text:
User talk:KSchutte

I think it sucks when people block dynamic IP addresses. KSchutte 28 June 2005 17:27 (UTC)

If there are any really good Philosophy talk pages of which I'm not aware, please let me know. KSchutte 5 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

NBA Rosters
Sorry if it sounded like I wasn't happy with the template, but some creative feedback never hurts. Anyway, I love the way they just brighten up the largley boring team pages, and hopefully every team will have them soon enough. Harro5 06:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * No worries. I appreciate constructive criticism. KSchutte 15:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject Aesthetics
No problem. Even having a second name on the project is double previous progress! --Slac 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Requesting comments on template alteration
Hello. I see you are using one or more of the User instruments templates in your Babel box. Inspired by some recent developments, I want to rework all the templates in there (including ones used on user pages), to make them more like the regular Babel templates. However, I thought I should hear from the people this would affect before actually doing it. Please weigh in at User:Ddawson/User instruments. Ddawson 11:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls
Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005
Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
No caffeine. Just the blues (nasty breakup). I'll get over it. Go for it! 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Science
Please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject--ragesoss 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of neuroscience
Dear Kevin,

I'm an undergraduate student of philosophy (with a growing interest in philosophy of mind and cognitive sciences) and after reading your userpage I felt compelled to ask you for a little help, if you don't mind. Would you point out to me the best online references on the philosophy of neuroscience that you have met so far? Thank you in advance! Porcher 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested template
The template you requested has been created as {{Academia}}. --CBDunkerson 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much! KSchutte 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pages up for deletion
There are two pages up for deletion: Revolution within the form and WHEELER 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I know nothing about these things, so I will abstain. KSchutte 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy
The main problem that I can see with the philosophy article is that it is an article on the history of philosophy!! The section on branches of philosophy should be vastly expanded, there should be a discussion of the relationship of philosophy with modern science and perhaps religion, so as to illustrate the connections and contrasts. But this would mean that the whole article has to be rewritten. I think there was consensus against this or something.--Lacatosias 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, for some reason they think chipping away at what is there is going to be better than any rewrite from scratch, and they seem to be against a total rewrite in principle. As near as I can tell, you are one of only a very few involved in this debate (other than myself) who has any idea how to show what philosophy is.  As is the state of nature, I suppose, the loudest and most chatty have absolutely no idea what they're doing.  Here is my rewrite in progress, and if you'd be willing to support it when I'm finished with it, that wold be appreciated.  KSchutte 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll take a look at it as soon as I get the chance.   Kripkenstein and I managed to work out a similar problem on the dualism (philosophy of mind) page. It was complete chaos with POV warnings and proposals for merger. We wrote up a version from scratch and just posted it in place of the other. It's far from perfect, but it hasn't been touched in about two weeks (now that's pretty stable!!). It seems to be  the only way to do it: write a solid version and impose it.--Lacatosias 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm still working on it, and probably won't be done for another couple of weeks, so no rush. KSchutte 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I can definitely support the framework and much of the substance of what you are proposing. It would represent a huge step in the right direction. So far as I can tell, it avoids the major defect of the current version: it is not a f+++ing history of philosophy article and it doesn't get bogged down in terminological nonsense. I have some reservations about the intro, but fundamentally I see where you're trying to go with this, that is provide the reader with some idea of what philosophy does and how it works. It's an interesting and original approach, based on methods mostly. My major concern though is that you have a history section at the end which seems to leave open the possibility of more historical-inflationism by suggesting that each period of history will be defined by its methods, goals, and so on. This could end up being huge and worse than the present version. I would strongly urge that history needs to be dealt with very summarily and then linked to the main article. But my overall impression is positive. Good work!!--Lacatosias 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've gotten extremely tired (yes, already!!) of the nonsense on the talk page. From now on, I will discuss this case individually with yourself or others who seem to be quite serious about improving the article or I will just edit the article directly as I think appropriate. --Lacatosias 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for the positive feedback. I'm in agreement with you that the people who give regular feedback over there are missing the point, and I've lost patience with trying to enlighten anyone.  (An occassional person chimes in with the right idea, but most people with the right idea don't have the patience to tolerate the subsequent abuse.)  I think this whole article turns on the Basic methods section, and once I feel comfortable with that, I think the rest of the article can be tinkered and toyed with at our discretion (the other areas aren't so important.

 * Let me do a little work on the history seection right now to let you know what I had in mind to put there. I think once you see where I'm aiming, you won't mind so much. KSchutte 16:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the people chiming in over there, I suggest we invite WhiteC, Shaggorama, and Simonides to come help out. They seem to recognize good changes and good ideas and would be helpful. (Rodasmith maybe, too, but I'm not as familiar with him.)

I also suggest that once we finish, we should get feedback from Mel Etitis and Dbuckner. These two seem to know quite a bit about philosophy, but they seem to resist certain changes to articles that are helpful and productive. I think they could recognize a good article if they saw it, but might not be so much help producing it.

The rest of the people over there are just "kids" or n00bs to philosophy, and ought not be listened to very much. KSchutte 17:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Part of the reason I am confused about the situation with this article right now, in fact, is that there now seem to be two fora for discussion (the talk page and Shaggorama's subpage), or three if you want to count this discussion. If you can get at least some of these other people involved, I can get an idea of what direction this article is really going in and might be able to help out. Let's get agreement on this pageor on Shaggorama's for a general outline at the very least. I don't know any of these people at all well (I've only been woking on the 'pedia for about two months and have been splitting my time between a whole bunch of areas). But I share your general view about who should be consulted, who are the "kids" playing around, etc..

--Lacatosias 12:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I'm a pessimist about big articles such as philosophy (or meaning; just check the last changes since two weeks ago). They are overedited, overdiscussed and get too "democratic". But I guess I would vote for Kevin's new article. Velho 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point, Velho. I used to think that way, but I'm not so sure any more. I've actually made only two significant edits to that article: I deleted all the lists and nonsense from the bottom (no complaints or opposition arose) and just this morning I deleted the

definition section and rewrote the lead to include a as general and widely accepted a definition of philosophy as possible (I'm waiting to see the reaction to this last move). If it goes through, there may be hope still for such a broad article to be salvaged. In any case, I have publicly stated my own preference for K's version. It may be necessary, however, to introduce any radical changes one step at a time. When you get to that stage, let me know and we'll explain and defend every significant change on the talk page.--Lacatosias 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, we're a good ways away from making that decision. I've still got plenty of work left to do before we even try to move it over there. KSchutte 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Philosophy of mind
Any comments by someone as knowledgable as yourself would certainly be appreciated. --Lacatosias 19:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Žižek comment
Y'know... Slavoj Whoever :-). Contemporary continental philosophy really ain't so bad.  But apart from trying to lure you to "the dark side" of the philosophy discipline (or maybe away from the dark side, YMMV), I appreciate your comment on the philosophy project that is exactly to my way of thinking.  I wanted to give you a bit of context that you may have missed though.

In general, I believe as you do that an academic biography, especially of a contemporary figure, should present the basic facts of where the thinker went to school, where s/he teaches, what books s/he has written, and from there some general description of what her/his contributions to philosophy are (or to another discipline, the same general idea applies). Criticisms, if they occur at all, should be limited to a few sentences, maybe a paragraph at most. It's not so much different even for a historical figure; I don't want the David Hume article filled with everything everyone disagreed with Hume about either. But obviously some particularly notable historical figures: Hegel, Marx, Aristotle, etc. have launched whole "schools", within which many disagreements exist, and those can be discussed in an encyclopedic fashion.

As the Žižek article existed at the time I wrote my initial call for outside comments to the philosophy wiki project, there were six or seven paragraphs of "Critique". All the critics presented are perfectly respectable members of the philosophy profession (though none particularly notable on their own merits, most don't have WP articles), but a WP bio isn't the place to reproduce everything that goes on in contemporary philosophy journals. In the meanwhile, however, I refactored the long criticism section into a separate article, and left just a concise paragraph introducing the idea that such criticism exists. Doing that seemed less likely to provoke the worst edit warring, and the criticism isn't inherently unencyclopedic, it just isn't notable in the context of an article on Slavoj Žižek himself (per the desiderata mentioned above). I'm not sure it succeeded given the flamefest by the anti-Žižek folks, but I suppose it might have been still worse.

So while I don't think Critiques of Slavoj Žižek needs to exist as an article, it doesn't seem to me unencyclopedic for it to exist, as such (given, of course, that the material in it meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and so on, which it pretty much seems to). There are lots of articles that I do not think need to exist: articles on some character in a video game, for example. But not great harm is done by a slightly superfluous article, as long as it is written in an objective fashion.

