner's flashback is based on Apocalypse Now (1979), with Laurence Fishburne and Frederic Forrest's characters visible in the background. President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton appear in the audience of Krusty's anniversary show. Krusty shows a clip of Robert Frost reading "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" on his show, where Krusty dumps snow on him (Frost: "We discussed this, and I said 'no.'") Another clip shows Krusty singing "Break On Through (To the Other Side)". The Presidents' Day pageant opens with a "tribute to our lesser known Presidents," among them John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes, and William Henry Harrison, who mentions that "I died in 30 days!" During the segment, the children on stage sing "You won’t find our faces on dollars or on cents!" and "We are the adequate, forgettable, occasionally regrettable caretaker presidents of the U.S.A.!", a reference the general obscurity and ineffectiveness of 19th century Presidents. Backstage, Lisa tries to apologize to Ralph, who says "Leave me alone! I need to play George Washington!" while donning the dress of Franklin Roosevelt. During the re-enactment of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln at the school pageant, Bart, playing John Wilkes Booth, says "Hasta la vista, Abie!", in reference to Terminator 2: Judgment Day. His entrance, while Milhouse was turned with his back when the assassin was entering also looks like the final scene from Scarface, altrought it is speculated that the idea for the Terminator as a character was inspired from the assassin from Scarface. The scene of Chief Wiggum sitting behind Krusty at an adult movie theater and Krusty asking "Is this a bust?" is a reference to Paul Reubens' arrest for masturbating at a pornographic movie theater in Sarasota, Florida. The positioning of Krusty's hands on his face as he watches the movie is an homage to a similar scene in Taxi Driver (1976).

Reception
In its original broadcast, "I Love Lisa" finished eighteenth in the ratings for the week of February 6 to February 12, 1993, with a Nielsen rating of 14.9. The episode was the highest-rated show on the Fox network that week.

Since airing, it has received many positive reviews from fans and television critics. Entertainment Weekly's Dalton Ross said the episode was both touching and humorous. He added that in the scene where Bart runs a videotape in slow motion to show Lisa how "you can actually pin-point the second when [Ralph Wiggum's] heart rips in half", the audience does not really know "whether you're shedding tears of laughter, empathy, or both—you just know that it's damn good any way you slice it."

The Arizona Republic's Bill Goodykoontz named the episode one of his five favorites and highlighted Ralph's line "and my doctor said I wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if I kept my finger out of there" as one of the best lines in the history of the show.

In a review of The Simpsons season four, Lyndsey Shinoda of Video Store cited "Brother from the Same Planet" and "I Love Lisa" among her "personal favorites" from the season.

Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, the authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, said their favorite scenes from the episode include Principal Skinner's flashback to Valentine's Day in Vietnam, the scene in which Chief Wiggum chases a duck to get his badge back, and the one where Bart and Milhouse play John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln respectively at the school pageant. They added that those scenes were "just the icing on the cake of the main plot."

In 2003, Entertainment Weekly placed the episode twelfth on their top 25 The Simpsons episodes list, and in 2008 placed the episode second on their top "25 New Classic Holiday TV Episodes" list. In 2019, Consequence ranked it number eight on its list of top 30 Simpsons episodes.

When Principal Skinner tells the children at school that Valentine's Day is not a joke (due to Bart fabricating candy hearts with mean insults), he has a flashback in which he is sitting in a PBR somewhere in Da Nang in 1969. On an oil drum next to him is a manila envelope and a photograph of Colonel Kurtz. Skinner sees Johnny, one of his army friends, holding a Valentine card and asks him, "Sending your chick a Valentine?", to which Johnny replies "Yep", right before he is shot to death. Cutting back to the present, Skinner repeatedly calls out Johnny's name in anguish, to which a perplexed Bart states "Cool! I broke his brain." After the episode aired, a Vietnam veteran sent in a letter to the show that read, "I was watching the Valentine's Day episode of your cartoon and I saw the horrifying Vietnam flashback. Do you really think this was funny, this horrible experience?" The staff ignored the letter and, as Wes Archer pointed out, the scene was "an obvious" reference to Apocalypse Now even featuring characters that resembled Chef (Frederic Forrest) and Mr. Clean (Laurence Fishburne). In contrast, Mark Groening—the brother of Matt Groening and himself a Vietnam veteran—"loved" the sequence as well as the episode.