All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Santa Barbara Meetup
Hello Kevin. Since you're a participant in WikiProject Santa Barbara County, I thought you might be interested in the Santa Barbara Wikipedia Meetup on Saturday 8 April. Please see that page for details. I hope to meet you there! Angela. 10:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox
Category:Unsolved problems in philosophy

Thanks
Thanks for joining me in the Philosophy of Langage project. I just realized I had forgotten to put the page on my watchlist, so I just assumed it had been completely ignored. But I see you have taken the time to post some articles that need attention and topics that haven't been addressed. Thanks. This gives me some idea of the particular areas that I can focus on instead of fumbling around randomly looking for dead links and so on.--Lacatosias 07:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Substance nihilism
I'm curious, when you say 'substance nihilism', do you mean mereological nihilism? Or is it completely unrelated?--Laplace's Demon 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheanism
I've put this article up for deletion. As someone who has worked with this article before, you may wish to weigh in.--Rosicrucian 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

re New Criteria
I wanted to leave a note and apologise for trumpeting your mention of bias in the criteria for the list of major philosophers. It is tough to reconcile different ways of seeing things even when people are being honest. And there are one or two individuals that put their personal agenda ahead of honesty. So when I saw an honest evaluation of the proposed methodology I quickly picked it up the bias part and started using it like a club. What I should have done was just say, "Thanks" and then, "let's see if we can find ways to offset those biases." Much earlier, you poked good-natured fun at yourself for being the kind of person that would entire all those numbers of columns in a spreadsheet. I got a big grin over that - cuz it sounded so much like me. I appreciate the work you've done and I'll focus more on making an objective criteria work. SteveWolfer 18:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Academic
What was the purpose you contemplate for Template:Academic? I have proposed using in the manner described at Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision. Fred Bauder 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see by looking at the history that it was intended to designate academic influence, but that you seem to have abandoned it. Please contact me if I have preempted something. Besides, I have to line up support for what I am doing, and may fail to do so. Fred Bauder 21:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC on SteveWolfer
Message posted on multiple user pages: as you've been a figure to some degree in the multi-article, Rand-related dispute involving SteveWolfer, I thought it would be appropriate to let you know that I've initiated an RFC on him. You are invited to join in the proceedings if you are so inclined. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the talk page of the RfC - the one on Respect for sources. I wanted to let you know that it touched me to see that. And encouraged me to stay civil even when I feel like I'm under siege. So, without regard to our different positions on things, I respect that kind of integrity. Steve 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I know it's hard to keep a level head in these kinds of "wars". You should've seen how frustrated I got over at philosophy last year sometime.  Its easier to be objective when one isn't involved in the conflict. KSchutte 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I added comments here and there on the RfC that make clear that you weren't part of the accusations against those who brought that RfC. Simoes has pulled out and withdrawn his certification of the RfC (presumably after reading my reply to the 'evidence').

 * And, an anon user deleted Rand from the 20th century philosopy page. I put her back, but I wanted you to know that it in response to a deletion and that I put sources on the list page and comments on the talk page.  Take a look and see you can tolerate that, or want something different? Steve 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Frankly, that just makes it look silly. I'm removing the references.  The main reason I deleted her from that page on that occassion was because you darn Randians didn't even put her in the right chronological order, and I was annoyed by that.  I'd say that that page is a lot like List of publications in philosophy and Timeline of Western philosophers.  Rand's presence is probably not acceptable by standards of objectivity, but shoring up the list with a good many more figures might make it acceptable. KSchutte 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Frankly, it makes me more than a little irritated to suffer through that stupid RfC being accused of not using cites properly. Then you just delete the sources, call them silly and offer no help at all.  Let's be real clear on this.  When entries are disputed they must be given sources - that is what I've been told - that's what WP policy says.  I will not be treated to RfC's for not sourcing (when I did but on the talk pages) and then have sources deleted when I do put them on the page.  If you want to encourage civility, avoid edit wars, help others become better editors - you are going the wrong direction. I came to your page out of courtesy and for help - I don't feel like that's what I received. Steve 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that sources are good, but only if they don't stand out in a ridiculous fashion. Sources for lists should be done in ways similar to those I've done on the List of philosophers born in the twentieth century and similar pages.  Giving sources for one entry and not the others just brings EVEN MORE attention to the person on the list who everyone is disputing whether she even belongs in the first place.  She should be getting less attention, not more, than the others. KSchutte 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your point about standing out (no other name having a source), and for that page it may not matter (depending upon the AfD results). But, if the AfD fails and for other lists, I will have no choice but to add a source for Rand if she is deleted and I don't have the time to research all the others on a list.  I will try to a format that doesn't stand out as much.  Thanks, Steve 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mouse hint
Thanks for the note about the mouse spin wheel and the ctrl function ! --Childhood's End 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Glad you found it! KSchutte 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vindication of the Rights of Woman
I noticed that on the talk page of the VRW you directed people to the Wollstonecraft page's "summary" of the VRW. I recently finished writing that Wollstonecraft page and, being a little burned out on Wollstonecraft, moved on to other pages for a while. But I have recently been reminded by several people that the VRW page is in dire straits. Would you be interested in collaborating on that page? Awadewit 12:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have managed to write the page now and it is up for GAC. Perhaps you would be willing to review it? The more informed and interested reviewers, the better! Thanks. Awadewit 11:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics in philosophy
Thanks for the redirects to the missing topics page - Skysmith 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007
The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Characteristica Universalis
Hi KSchutte. I noticed you gave the Characteristica Universalis article a B rating. Could you please explain the reasoning for this rating further on the discussion page of the article. Sholto Maud 03:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Please take no insult. I've been rating philosophy articles since the Philosophy Assessment came online about a month ago, and I haven't wanted to give anything higher than a B-class for a couple of reasons. 1) I don't really understand the point of the A-class, and 2) Both GA-class and FA-class involves a review and my mission at present is only to identify and tag philosophy articles, leaving nomination for a later date (or for others to do). If you think the article should be listed as a Good or Featured article (and would like the editorial comments such a nomination provides), I recommend that you nominate the article yourself. If, counter to my assumptions, you think I've graded the article too high, feel free to lower the class of the article as you see fit. - KSchutte 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sholto_Maud"

 * No insult taken - I'm more curious. I looked at the philosophy of worth/value assessment a few years ago, and it seemed to be very difficult to be "objective" when making any assessment, or when selecting ranking criteria for the value of philosphical thought & any writing about such. Hence my conclusion was that one could never adopt a neutral point of view in philosophy assessment. Do you know how Philosophy Assessment has managed to work with such isssues? Sholto Maud 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that it is very difficult to be objective (what teacher could deny that?), so I admittedly haven't tried to take it too seriously. Mostly, I think the grading system is good for only a few things. First, it helps one to find articles related to one's area of interest that at least some people have read and found to be worth reading (Good and Featured articles). Next, it helps the editors keep track of relevant articles. There are, I'm sure, hundreds of philosophy-related articles out there that haven't been tagged, and when they are tagged, it is easier for potentially-interested editors to find them. Finally, I think the stub-classification is pretty useful. These are articles for which there is very little doubt that it needs a large amount of improvement, and I think exhibiting recognition of this fact makes philosophers on wikipedia look better to those who might otherwise misjudge us on the basis of our really bad articles. Really, though, because most articles are bad and even fewer cite any sources, the issues you raise haven't really come up. Sure, some of it is a guessing game, but I'm sure you know a failing paper when you see one! :) I've also mostly avoided ranking the importance of the article topics, because those aren't really any battles in which I'm prepared to get involved. - KSchutte 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your response. While I think the idea of a tag and grading system is useful I'm not convinced by the practicality. The notion that some people have read an article and find it to be worth reading is cool, but needs to be better - there really needs to be a voting system for articles, so that they get a star rating by those who can be bothered. This is like a psuedo-review system. In the absence of such I'm not sure how one can say that most articles in Wikipedia are bad. On the contrary I feel that they have a lot of good info that is not normally found in paper or electronic print. It probably depends on POV. Re: failing papers, I've seen papers that failed, that deserved to pass - failed on ideological grounds, so I'm not sure where that leaves things... Sholto Maud

Indian philosophy
Namaste. I noticed that you added a link on the article for Indian philosophy but that site seemed to be a collection of general materials not related to Hindu philosophy specifically. The only item I found there that seemed relevant was a paper on Hindu Philosophy that I think would be considered a self-published document and thus not a WP:RS for this topic. If you feel that the site is important I would encourage you to raise the issue on the talk page for the article so it can be examined more closely. It is good to see someone with an interest in philosophy participating, and I look forward to dialog on this matter if you feel that I have acted in error, as I so often do. Buddhipriya 23:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you for dialog regarding the Indian philosophy article. Now that the link issue is complete, would you mind giving an opinion on what to do with the article in general on the talk page for it, or here?  Since you have a background in philosophy it would be interesting to have your views. Is there any reason to keep text in that article, or should it just be a list of pointers to articles? Buddhipriya 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking an editor to a name in the real world
Hi, KSchutte, it's an extremely strict rule that no personal information (real life name, contact details, etc.) is ever to be posted about another editor, unless that editor voluntarily supplies such information himself. Violations of that can lead to blocks — even to indefinite blocks. Do not ever post anything on Wikipedia that could lead to a connection being made between a user who wishes to remain anonymous and an identity in the real world. I don't care whether it's true or false, whether you have evidence or are simply making a wild guess or following stalking threads on sites devoted to "outing" Wikipedians. I hope what you did (twice) was just done out of thoughtlessness and ignorance of policy. Musical Linguist 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry. I didn't know of this policy and I don't agree with it, but I'll follow it. - KSchutte 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nous
I see you've edited Neoplatonism responsibly in the past, so I wanted to alert you to the intense changes that have been taking place at Nous, just in case you may have the time and expertise to contribute or respond appropriately (it's a bit of a mess). Wareh 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, ancient philosophy is quite far from my areas of expertise. I'm afraid I wouldn't be much more than an ignorant observer. - KSchutte 19:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks for your reply! Wareh 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007
The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jainism logo.png
Hello, KSchutte. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Jainism logo.png) was found at the following location: User:KSchutte. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List
Kevin - I have restored List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy as per your request at WP:PHIL. It was deleted via the WP:PROD process, which is supposed to be used for uncontested deletions. Apparently, no one contested it within the specified period of time. No worries, however, one can contest these things post-deletion. But, beware, the original nominator may put it up on AfD. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I was not the editor who initiated the PROD, but I was the editor who queried the list's viability on the talk page (see Accuracy and maintainability of this list). My concerns have not been assuaged by the discussion since the list was restored, so I have now nominated it at AfD: see Articles for deletion/List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Gregbard 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to answer this late
Re: your message from April.

Hi, sorry to answer this late but I have not been around Wiki for some time due to the fact that I cannot be distracted when I work. Sorry that I could be of no help in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject National Basketball Association June 2008 Newsletter
 The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

Speedy deletion of List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage
A tag has been placed on List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 12:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage
I have nominated List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Template
A template you created, Template:Foreign philosophy terms, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello KSchutte! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Anthony Quinton, Baron Quinton -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Angest listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Angest. Since you had some involvement with the Angest redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:KSchutte

A tag has been placed on User:KSchutte requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. creffett (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:KSchutte


text:
Pulau Semakau

Pulau Semakau (or Semakau Island) is located to the south of the main island of Singapore, off the Straits of Singapore. The Semakau Landfill is located on the eastern side of the island, and was created by the amalgamation of Pulau Sakeng (also known as Pulau Seking), and "anchored" to Pulau Semakau. The Semakau Landfill is Singapore's first offshore landfill and now the only remaining landfill in Singapore.

History
Pulau Semakau was home to a small fishing village, as was the nearby island of Pulau Sakeng (Chinese: 锡京岛) which was also known as Pulau Seking. Houses built on both islands were perched on stilts as most of the villagers were subsistence fishermen, making a living off the nearby coral reefs. Both islands had a few provision shops but the community centre was located on Pulau Semakau while the Pulau Sakeng Police Post (manned by a Marine Police officer of the Singapore Police Force) was situated on Pulau Sakeng.

In 1987, the Singapore government, after having acquired the land on both islands from the islanders, set about relocating the islanders to the mainland where they were resettled in the Bukit Merah and Telok Blangah housing estate areas by HDB. One of the oldest residents continued to live on the Pulau Sakeng despite his family having been resettled but he eventually moved out as well in 1991, as the island's jetty fell into a sorry state of disrepair. The Singapore SPCA was tasked with rounding up the few cats that were left behind after his departure.

Plans for the landfill was first announced in February 1989.

Subsequently, Pulau Sakeng was subsumed by the land reclamation process of Pulau Semakau and the present day Semakau landfill receiving station was built directly on top of Pulau Sakeng after that process.

Barramundi fish farming
Pulau Semakau and the neighbouring area is the home to the largest barramundi farm in Singapore, owned by Barramundi Asia (Kühlbarra). The location is chosen for its strong current and high oxygen content, necessary for strong growth of the fish.

Semakau landfill
The Semakau Landfill is Singapore's first and only landfill situated offshore among the southern islands of Singapore. It covers a total area of 3.5 square kilometres and has a capacity of 63 million m³. To create the required landfill space, a 7 km perimeter rock bund was built to enclose a part of the sea between Pulau Semakau and Pulau Sakeng. it was estimated that the landfill, which began operations on 1 April 1999, will last until 2045. The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, along with the National Environment Agency which manages the landfill, hopes this deadline will be extended through various waste minimisation and resource conservation initiatives.

Semakau Landfill is filled mainly with ash produced by Singapore's four incineration plants, which incinerate the country's waste, shipped there in a covered barge (to prevent the ash from getting blown into the air) every night. Contrary to popular belief that Semakau Landfill would be another dirty and smelly landfill, the care put into the design and operational work at the landfill has ensured that the site is clean, free of smell and scenic. During construction, silt screens were installed to ensure that the corals were not affected during the reclamation works. The landfill is lined with an impermeable membrane, and clay and any leachate produced is processed at a leachate treatment plant. Regular water testing is carried out to ensure the integrity of the impermeable liners.

A new REMEX Minerals facility at Tuas began operations in July 2015, recovering tens of thousands of tonnes of metal from the remains of incinerated rubbish using magnetic and eddy separators. This reduces the weight of incinerated rubbish by around 10%, hence benefiting the landfill that may run out of space in 2035.

Flora and fauna
Terrestrial flora and fauna

The terrestrial flora and fauna of the (natural) island has not been fully surveyed. At least 5 species of amphibians, 12 species of reptiles and 6 species mammals have been recorded on the island.

Marine flora and fauna

The coral reefs around Pulau Semakau have been monitored since the late 1980s to 2001, by the National University of Singapore, and from 2005 to the present by the "Reef Friends" programme (a joint project between the National Biodiversity Centre, National Parks Board and Blue Water Volunteers). Results of the surveys can be found at the 'Coral Reefs of Singapore' webpage and Blue Water Volunteers webpage.

The intertidal areas

A survey of the coastal and inter-tidal areas of the island in 2005 revealed four plants listed as endangered in Singapore,  including the Seashore Bat Lily (Tacca leontopetaloides) which so far has only been recorded in one area of Singapore: Pulau Semakau. Semakau also has vast stretches of Tape seagrass (Enhalus acoroides) which is considered rare and vulnerable in Singapore. Semakau is also the only known location in Singapore of the seagrass Syringodium isoetifolium. The seagrass meadow is being monitored by Team Seagrass which was started in 2007.

The mangroves

The construction of the perimeter bund of the Landfill affected mangroves on the eastern side of the island. The developers replanted two plots of mangroves totaling 136,000 square metres, just outside the perimeter bund. The two plots are doing well, indicating that there has been no seepage through the liners. Another design feature is the built-in channels that allow the flow of seawater into non-active cells, keeping the water fresh at all times.

Today, after years of operation, the replanted mangrove, and remaining natural habitats on the island are doing well. Even the closed cells, topped up with soil, are flourishing. Birds can be seen in the air and on the open landscape, fishes swim in and out of the lagoons, and marine life continues to thrive in the mangrove mudflats and the western shorelines of Pulau Semakau.

Coral nursery
A coral nursery was set up beside Pulau Semakau on 31 July 2007 to enhance hard coral cover and diversity in Singapore. This is a collaborative effort between the National Biodiversity Centre, National Parks Board, Keppel Corporation, National University of Singapore and the National Environment Agency.

Suitable candidate species for coral culture are collected from existing reefs at Pulau Semakau as well as from other reefs in Singapore. The naturally occurring collected larvae, nubbins and fragments would be grown to sufficient sizes in the field nursery until they can be transplanted to recipient coral reefs for restoration or enhancement purposes. This is probably the first coral nursery in the region that utilises such "corals of opportunity".

The latest report on the status of the coral nursery can be viewed here.