title: I Love Lisa


text: User talk:70.23.48.4

title: User talk:70.23.48.4


text:
Terence Zuber

Terence Zuber is an American military historian specializing in the First World War. He received his doctorate from the University of Würzburg in 2001 after serving for twenty years as an infantry officer in the United States Army. He has advanced the controversial thesis that the Schlieffen Plan as generally understood was a post-World War I fabrication.

He first described his views about the Schlieffen Plan in a 1999 article in War in History, and further developed them in his 2002 book Inventing the Schlieffen Plan. Some scholars, such as Hew Strachan, have largely accepted his ideas, while others including Terence M. Holmes and Holger Herwig have dismissed them.

In a review of Zuber's 2002 book for H-Net, Kelly McFall wrote: "Zuber's argument persuasively demolishes the commonly accepted version of the Schlieffen Plan. But his claim that the Schlieffen Plan itself never existed is more speculative and rests on a reading of evidence that is plausible but not conclusive.  Military historians interested in the outbreak of the First World War will need to read this book and decide for themselves.  Others will want to follow the debate closely, but may prefer to wait for a consensus to emerge."

Rebuttals to his ideas include:
 * Annika Mombauer, "Of War Plans and War Guilt: The Debate Surrounding the Schlieffen Plan," Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 28, No. 5 (October 2005), 857-885
 * Terence M. Holmes, "The Reluctant March on Paris: A Reply to Terence Zuber's 'The Schlieffen Plan Reconsidered,'" War in History, 8 (2001), 208–232
 * Terence M. Holmes, "The Real Thing: A Reply to Terence Zuber's 'Terence Holmes Reinvents the Schlieffen Plan,'" War in History 9/1 (2002), 111–20
 * Robert T. Foley, "The Origins of the Schlieffen Plan," War in History 12/3 (2003): 222–32
 * Robert T. Foley, "The Real Schlieffen Plan," War in History 13/1 (2006), 366–90
 * chapters by Gerhard Gross, Robert Foley, and Annika Mombauer in Hans Ehlert, Michael Epkenhans and Gerhard Gross (eds), Der Schlieffenplan. Analyse und Dokumente (Schoningh: Paderborn, 2006)
 * Holger Herwig, "Germany and the Short War Illusion: Toward a New Interpretation?" Journal of Military History, 66 (July 2002), 683.

Perhaps most importantly, in 2006, Germany’s Military History Research Office (MGFA) published Der Schlieffenplan: Analysen und Dokumente, edited by Michael Epkenhans, Hans Ehlert and Gerhard P. Groß (The Schlieffen Plan: Analyzes and documents. Age of World Wars, Volume II ). This volume contains a copy of Schlieffen's 1905 Memorandum misfiled in the German Military Archives at Freiburg and German deployment plans from the year 1893/94 to 1914/15, most of which had been lost otherwise. These documents, not yet available in English translation, are said to strongly support the traditional ideas of a "Schlieffen Plan" that Zuber disputed.

Works

 * "The Schlieffen Plan Reconsidered," War in History, 6 (1999), pp. 262–305
 * Inventing the Schlieffen Plan: German War Planning, 1871–1914. Oxford University Press, 2002.
 * "The Schlieffen Plan - Fantasy or Catastrophe?", History Today (2002).
 * German War Planning, 1891-1914: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell Press, 2004.
 * The Battle of the Frontiers. Ardennes 1914. Tempus, 2007.
 * The Moltke Myth. Prussian War Planning 1857–1871 UPA, 2008.
 * The Mons Myth. A Reevaluation of the Battle. 2010.
 * The Real German War Plan 1904–1914 The History Press Ltd 2011.
 * Ten Days in August, The Siege of Liege 1914 The History Press Ltd 2014.

title: Terence Zuber


text:
Bergamasque Alps

The Bergamasque Alps or Bergamo Alps (Alpi Orobie; sometimes translated into English as Orobic Alps) are a mountain range in the Italian Alps. They are located in northern Lombardy and named after the city Bergamo, south of the mountains. Within the Eastern Alps, the Alpine Club or AVE system places them within the Western Limestone Alps, while the SOIUSA system classifies them within the Southeastern Alps.

Peaks
The main peaks of the Bergamasque Alps are:

Passes
The main mountain passes of the Bergamasque Alps are:

Maps

 * Italian official cartography (Istituto Geografico Militare - IGM); on-line version: www.pcn.minambiente.it

title: Bergamasque Alps


text:
Talk:La Mano Cornuda

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:La Mano Cornuda


text: User talk:81.156.180.29

title: User talk:81.156.180.29


text:
Talk:The Sacrilicious Sounds of the Supersuckers

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


text: User talk:69.157.254.103

title: User talk:69.157.254.103


text:
Cassandra (disambiguation)

Cassandra is a prophetess in Greek mythology who was blessed with foresight but cursed, never to be believed.

Cassandra may also refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * Cassandra (novel), a 1984 novel by Christa Wolf
 * "Cassandra" (short story), a 1978 short story by C. J. Cherryh
 * Cassandra (album), a 1997 album by Zoar
 * "Cassandra" (Theatre of Tragedy song), 1998
 * "Cassandra" (ABBA song), 1982
 * "Cassandra" (Red Dwarf), an episode of the television series Red Dwarf
 * Cassandra (film), a 1987 Australian horror film
 * Cassandra: Warrior Angel, a Filipino television series
 * Cassandra (Two Steps From Hell song), 2014
 * "Cassandra" (Sherbet song), 1973
 * "Cassandra", 2024 song by Taylor Swift from The Tortured Poets Department: The Anthology

People and fictional characters

 * Cassandra (name), a given name (including a list of persons and characters with that name)
 * João Paulo Cassandra (born 1961), São Toméan politician
 * José Cassandra (born 1964), São Toméan politician
 * William Connor or Cassandra (1909–1967), British journalist
 * Cassandra, the main antagonist of the Newgrounds Flash game Pico's School

Places

 * Cassandra, Georgia, an unincorporated community
 * Cassandra, Pennsylvania, a borough in United States
 * Cassandreia, Greece, sometimes spelled "Cassandra"

Other uses

 * HMS Cassandra, various Royal Navy ships
 * Cassandra (metaphor), a term used in situations in which valid warnings or concerns are dismissed or disbelieved
 * Apache Cassandra, a NoSQL database management system previously developed by Facebook
 * Project Cassandra, a stymied DEA-led effort to undercut Hezbollah funding from illicit drug sources

title: Cassandra (disambiguation)


text:
Constitutional Tribunal (Poland)

The Constitutional Tribunal (Trybunał Konstytucyjny) is the constitutional court of the Republic of Poland, a judicial body established to resolve disputes on the constitutionality of the activities of state institutions; its main task is to supervise the compliance of statutory law with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

Its creation was a request of the Solidarity movement following its 1981 National Congress that took place a few weeks before the introduction of martial law. The Tribunal was established on 26 March 1982 and judges took office on 1 January 1986.

The tribunal's powers increased in 1989 with the transition to the capitalist Third Polish Republic and in 1997 with the establishment of a new Constitution. The Constitution mandates that its 15 members are elected by the Sejm, the lower house, for 9 years. It is the subject of an appointment crisis since 2015.

It should not be confused with the Supreme Court of Poland.

Powers
The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicates on the compliance with the Constitution of legislation and international agreements (also their ratification), on disputes over the powers of central constitutional bodies, and on compliance with the Constitution of the aims and activities of political parties. It also rules on constitutional complaints.

Composition
The Constitutional Tribunal is made up of 15 judges chosen by the Sejm RP (the lower house of parliament) for single nine-year terms. The Constitutional Tribunal constitutes one of the formal guarantees of a state grounded on the rule of law.