Seagrass monitoring
The National Parks Board, National Biodiversity Centre, TeamSeagrass and volunteers from the public regularly conduct surveys and monitoring of the seagrasses found in Singapore in the inter-tidal areas such as Chek Jawa and Labrador Nature Reserve. The seagrass meadow at Pulau Semakau is one of the monitoring sites. These surveys are part of Seagrass-Watch, a global seagrass assessment and monitoring programme spanning 18 countries with more than 200 monitoring sites worldwide. Non-destructive scientific surveying methods developed by Seagrass-Watch are adopted. Data gathered is then fed back to Seagrass-Watch Headquarters, which then analyses the trends and condition of seagrass habitats at the local, regional and global scale.

Survey on intertidal sponges
The National Parks Board, National Biodiversity Centre and the Tropical Marine Science Institute jointly launched a collaborative project to survey and identify the intertidal sponges around Singapore. The inter-tidal area of Pulau Semakau is one of the 24 locations. Although sponges are commonly found on our shores, they are poorly known due to the limited studies conducted.

The 1-year study yielded a total of 102 species of intertidal sponges. One species new to science, Suberites diversicolor, was described and a large number of 40 species of intertidal sponges were recorded for the first time in Singapore.

Recreational activities
The National Environment Agency on 16 July 2005 officially opened Semakau Landfill to the public for selected recreational activities. It was launched by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, with 40 families of the former residents of Pulau Sakeng, one of the small islands from which Semakau Landfill was built, invited back to their former home as guests of the event. The residents had left over 10 years earlier. The opinions of various interest groups and organisations such as Nature Society of Singapore, Sport Fishing Association (Singapore) and Wild Singapore in using Semakau Landfill for recreational purposes were sought.

Visitors are to contact TASOS, Starfish Learning Journey, Nature Society, Sport Fishing Association, or the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research which conducts guided walks on the shores of Semakau for the public. All groups are led by a trained guide. This supervision is in place to protect the island's natural environment. Since 2010, the National Environment Agency took over management of guided walks on Semakau from Raffles Museum.

Further, facilities have been put in place, such as strategically located shelters, lightning arresters and lifebuoys, as well as directional signage and clear markings of no-access areas to keep visitors away from the operation areas.

Targeting interested groups in Singapore now have a unique recreational destination in the form of a huge open ash-filled landfill tucked away in the pristine waters of southern Singapore, coexisting with a mix of mangrove, grassland and shoreline habitats.

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

title: Pulau Semakau


text:
The Simpsons: Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror

The Simpsons: Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror is a platform game published by THQ on March 19, 2001, for the Game Boy Color. Developed by Software Creations, it is based on the Treehouse of Horror episodes of the animated television series The Simpsons. The game features seven side-scrolling levels in which the player controls the members of the Simpson family. Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror has received average reviews from critics, with praise directed at the design.

Gameplay
The Simpsons: Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror is a side-scrolling platformer. The game features seven levels, each one of which re-creates a tale from the annual Treehouse of Horror episodes of the American animated television series The Simpsons. All five members of the Simpson family have their own level, with the exception of Homer, who has three. The levels include Marge in a zombie tale, Maggie as a fly, Lisa fighting cannibalistic teachers, Bart rescuing Santa's Little Helper in a haunted house, and Homer as a vampire killer, a robot, and the large ape King Homer.

Development
The Simpsons: Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror was developed by Software Creations and published by THQ. Software Creations began developing the game before the May 2000 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), but since it was only in its early stages when the expo took place, it was not displayed there.

Reception
The game received generally positive reviews according to the review aggregation website GameRankings with an average score of 74%.

IGN's Craig Harris said that it "is a better-than-average platformer for the Game Boy Color" and has "some decent design elements". He added, however, that he thought the game got boring towards the end: "The difficulty is certainly there — it's not an easy game to play, and you won't be whisking through this title in an afternoon. It starts out clever and decent enough, as the first few levels are a good and fun challenge. Most of the levels, though, are based on the first level's side-scroller, and by the time I got to the first Homer level, I was getting quite bored." Cam Shea of Hyper, more unfavorably, also felt players would quickly grow disinterested by its overuse of recycled elements of other games. Frank Provo of GameSpot, on the other hand, wrote that "each level [...] is a game unto itself, which makes for a rather pleasing and varied experience." He praised the game for being "colorfully drawn, highly detailed, and smoothly animated," and for the video game references featured in it. He disliked, however, that it "uses an unwieldy password system, making it unnecessarily tedious to continue a game."


text:
Wikipedia:Korea-related topics notice board/Complete to do

To create

 * Sports in South Korea
 * Silhak

Red links of Korea-related topics
Last updated August 9, 2006.

 * Kumgang-san Line
 * New Korea Party of Hope
 * North Korea Cold Current
 * P'yŏngbu Line
 * P'yŏngnam Line
 * P'yŏngŭi Line
 * P'yŏngwŏn Line
 * Dobong-gu
 * Dongdaemun-gu
 * Dongjak-gu
 * Eunpyeong-gu
 * Guro-gu
 * Gwangjin-gu
 * Jungnang-gu
 * Nowon-gu
 * Seongbuk-gu
 * Seongdong-gu
 * Taegwan
 * Huichon
 * Songnim
 * Pyoktong
 * Hongwon
 * Wiwon
 * Pujon
 * Yonsan
 * Chonchon
 * Chasong
 * Lotte Group
 * YDC Corporation
 * South Korea-China relations
 * South Korea-India relations
 * Rabbitchalk Company
 * Shinhan Bank Corp.
 * Proteogen
 * REGEN Biotech
 * Orion Group
 * NeoPharm
 * KB Kookmin Bank
 * Hyundai Electronics
 * Korean Data Systems (KDS)
 * LabFrontier
 * Hynix Electronics
 * Humax Electronics Co.
 * Hansol MultiTech Inc.
 * Hankook Energy Corp
 * Green Biotech
 * Eclaire Business Software
 * Cuckoo Electronics
 * CrystalGenomics
 * Chem Tech Research Incorporation
 * Celltrion
 * CellBioTech
 * Busanhalmae Group
 * Bluecap
 * Biomedlab
 * Ahn Lab
 * Aprogen
 * Korea Bio Venture Association
 * Byuck San
 * Dong Ah
 * Dongbu
 * Eugene Group
 * Halla (jaebeol)
 * Hanil
 * Keo Pyung
 * Kohap Limited
 * Kolon
 * Kyobo
 * Nong Shim Group
 * Taeyoung
 * Hyundai Securities
 * Hyundai Investment Securities
 * Hyundai Life
 * Hyundai Corporation
 * Hyundai Elevator
 * Hyundai Merchant Marine
 * Hyundai Construction
 * Hyundai Mipo Shipyard
 * Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries
 * Bunhwangsa Temple

To expand
See also: Category:Korea stubs

 * Seoul Train
 * Reorganization Agent of Korean History

Lists
Korea-related lists that are severely incomplete:
 * Islands of Korea
 * List of Korean language films
 * List of South Korean musicians and List of North Korean musicians
 * List of Koreans
 * List of mountains in Korea

To clean up
The following articles currently bear the tag:

 * Chondogyo
 * Contemporary culture of South Korea
 * Ha Ji-won
 * Hamhung
 * History of Korea (1900-1950)
 * International adoption of South Korean children
 * Japanese war crimes
 * Joseon Dynasty
 * Julia Mullock
 * Konglish

 * Korean nationalism
 * Korean adoptee
 * Korean gardens
 * Korean nationalism
 * Korean webculture
 * Myeongjong of Goryeo
 * Empress Sunjeong of Korea

To verify and reference

 * Baekje
 * Division of Korea
 * Gando
 * Goguryeo
 * History of Korea (1900-1950)
 * Japanese war crimes
 * Korean Friendship Association
 * North Korean abductions of South Koreans
 * Syngman Rhee
 * Mimizuka

To copyedit

 * Baekje
 * Lee Kun-Hee
 * Oei Invasion

Request for images

 * BoA needs something either GFDL-able or with a clear source and rationale for fair use. It seems people can't stand having the entry without a photo.  When one copyvio pic is removed, another murkily-sourced one takes its place.
 * Dennis Hwang
 * Gayageum
 * Busan Subway Line 1, Busan Subway Line 2
 * Kim Tae Hee
 * Kwon Sang-woo
 * South Korean car number plates needs diagrams and GFDL-able photos.