1982–1989: People's Republic of Poland
The Constitutional Tribunal was established by the amendment of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Poland on 26 March 1982. Due to the brevity of the introduced article 33a, it was decided that a law must be brought forth that would outline the proceedings of the Constitutional Tribunal. This became an intricate process with 15 drafts developed, and the final act was ratified by the Sejm on 29 April 1985 which allowed for the formal commencement of the Tribunal's judicial proceedings on 1 January 1986. But the courts competence and judicial capacity were limited at this time, as all rulings on the constitutionality of bills could be dismissed by a 2/3 majority vote in the Sejm. This in effect would place the rulings in an indefinite moratorium as these votes rarely occurred.

On 24 January 1986 the first motion, reference U 1/86, was brought before the Constitutional Tribunal on behalf of the Presidium of the Provincial National Council in Wrocław. The claimants sought to contend two paragraphs of the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers in regard to the sale of state property and the procedures and costs related to it as unconstitutional. In opposition to the government's stance, the court ruled in a 3-member panel on 28 May 1986 that the introduced paragraphs were unconstitutional. The Council of Ministers called for a reevaluation of the case, but on 5 November 1986 the Constitutional Tribunal upheld its ruling.

1989–2014: Third Polish Republic
In 1989 the Constitutional Tribunal's powers expanded as it secured the right to universally decide on the binding interpretation of laws. Many changes came with the enactment of the 1997 Constitution; the number of judges increased from 12 to 15, terms of office were elongated by 1 year for a total of 9 years, and the Tribunal lost its competence to decide the interpretation of legal statutes (in the form of abstract provisions).

2015–2016: Polish Constitutional Court crisis

In 2015, the governing Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO) party lost both the presidential election and the parliament (Sejm) majority to the Law and Justice party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS), which won an unprecedented absolute majority of seats.

Before the new president of Poland, Andrzej Duda, assumed office on 6 August 2015, and the new (eighth) Sejm was seated on 12 November 2015, the PO majority attempted to nominate enough judges so that the judicial branch would not quickly fall under the control of PiS.

In 2015, 5 of the 15 seats were due to be replaced. Three terms were due to end during the Sejm's recess (after the 25 October election but before the eighth Sejm was seated on 12 November). Two others were due for early December.

PO attempted to nominate all five seats due to be vacant in the year 2015 in advance. In June 2015, they enacted a provision in which it sought to transfer such power to the Sejm. Then on 8 October 2015, two weeks before the election, the Sejm elected these 5 judges. The new President Duda refused to let any of them take their oaths of office. After PiS won the elections and a majority of seats, they nominated a different set of five judges who were immediately sworn in.

This ignited a fierce partisan struggle, as the remaining judges in the Tribunal, most of which had been nominated by PO majorities, ruled out 3 of the 5 PiS nominees, validating instead 3 PO nominees, with the 3 PiS judges sworn in not allowed to hear cases.

As a result, a law was immediately passed by the PiS majority to force the inclusion of its nominees, sparking protests and foreign statements of either hostility or support. As this was not enough, a total of 6 "remedial bills" devised by PiS were enacted in the 2015-2016 period. A two-thirds majority was instated, diluting partisan influence. Finally, the term of resisting President Rzepliński ended and on 21 December 2016, President Andrzej Duda appointed junior member Julia Przyłębska as President of the Constitutional Tribunal.

Since the reform and takeover of the Constitutional Tribunal by the Law and Justice, the independence and sovereignty of the institution has been questioned. It was called a "puppet court" by Polish opposition judges' associations, some foreign judicial organisations and constitutionalist counterparts. In February 2020, former Constitutional Tribunal judges, including former presidents of the tribunal Andrzej Rzepliński, Marek Safjan, Jerzy Stępień, Bohdan Zdziennicki and Andrzej Zoll, stated,

PiS having been reelected to the Sejm in 2019, and the PiS-affiliated Andrzej Duda being reelected as president in 2020, they were able to fill the Court's 15 seats completely by 2021.

On 4 March 2024, following a non-PiS government being elected in October 2023 and formally sworn in on 13 December 2023, a package of measures was announced with the aim of reforming the Tribunal. The measures included a prospective Sejm resolution calling on illegitimately appointed judges to resign voluntarily and branding Julia Przyłębska as not being authorised to be the Tribunal's chief justice (Przyłębska having been sworn in by Duda in December 2016 without the required resolution being issued by the general assembly of Tribunal judges, and being believed by a number of legal experts to have sat completely illegitimately since December 2022), prospective legislation to alter selection procedures (requiring candidates to take part in an open public hearing and to receive the approval of three fifths of MPs) and eligibility (anyone who has been an active politician within the last four years, including even being a member of a political party, would not be eligible to sit on the Tribunal; any politician who did get selected would not be able to rule on cases relating to legislation that they had been involved with within the last ten years), and prospective constitutional changes to allow for the implementation of the measures.

Case K 1/20
The Tribunal received a referral by 119 MPs on whether or not abortions of pregnancies unrelated to rape or not threatening the mother's life, which they call "eugenic", are constitutional. The signatories argued that the provision violates Constitutional protections of human dignity (Article 30), the right to life (Article 39) or the prohibition against discrimination (Article 32).

On 22 October 2020, an 11–2 ruling declared that abortion in Poland due to foetal abnormality was violating the Constitutional protection of human dignity. This effectively made abortions on that basis unobtainable for women in Poland. The provision had been used for 1074 of the 1110 legal abortions in 2019. The ruling triggered the October 2020 Polish protests, which forced the government to delay the ruling's publication in the Dziennik Ustaw until 27 January 2021.

Case K 3/21
In July 2021, Prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki asked the Tribunal for a constitutional review of three provisions of Treaty on European Union. Following a series of hearings of prominent officeholders, the Tribunal ruled on 7 October 2021 in a 12–2 decision that:
 * 1) Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union (establishing an "ever closer union"), insofar as it is interpreted by the European Court of Justice in a "new step" (nowy etap) which
 * 2) * enlarges the EU institutions' competence beyond the limits that Poland accepted via its treaties,
 * 3) * opposes the primacy of the Constitution of Poland in both validity and application,
 * 4) * opposes the sovereignty of the Polish state,
 * is unconstitutional;
 * 1) Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union (that establishes the ECJ), insofar as it gives ordinary courts the right to disregard the Constitution, and to adjudicate on the basis of provisions repealed by the Sejm or deemed unconstitutional by the TK, is unconstitutional;
 * 2) Article 19 and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (values) are unconstitutional insofar as they empower ordinary courts to question the constitutionality of judicial appointments by the President.

Consequently, all branches of power in Poland argue that Poland's membership in the European Union does not entail that institutions external to the state have the supreme legal authority.

This was widely interpreted as a challenge of the primacy of European Union law, which emerged in Costa v. ENEL (1964), with some talking of a judicial "Polexit". European primacy, however, had never been fully enshrined by previous Polish rulings, only insofar as it doesn't infringe on Poland's sovereignty (see K 18/04).

This landmark decision marks the culmination of the escalade over judicial nominations and reforms between Brussels and Warsaw that began in late 2015, when Law and Justice came to power, starting with the 2015 Polish Constitutional Court crisis. Many politicians in Brussels called upon the European Commission to freeze payments to Poland. The Commission President said she was deeply concerned, and ordered to act swiftly. The recently-implemented Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation could be used.

2015 Polish Constitutional Court crisis
In the summer and autumn 2015, a change of power occurred with Civic Platform (PO) losing both the Sejm and the Presidency to Law and Justice (PiS). These two branches appoint and swear new judges, respectively.

In 2015, the term of five judges was set to expire, three of which between Sejm election day and the new legislature's session, and two the month after. PO tried to appoint them in advance (they were: Roman Hauser, Krzysztof Ślebzak, Andrzej Jakubecki, Bronisław Sitek and Andrzej Sokala) but their oath was denied by the new PiS President, Andrzej Duda. As a result, they never sat. The new PiS majority nominated three other judges on 2 December 2015 (Henryk Cioch, Lech Morawski, Mariusz Muszyński) and two others the next week (Piotr Pszczółkowski, Julia Przyłębska), who were immediately sworn in. Cioch and Morawski later died while in office, and were replaced by Justyn Piskorski and Jarosław Wyrembak.