Potential Featured Article Candidates
Add your favorite article here!
 * Korean language
 * Imjin War
 * Korean War


text: User talk:80.57.38.67

title: User talk:80.57.38.67


text:
Kozara

Kozara (Козара) is a mountain in western Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the town of Kozarac and in the Bosanska Krajina region, bounded by the Sava River to the north, the Vrbas to the east, the Sana to the south, and the Una to the west. Its tallest peak is Lisina (978 m). In 1942 Kozara was the site of the Kozara Offensive, part of the Yugoslav National Liberation War and Partisan resistance during World War II.

title: Kozara


text:
Safar al-Hawali

Safar bin Abd al-Rahman al-Hawali al-Ghamdi (سفر بن عبدالرحمن الحوالي الغامدي) (born 1950) is a scholar who lives in Mecca. He came to prominence in 1991, as a leader of the Sahwah movement which opposed the presence of US troops on the Arabian peninsula. In 1993, al-Hawali and Salman al-Ouda were leaders in creating the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights, a group that opposed the Saudi government, for which both were imprisoned from 1994 to 1999.

In July 2018, he was detained by the Saudi authorities, along with his four sons and brother, for writing a 3,000-page book titled Muslims and Western Civilisation. The book is said to include "attacks on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and the ruling Saudi royal family over their ties to Israel."

Biography
Safar al-Hawali al-Ghamdi received his doctorate in Islamic theology from Umm al-Qura University, Mecca in 1986. During the 1990s, he was arrested for a period of time by the Saudi authorities for his criticism of the government when he distributed sermons on cassette tapes to incite militants to overthrow the government. Along with another thinker Salman al-Ouda, al-Hawali is said to have led the Sahwa movement (Awakening movement) in Saudi Arabia, a form of Qutbism.

Safar al-Hawali was one of the leaders of The Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR) that was a Saudi dissident group created in 1993 and was the first ever opposition organization in the Kingdom openly challenging the monarchy, accusing the government and senior ulama of not doing enough to protect the legitimate Islamic rights of the Muslims.

In September 1994, two leaders of the Committee, Salman al-Ouda and Safar al-Hawali were arrested together with a large number of their followers in the city of Burayda, Qasim region. Moreover, Sheikh Abd al-Aziz Ibn Baz issued a fatwa, that unless al-Ouda and al-Hawali repented their former conduct, they would be banned from lecturing, meetings and cassette-recording. In 1999, he and two other scholars were arrested, but were then released without any charge. Hawali has since parted ways with Salman al-Ouda.

Views
Like many Saudis, American libertarian politicians and anti-war activists, and indigenous religious communities of the Middle East, former veteran of the Afghan Soviet war Osama bin Laden, and another preacher Salman al-Ouda, al-Hawali opposed the presence of US troops on the Arabian peninsula. In 1991, al-Hawali delivered a sermon stating: "What is happening in the [Persian] Gulf is part of a larger Western design to dominate the whole Arab and Muslim world." Bin Laden is said to often cite al-Hawali and al-Ouda "to justify his own pronouncements against the United States."

Hawali was invited to the First Meeting of the Saudi National Meeting For Intellectual Dialogue held in June 2003 but declined to attend in protest against the inclusion of `deviants` at the meeting—namely non-Wahhabi religious leaders of the Sunni and Shia Muslim communities of Saudi Arabia. Al-Hawali did, however, condemned al-Qaeda's May 2003 attacks in Riyadh.

Written works
Safar al-Hawali wrote a book on secularism as part of his master thesis at Umm Al-Qura. This research was supervised by Muhammad Qutb, the brother of Sayyid Qutb. Here al-Hawali traced the history of the separation between the church and state and how the idea was imported to the Muslim world. In his Ph.D. research, al-Hawali made an analysis of the separation between the claim of faith and deeds of worship.

In the year 2000, he wrote a treatise on the Second Intifada, entitled The Day of Wrath. He argued that the Biblical prophecies used by Christian fundamentalists to support the state of Israel actually predict its destruction. The treatise was subsequently translated into Hebrew by the Anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group.

After September 11, 2001, al-Hawali wrote an open letter to President Bush.

When 60 American intellectuals issued an article justifying America's war in Iraq, al-Hawali wrote a counter-article, rebutting their claims and pointing to the history of US foreign policy.

Al-Hawali wrote an article in Al-Bayan magazine on unitarianism among Christians. He traced the history of those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity, and believe in One Supreme God. He claimed that monotheists had been subject to great persecution, by both Catholics and Protestants; and that five among the US presidents had been Unitarians. He has also written a book on the history and meaning of Secularism, in his Arabic book Al Ilmaniya. In this book he has identified Church's incapability to cope with challenges of modern world as the main cause of spread of Secular ideologies in Europe.

Support and criticism
He is mentioned in Osama bin Laden's fatwa as a sheikh unjustly arrested allegedly "by orders from the USA."

Samuel P. Huntington included al-Hawali in his famous Clash of Civilizations article. "'It is not the world against Iraq,' as Safar al-Hawali, dean of Islamic Studies at the Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca, put it in a widely circulated tape. 'It is the West against Islam.'"

Al-Hawali was named as a "theologian of terror" in an October 2004 petition to the UN signed by 2,500 Muslim intellectuals calling for a treaty to ban the religious incitement to violence.

title: Safar al-Hawali


text:
Solomon Willard

Solomon Willard (June 26, 1783 – February 27, 1861) was a carver and builder in Massachusetts who is remembered primarily for designing and overseeing the Bunker Hill Monument, the first monumental obelisk erected in the United States.

Background
Willard was born in Petersham, Massachusetts, and trained as a carpenter with his father, a farmer who did carpentry in the winters. He went to Boston in 1804, working during the day and reading books of architecture and drawing in the evenings.

Career
His handiness as a carver improved rapidly and he was employed for carved architectural details for many important late Federal and Greek Revival buildings in Boston, such as the Ionic and Corinthian capitals for the steeple of Park Street Church, built in 1810. In the same year he carved the eagle for the pediment of the new Custom House.

In 1818 he made a model of the capitol at Washington for Charles Bulfinch, who was then engaged on the Massachusetts State House, and later did several further works of this sort, among which were models of the Pantheon and the Parthenon for Edward Everett. From wood carving he turned to stone carving, and in 1820 was engaged on the Ionic capitals and other stonework of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Boston, the first example of Greek Revival architecture in Boston. By 1821 Willard had become so successful that he gave classes in architecture and drawing in his studio near St. Paul's, where the sculptor Horatio Greenough was a pupil. Willard added ship figureheads to his craft, from 1823.

Bunker Hill Monument
On November 2, 1825, Willard was chosen architect and superintendent of Bunker Hill Monument, his design having been accepted by the building committee in the following year. Construction began in 1827. Willard discovered satisfactory granite quarries for the stone at Quincy, and the granite for the monument came from there. Willard also invented the machinery to cut and handle the slabs of stone in what became known as the Bunker Hill Quarry, which evolved into a major industry for the town. To get the cut slabs to a wharf on the Neponset River, a distance of two and three-quarters miles, the first commercial railway in the United States was built—the Granite Railway—over which, on the morning of October 7, 1826, the first horse-drawn cars passed, under the direction of a young engineer by the name of Gridley Bryant.

Willard's work on the Bunker Hill Monument was succinctly recorded in 1849, by Amos Lawrence, secretary of the Building Committee, who wrote in the flyleaf of the committee's records: "Solomon Willard walked three hundred miles to examine granite quarries (Hallowell, Maine, and other places), gave a thousand dollars to the Monument Association, and worked like a dog for the association for years for merely his necessary expenses (which were very small), and is now at work at Quincy" (History 1926).

He was engaged in this work for seventeen years, being frequently interrupted by want of funds and by disagreements in the committee in charge, but on July 23, 1842, the top stone of the monument was laid, and on the anniversary of the battle in 1843 its completion was celebrated in the presence of the president of the United States, his cabinet, and a large concourse of citizens from every part of the United States.

Other works
In Framingham, Massachusetts, Willard's First Baptist Church, Framingham of 1826 still stands, now the oldest building in the town. The Norfolk County Courthouse in Dedham, Massachusetts, is also his work. In the same year he was also architect of Divinity Hall, Harvard Divinity School with Thomas Sumner. Willard also designed the Greek Revival Framingham Town Hall. The Gothic Revival Church of St. John the Evangelist on Bowdoin Street, Boston, dated to 1831, is also probably his design.

He is credited with designing some of the first hot-air central heating in an American building. In 1829 his recent pupil, the brilliant young architect Isaiah Rogers, designed the innovative Tremont House in Boston. This was the first American hotel to have indoor plumbing and it became the prototype of a modern, first-class American hotel.

He also supervised construction of the Captain Nathan Hale Monument in Coventry, Connecticut, which is a 45-foot obelisk.

Other
Willard died in Quincy, Massachusetts. In 1865, William W. Wheildon wrote a Memoir of Solomon Willard, Architect and Superintendent of the Bunker Hill Monument published by the Monument Association (Boston), which is the primary source for his biographers.

Family
Solomon Willard was a 3rd great-grandson (6th generation descendant) of the Massachusetts colonist Simon Willard (1605–1676). Solomon was also a 1st cousin of the American academician Sidney Willard (1780–1856), a son of Joseph Willard (1738–1804), clergyman and President of Harvard from 1781 through 1804.

title: Solomon Willard


text:
Talk:European Monetary System

Dead link
The following was removed from the bottom of the page. I decided to stick it here in case anyone feels like fixing or replacing it

Proposed merge of Draft:European Monetary System into European Monetary System
If there is new information in the draft that is not in the article, the article should be updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Syntax improvement - edit request
WP:ER I think the overall syntax of this article could use some improvement. The meaning of some of the sentences is not very clear. Inygo (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article should be good now. I copy edited the article and removed the copy edit template. If you have any input I would love to hear your thoughts. TheMadDesperado (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of this content doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the article
I have been copy editing this article and I found some information that doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the article. It may be that the info is correct and should be incorporated, or it may not be accurate and need to be removed. I am pasting the passage below. I have not copy edited this yet since I don't know if it will end up in the article, so excuse the syntax and grammar errors. The statement that #3 and #4 on this list are part of the EMS is not supported anywhere else in the article. If they are, then I need help verifying and citing. Also, is there a way to tag Wikipedians who are economics SMEs?

The EMS has four basic functional arrangements are:

1.The ECU: With this arrangement, member currencies agreed to keep their foreign exchange rates within agreed bands with a narrow band of +/− 2.25% and a wide band of +/− 6%.

2. An Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) : The main aim was to reduce exchange rate variability and achieve monetary stability.

3. An extension of European credit facilities : The aim was to provide enough credit facilities for a country that is ready to proceed to its convertibility in order to get loan easily.

4. The issue of a new reserve asset, to create European Monetary Cooperation Fund: created in October 1972 and allocated ECU to members' central banks in exchange for gold and US dollar deposits.

I'm not able to find the verification for #3 in the referenced paper, but maybe the information is right under my nose! Thanks! TheMadDesperado (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I copy edited the entire article since it was tagged with the copy edit template. Besides help with the above question, if any econ SME wants to look over the entire article, I would love your feedback! I tried to give the article a good flow in the History section. I definitely tried to stay true to the original intent, unless I thought something was incorrect based on the sources. Is anything in the article misleading or disjointed? Thanks! TheMadDesperado (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:European Monetary System


text:
Talk:Harvard–Yale football rivalry

Comments in 2005
Would not "Harvard-Yale football rivalry" be a better title for this article? "The Game" is awfully vague and, as the opening line grudgingly acknowledges, not restricted to the H-Y game. AJD 07:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I don't think we should replace a real name used by real people with a pale invented encyclopedia substitute; but of course you're right that that opening sentence does not inspire confidence. If there ARE other games with a real history of being called "The Game" in a widespread and semi-official way, then of course it's unfair for Harvard/Yale to usurp this name and the page should be moved to The Game (Harvard-Yale football); otherwise, if opening sentence is merely stating the truism that anybody can call something "The Game" but doesn't have any specific examples in mind, then it should be toned down to remove the present vague appearance of bias. Doops 08:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * "Harvard-Yale football rivalry" isn't an invented encyclopedia substitute! Would you prefer "Harvard-Yale football game" or "Harvard-Yale game"? "The Game" is a name used by real people, but it's a highly informal and parochial nickname that has no business being an encyclopedia title, any more than the article title Massachusetts Avenue should be moved to Mass Ave or Harvard Yard should be moved to The Yard. It's not as if people don't call it the Harvard-Yale game, just as much as or more than they call it "the Game". AJD 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, if you're gonna make that argument, you could probably make a pretty good case for deleting the article altogether, since it's a parochial subject which has no business being in an encyclopedia in the first place. As long as the article is here, though, there's a very good reason why it should stay under some version of The Game: if the article were just about the "harvard-yale football game", then why isn't there an article about the "harvard-dartmouth football game" or the "San Diego-Yale football game"? The same intense rivalry which makes the article (marginally) encyclopedic gives it its nickname; the nickname is a concomitant part of what makes the Game interesting.

 * Now, I don't think anybody will be typing in "Harvard-Yale football game" or "The Game (football game)" into the Go field; this is one of those pages which is pretty much always reached by following a link; so I don't think confusion is really an issue as long as the first sentence makes quite clear what the article is about. Moreover, look at that college rivalry games category; look at all the other nicknames which title articles — calling this article "The Game" is entirely in line with the precedent set there. Again, though, if there are other serious examples of "The Game" out there, then the title should probably be changed to reflect this reality. Doops 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The raison d'être of this article is because the Harvard-Yale football rivalry is well-known, influential, and of historical importance in ways that are documented in the article. That doesn't mean the article should be entitled The Game any more than the article on Harvard College should be entitled The College. People at Harvard call Harvard College "the College" with greater frequency than they call the Harvard-Yale game "the Game"; when I was at Harvard, we called it "the Harvard-Yale game"; we might say "the Game", but only in the same way as we might refer to the Larz Anderson Bridge as "the Bridge". "The Game" isn't even a nickname; it's just an abbreviation. Nicknames like "the Iron Bowl" or "the Causeway Classic" are distinctive and unique; calling it "the Game" is just a reflection of the fact that it doesn't have a distinctive nickname. Furthermore, people who don't go to, say, Auburn or Alabama might still refer to their game as the Iron Bowl; do people with no H-Y affiliation call the Harvard-Yale game "the Game" and expect to be understood? AJD 21:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly you have something of a point with respect to the Alabamians, although I do suspect that most references to "the Iron Bowl" outside that state will need at least a parenthetical remark to explain what it is to the rest of the country. But with respect to your earlier point — you may have only used the phrase as shorthand; but there are certainly many people for whom "the Game" is a full-fledged nickname. Among other things, their view is reflected in the capital "G" and in the fact that at Harvard, e.g., a reference to "the Game" refers to the football contest with Yale — no matter the time of year or the speaker's favorite sport. This is different from "the College" — of course it goes without saying that an unqualified reference to "the College" in a Harvard context refers to Harvard College; but why should an unqualified reference to "the Game" refer specifically to Yale? (This whole argument works equally from a Yale perspective, mutatis mutandis.) And I don't think anybody thinks of the Larz Anderson Bridge as "the Bridge" with a capital "B" — if I say "the bridge" without further spcification, the reference will vary depending enitrely on context; the Larz Anderson Bridge, the Weeks Footbridge, or the Golden Gate Bridge could all get called "the bridge" depending on where I'm giving you directions to. Doops 00:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that the point is that while other major rivalry games have alternative names such as "The Big Game", "The Apple Cup", "The Red River Shootout", or "The Civil War", this game has no other name that I am aware of beyond "Havard-Yale Game" and "The Game", and that much of college football lore derives from the Ivies in general and these two in particular. All U.S. college football game rivalries could probably be said to be at least somewhat provincial with the possible exception of Notre Dame-USC, but this is one of the categories, I suppose, that emphasizes the fact that Wikipedia is not paper, and to use a relativistic arguement, is another category that is far more important to world culture than, say, every fictional town in Pokemòn, every minor Star Wars character, or every episode of a TV series. Rlquall 01:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the summary is too one-sided toward Harvard football history. There needs to be more balance. Further, why not come out and say that the rivalry is intensified by these being the two most prestigious schools in the country?

The "We Suck" prank from last year's game is clearly one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled off in sports. Getting 20,000 Harvard fans to hold up signs spelling out "We Suck" through the entire game while they believe they are spelling "Go Harvard" is classic and blows away the MIT pranks you mention.
 * Except that the prank 1) involved far less than 20,000 Harvard fans; 2) lasted for far less than the entire game (ca. 5-10 min?); 3) lacked originality, being based on traditional pranks played at the Cal-Berkeley-Stanford game; and 4) didn't require 'constructing a complicated technical mechanism and concealing it, undetected, underground. Nor, for that matter, did it stop everybody in his/her tracks with surprise for a few minutes. But other than those minor details, yeah, it was much more impressive than the MIT prank. Oh, wait. You were probably being sarcastic, weren't you? Doops |  talk 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, need more Yale stuff in the trivia section. It looks as if someone cherry-picked Harvard football tidbits and ignored Yale's traditions. One could make a strong argument that Yale has a richer college football history than Harvard (leads the series by more than 15 games, has more wins, has more national titles, etc.), yet the article gives it short shrift.