Of the appointments made before the election, the Constitutional Tribunal itself invalidated the last two and accepted the first three. As a consequence, of the appointments made after the election, the Tribunal accepted the last two (Piotr Pszczółkowski and Julia Przyłębska) and invalidated the first three (Henryk Cioch, Lech Morawski and Mariusz Muszyński). However, the ruling was disputed by the new government, who then went on to change the statutes regulating the Court, in order to have its nominees sit. See 2015 Polish Constitutional Court crisis.

Multiple cases were sent to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, challenging the Tribunal's legal status. In Xero Flor v Poland, the ECHR ruled on 7 May 2021 that a Polish company did not have the right to a fair trial because Muszyński's election was unlawful. The Constitutional Tribunal is expected to judge on 3 August 2021 whether it will comply to the ruling or not; this is interpreted as a decision on whether the European or Polish courts are sovereign. In a 14 July 2021 ruling, the Tribunal rejected the constitutionality of any attempt by the ECHR to suspend the Polish tribunals, as such competence has never been transferred by any treaty.

Length of tenure
This graphical timeline depicts the length of each current justice's tenure on the Court:

title: Constitutional Tribunal (Poland)


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/1 July 2005

NGC 2346 is an unusually shaped planetary nebula. The cause of its shape is the binary system at its centre: when one of the two stars evolved into a red giant, it engulfed its companion, which stripped away a ring of material from the larger star’s atmosphere. When the red giant’s core was exposed, a fast stellar wind inflated two ‘bubbles’ from either side of the ring.

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/1 July 2005


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/2 July 2005

The Egg Nebula is a prot--planetary nebula, forming as the outer layers are gently expelled from a dying red giant star which has exhausted all its nuclear fuel. The 'searchlight' effect is caused by light emerging from the thinnest parts of a thick cloud of dust surrounding the star.

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/2 July 2005


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/3 July 2005

This spiral galaxy in the constellation of Circinus is an example of a Seyfert galaxy, a class of active galaxy believed to be related to quasars, and which contain a super-massive black hole at their centre. The Circinus Galaxy is obscured from view by thick clouds of dust within the Milky Way, and was only discovered in 1975.

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/3 July 2005


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/4 July 2005

At the centre of the Eta Carinae Nebula lies Eta Carinae, one of the most massive and luminous stars known. The nebula is considerably larger and somewhat brighter than the more famous Orion Nebula, and is the site of active star formation. It is easily visible from the Southern Hemisphere.

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/4 July 2005


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/5 July 2005

The Eskimo Nebula is a planetary nebula, named for its supposed resemblance to a face looking out from inside a parka. It lies about 5,000 light years away in the constellation of Gemini. The outer parts of the nebula contain comet-like filaments, up to a light year in length.

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/5 July 2005


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/6 July 2005

The Cat's Eye Nebula is a planetary nebula, formed when a star like the sun ejected its outer layers at the end of its life. Long exposure images reveal several distinct episodes of mass loss from the star, with the inner bright nebula surrounded by smooth concentric rings, in turn surrounded by a giant shell of clumpy gas.

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/6 July 2005


text:
User talk:Ollie holton

Hi everyone!

If you want to leave me a message on wikipedia, this is where to do it.

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

title: User talk:Ollie holton


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/7 July 2005

The Trifid Nebula is a star-forming H II region, so called because it is divided into three lobes by lanes of dust. It lies about 9,000 light years away from Earth in the constellation of Sagittarius, and can be seen in binoculars or small telescopes.

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/7 July 2005


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balle Balle

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Balle Balle
An incorrigible foreign language dicdef. Already been transwikied. --Dmcdevit 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, verging on nonsense. --nixie 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 07:50, 9 Jun 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:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/8 July 2005

The Orion Nebula is one of the most famous objects in the night sky. It has been known since antiquity, and can easily be seen in the constellation of Orion as a fuzzy patch below Orion's Belt (above the Belt for southern hemisphere observers. The nebula contains one of the most active star formation regions known, with an open cluster of thousands of stars being formed within it.

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/8 July 2005