 * You have a point. Actually, though, I think the real problem is that the bar's been set too low too low in the trivia section. Rather than add more Yale stuff, I'm going to delete some of the less relevant Harvard-focused minutae. Doops | talk 20:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Doops--You have not followed through on the above.

Name
The Game (Harvard-Yale) would be more appropriate than the current one. As is noted, there are other schools with notable histories that have rivalries called "The Game." It is not an issue of which is the best, but clarifying that there are multiple uses of the phrase. An alternate claim is the University of Michigan-Ohio State University game. It was first played in 1897 (H-Y in 1875) and has been an annual event since 1918 (H-Y since 1945). There are 102 meetings of UM-OSU and 122 of H-Y.

Over the last 2 years there have been 73 uses of "the Game"+Harvard+Yale in headlines, lead paragraphs, terms of major papers on LexisNexis and more than 1,000 of "the Game"+Ohio State+Michigan. Looking at the teams and players in the game, one can see the importance of the UM-OSU side: 18 national championships (Ohio State does not claim an additional 7), 9 Heisman Trophies, both have won a national championship in the last decade, 72 Big Ten Championships (some shared), and a combined record of 1,623-581-89 (72.72%). They played in the famous Snow Bowl. ESPN as called the game the greatest rivalry in college sports. As I've said, I propose The Game (Harvard-Yale) and The Game (Michigan-Ohio State). Rkevins82 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually The Game is also used by the Lehigh University-Lafayette College game which is the most played rivalry in College Football, having been played 144 times since 1884.GCW50 04:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Rkevins that this page should be broken up. I recommend making The Game (college football) a disambiguation page and The Game (Michigan-Ohio State) a redirection link to Michigan-Ohio State rivalry.  -TheMile 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I concur & agree with Rkevins and TheMile. A disambiguation page listing Harvard/Yale, OSU/UM, Lehigh/Lafayette, etc., would be the best use for an article entitle "The Game". --JD79 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of this article should be changed from 'The Game' to a title that includes 'Harvard' and 'Yale.' First, the Harvard-Yale matches were not always called 'The Game' - especially not during the time that these teams were rivals on the national stage. Second, 'The Game' suggests some universal familiarity with this football rivalry whereas, in fact, many more readers are immediately familiar with the university names but NOT with the nickname of their football matches. I vote to change the name to something like 'Harvard-Yale game (college football)'. 13 December 2006.

Why are people not familiar with the rich history of college football trying to change it? Anyone who is familiar with it's history knows Harvard-Yale as "The Game". Why do so many people have a lack of respect for tradition?

 * I don't think it is the case that people changing the name don't have respect for tradition, or lack knowledge of the history of college football. The concern is that there are different uses of the term, "The Game." Rkevins (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

An Incident That May Have Happened in the 1968 Game
The first paragraph in the Trivia section talks about the 1968 Game. I was there, a freshman in the Harvard bleachers at the north end of the field. I am pleased with the article in reference [1]    I would like to add a bit of trivia related to this game, and I'm using the Talk page to ask whether anyone else recalls the event I'm about to describe.

As the article details, Harvard took a shellacking early, and the event seemed less a contest than a public whipping. At some point during the second half, I think Brian Dowling and Calvin Hill both pretended to be injured on the same play. They lay on the ground long enough for a shocked hush to come over the crowd. I mean, here were the only two stars in the game, both down on the same play! Then they both jumped up and trotted back to the huddle. I thought their behavior was a playful prank, and I was amused. But it also seemed to underscore the disdain that Yale felt toward Harvard's ability to put up a good game. (Yes, we were defensive.)

Does anyone else recall this mock injury?

Charlie Marlin 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone vandalised the page by changing Yale and Harvard to Michigan and Ohio State, I undid the vandal's changes.

192.147.57.6 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos
See Army-Navy, Alabama-Auburn, Duke-North Carolina, UCLA-USC, and Cal-Stanford for other examples of the use of logos in rivalry pages.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The status quo of this article for four years had been to not have the logos. The free license image conveyed the same information, showing the game was being played by Harvard and Yale. The logos do nothing to add to the article. Inclusion of the logos constitutes a violation of WP:NFCC #1 and #8, since a free license image was already in existence conveying the same information, and since not having the logos does nothing to detract from a user's understanding of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Text also conveys the information just fine. I'll get started on the other removals needed now as well. We cannot, under any circumstances, use nonessential free images. That is not negotiable, nonfree content must, per the Foundation's resolution, be minimal. If text alone suffices (whether or not it's as pretty), text alone it is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Free v. Non-free
The RfC concerned non-free images. The images currently in the infobox are free images. Note that the Bulldog is no longer in the Yale image, it is now just a letter Y. Please see the information in the images themselves. One of the results of the long RfC discussion is that many of the college logos have free equivalents. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion before just removing the images.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 03:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I removed them because there is no consensus to support that view from my brief overview of the numbers at the bottom, and that there is a mediation now open because of it. I honestly really completely do not care if they're free or not free; my only interest is that consensus is reached and that the issues are considered done and over with before readding them. Foresight stops edit wars, and overeager editors (from whichever side) from trying to enforce their point of view. --Izno (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * What I am telling you is the discussion is about non-free images. Free images are not at issue, so there is no concern about edit wars, except from you, who obviously is not participating in the RfC discussion.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * "Brief overview"? What are you talking about?  Those numbers are only about whether non-free images can be used if there is no free equivalent.  I have an opinion on that issue, but free images are unanimously accepted by everyone in that debate.  Please go do more than a "brief" reading of the discussion before you weigh in.  Let me quote the RfC:

If you read the proposal that garnered unanimous support from those that are opposed to non-free logo use, you will see that it read:

The other two proposals differed, but not about free logos:

The debate is only about what to do if no free alternative exists:

Ok, I've pulled out the pertinent points of the RfC. Is there anyone involved who is going to argue that the debate we are having about non-free images has anything to do with free images? If so, please post here so we can move on.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 13:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I came here as a favor to 2008 Olympian. Izno, I appreciate your enthusiasm to protect Wikipedia and your stand for honor with respect to refraining from using images that do not comply with policy.
 * That said, the matter of fact is that these logos are not eligible for copyright and are free images. Even if they were not free images, their copyrights would have expired long ago, since they were both created prior to 1920. So, while your motivation is laudable (even commendable), it just doesn't apply here.
 * The matter of debate here is preference. Is there consensus to include the images as a matter of what people like?
 * I would make the assertion that it does have that consensus. Accordingly, I'm reverting to the previous version. If anyone disagrees with this preference, then it should be reverted and further discussion should follow. Any discussion regarding Non-free images is a red-herring. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

External References
The second reference: "Yale Daily News - Tailgate relocated to 175 N. Harvard St" no longer works. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2016 stripping naked...
Whoever stripped naked in 2016 needs to be added. http://tamu.247sports.com/Bolt/Look-Yale-students-strip-nude-cause-delay-during-Harvard-game-49097694

Also, I was there for the 1992.... and part of the event. But I can't list myself as a citation. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6824:D8D0:FD54:E662:E0FA:1D67 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tone
This is H puff piece. Suggest massive edit. 127W111 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Link to list of Game results
Why was it absent from entry? This entry is wtitten horribly! 127W111 (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Pranks and Harvard Flag
Pranks is ripe for exclusuion. Only undergrads rather than a general reader might care.

The Flag might be appropriate in NOTABLE GAMES, w mention of first time Flag appeared; otherwise, this is poorly written pr for Harvard. 127W111 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Some of the Harvard-Yale pranks are WP:NOTABLE, having gotten coverage in local, and in some cases, national media. The claims made certainly need to be backed up by references to WP:RS. Reify-tech (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Little Red Flag
Section is poorly sourced and written. Suggest flag is a "little" rather than "big" deal. 127W111 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

POV
ENTRY appears to me to be balanced and improved since say Election Day 2016. What's your opinion? 127W111 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Logo size
Y is Harvard logo larger than Yale logo? 127W111 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harvard–Yale football rivalry. 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/20100107121304/http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2004_11/football.html to http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2004_11/football.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807093945/http://www.kino.com/harvardbeatsyale/ to http://www.kino.com/harvardbeatsyale/

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) 23:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

2019 Prank
A Harvard student managed to get the Yale Daily News to publish an article in which the first word of every sentence spelled out "EPSTEIN DIDN'T KILL HIMSELF A YALE GRAD DID IT" as part of a smack talk tradition between the YDN and the Crimson.

This was my proposed change. 2607:FB60:1011:2006:6CD9:2208:95DF:70D6 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

2019
As part of a yearly tradition, The Harvard Crimson staff writer Cade Palmer’s smack talk column was published in the Yale Daily News. Unbeknownst to the Yale student paper, the first letter of every sentence in Palmer’s piece spelled out, “EPSTEIN DIDNT KILL HIMSELF A YALE GRAD DID IT.” The article was a clear reference to the popular conspiracy theory suggesting that Yale Law School graduate Hillary Clinton murdered Jeffrey Epstein.

 * I didn't see this talk page discussion, but I've just removed this from the article again because it's unclear to me exactly what it has to do with football rivalry, unless we're calling any and all "Yale-Harvard rivalry" incident(s) football related, which seems, to me at least, odd. If I'm missing some nuance (e.g. the alluded-to "annual tradition") then my apologies, but it would be nice if the football connection was clearer if it's re-added, because there are doubtless other readers as uneducated in the H-Y "traditions" as I am, who might be similarly confused. I've no objection at all to re-insertion if the connection is clear for the "layperson", no need to even ping me. Cheers. -- Begoon 03:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Nathaniel Curtis" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nathaniel Curtis. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Harvard–Yale football rivalry


text:
WVFS

WVFS, launched in 1987, is one of four radio stations that broadcast from Florida State University in the Tallahassee area. (WFSQ, WFSU-FM, and WFSW are the others.) WVFS is referred to as "V89", "The Voice", or "The Voice of Florida State". WVFS broadcasts at 89.7 FM. The station is staffed by student and community volunteers. Featuring no automation, the DJ booth at WVFS is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day of the year. New and different music is played to provide an alternative to commercial radio.

Programming
The programming schedule at WVFS is divided into regular programming and specialty programming. Regular programming time slots include a combination of newly released material, music from the WVFS Catalog, and listener requests. Regular programming also occasionally features News, Weather, and Concert Updates, promotional announcements, and public service announcements (PSAs). Specialty programming on WVFS consists of 28 named shows of varying lengths which air at routinely scheduled times, either once every week or once every month.

Volunteers
WVFS holds a volunteer "cattle call" at the beginning of the fall, spring, and summer semesters to recruit volunteers. WVFS accepts student volunteers from Florida State University as well as community volunteers.

title: WVFS


text:
Hirax

Hirax (often stylized as HIRAX) is an American thrash metal band from Cypress, California. Starting in 1984 under the leadership of vocalist Katon W. De Pena (the band's only original member left in the current line-up), the band played in Los Angeles and San Francisco with several of their thrash metal peers such as Metallica, Exodus, and Slayer. The band was an early example of thrash metal, speed metal and crossover thrash, yet inspired by cross-genre influences including blues vocalist Sam Cooke, who De Pena once cited as "the greatest vocalist [De Pena] has ever heard."

History
After releasing some demos, Hirax signed with Metal Blade and debuted with their first full-length, Raging Violence, in 1985. The band was composed of Katon W. De Pena (vocals), Scott Owen (guitar), Gary Monardo (bass) and John Tabares (drums).

In 1986, John Tabares left the band and Eric Brecht (brother of D.R.I.'s vocalist Kurt Brecht) joined. After the change, they released their second album, Hate, Fear and Power, which was only 16 minutes and eight songs in length. After this release, the band quit the label and independently released a demo called Blasted In Bangkok in 1987.

But with tensions and disillusions in the band, De Pena decided to leave and form a new band with Gene Hoglan (former Dark Angel drummer), and Ron McGovney (former Metallica bassist). They called themselves Phantasm and released a six-track demo in 1988 (re-issued in 2002 as a CD with the demo and live tracks). After a brief tour with Nuclear Assault, they broke up. In 1989, after De Pena left, the replacement was Paul Baloff (former Exodus frontman). But soon after the band broke up.

Reunion
De Pena stayed involved in the regional underground music scene and took a job working at a local music store. In 1997, he featured one of his old songs on a split 7-inch with Spazz, the band of one of his friends. By 1998, De Pena had received enough fan mail and interest which encouraged him to reunite Hirax in 2000. De Pena reunited the band with the original lineup of Scott Owen, Gary Monardo, and John Tabares, releasing the El Diablo Negro EP in 2000. In 2002, the band played in Abrasive Rock Fest. In 2003, the band played in Bang Your Head Festival, in Germany. The lineup completely changed, and Hirax released the album Barrage of Noise in 2001 with James Joseph Hubler, Justin Lent (Clusterfux), and Nick Sellinger. This lineup was brief as well.

In 2003, De Pena recruited an entirely new lineup again, and released the album The New Age of Terror in 2004 with guitarists Dave Watson and Glenn Rogers (formerly of Deliverance), bassist Angelo Espino, and drummer Jorge Iacobellis. The lineup was also short-lived due to irreconcilable differences.

The band released their fourth studio album, El Rostro de la Muerte, in the spring of 2009. On July 20, 2013, Hirax performed at the International Festival Convivencia Rock 2013 that took place in Pereira, Colombia. Thirty-six bands played in the three-day festival and 10,000 people gathered each day of the event.

On February 24, 2014, the band released their latest album titled Immortal Legacy, courtesy of Steamhammer Records.

March 2015 saw the band play in the UK for the first time in their history, beginning with an appearance at Hammerfest in Gwynedd, Wales. Hirax still performs regularly to this day, and their latest album (and first in ten years) Faster Than Death is due sometime in 2024.

Members

 * Current
 * Katon W. De Pena – vocals (1984–1988, 2000–present)
 * Jose Gonzalez– bass (2024–present)
 * Emilio Marquez – drums (2024–present)

 * Former
 * Scott Owen – guitars (1984–1989, 2000)
 * Gary Monardo – bass (1984–1989, 2000)
 * Brian Keith – drums (1984)
 * John Tabares – drums (1984–1986, 2000)
 * Bob Savage – guitars (1984)
 * Eric Brecht – drums (1986)
 * Paul Baloff – vocals (1989)
 * James Joseph Hubler – guitars (2001)
 * Justin Lent – guitars, bass (2001)
 * Shaun Ross – bass (2001)
 * Dan Bellinger – drums (2001)
 * Mike Brickman – bass (2001–2003)
 * Dave Watson – guitars (2004–2005)
 * Angelo Espino – bass (2004–2005)
 * Fabricio Ravelli – drums (2005–2008)
 * Glenn Rogers – guitars (2003–2005, 2006–2007, 2008–2010)
 * Mike Guerrero – guitars (2011–2013)
 * Jorge Iacobellis – drums (2004–2005, 2008–2013)
 * Steve Harrison – bass (2005–2021)
 * Lance Harrison – guitars (2006–2021)
 * Mike Vega – drums (2014–2021)
 * Francisco Zamudio – drums (2022–2023)
 * Chris Aguirre – bass (2022–2023)
 * Danny Walker – drums (2023)
 * Neil Metcalf – guitars (2022–2024)

Discography

 * Studio albums
 * Raging Violence (1985)
 * Hate, Fear and Power (1986)
 * The New Age of Terror (2004)
 * El Rostro de la Muerte (2009)
 * Immortal Legacy (2014), SPV Records
 * Faster Than Death (2024)

 * Split albums
 * Spazz/Hirax (1997)
 * Louder Than Hell (2005)
 * Hirax/F.K.Ü. (Sweden) (2008)
 * Hirax/Violator (Brazil) "Raging Thrash" (2010)
 * Hirax / Sodom, split 7-inch SPV Records "Hellion Rising" (2013)

 * EPs
 * El Diablo Negro (2000)
 * Barrage of Noise (2001)
 * Assassins of War (2006)
 * Chaos and Brutality (2007)

 * Demos
 * Demo 1984 (1984)
 * Demo Rehearsal 1 (1985)
 * Demo Rehearsal 2 (1985)
 * Blasted in Bangkok (1987)

 * Compilation albums
 * Anglican Scrape Attic Earache Records (1985), flexi 7-inch, Hirax, Lp Cream, Execute, Sacrilege, Concrete Sox
 * Not Dead Yet (1987)
 * The Best of Metal Blade Records, Vol. 1 (1987), various artists
 * Thrash of the Titans (1999)
 * Thrash Metal Warriors (2007), HIRAX, Toxic Holocaust, Sabat, Kat, etc.
 * Thrash Metal Assassins (2008)
 * Noise Chaos War (2010)

 * DVDs
 * Thrash 'Til Death (2006)
 * Thrash and Destroy (2008)
 * True Thrash Fest (2010), Live in Japan

title: Hirax