text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Proposed decision

Re: Proposed findings of fact: 3) Jguk's preference
Reference: Proposed findings of fact/Jguk's preference

Apologies for weighing in here before I've made my statement and presented my evidence -- I've only just learned about this arbitration and am still preparing my materials -- but arbitrator Fred Bauder has stated that: "User:Jguk has a preference for the style BC - AD and has in a number of instances, where inconsistent use existed, changed BCE to BC and CE to AD... (Emphasis added)"

This is not completely correct: Jguk has changed BCE/CE to BC/AD in numerous cases even where consistent use existed throughout an article. This is, IMO, an extremely important point, and one of which I will soon be documenting with my evidence, if it has not already been documented by others.

–da blaze  04:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I get your point. I spent most of the day working on that case, but the findings are by no means complete. To help me could you give me a few diffs of edits that demonstrate your point? Fred Bauder 11:46, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly. I'm planning to post my stuff tomorrow (Saturday) -- gotta pay the bills during the week. :) But this is my first involvement in an arbitration. Am I correct in assuming that posting to the Evidence page will suffice, or should I copy the relevant info to this talk page as well? –da blaze  21:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Post on Evidence only, please. Add a note here if you feel it's needed. --cesarb 21:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dablaze's comment has nothing to do with the present dispute, which started when Slrubenstein encouraged SouthernComfort to unilaterally change from BC/AD to BCE/CE, despite being quite aware of the offence that has been taken when changes such as that have been made (eg questions were asked in the New South Wales legislature when offence was taken by one instance of changing from BC to BCE in one exam paper question).

I am concerned at Fred's last finding - it seems he is about to argue that the ArbCom should overrule the community, which clearly rejected Slrubenstein's proposal. The ArbCom should not even be discussing content, let alone contradicting what the Wikipedia community has already decided on it.

I'm also concerned as to why Fred thinks it relevant which user name I used months and months ago - something that is clearly outside the scope of what the ArbCom case is about, jguk 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments to Fred
I have had the following discussion and made the following points to Fred on his talk page. I add them here so others have easy access to them, jguk 07:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing Fred?
Fred

I'm somewhat puzzled by what you're adding to Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Proposed decision. We have a vote for changing BC/AD to BCE/CE throughout WP that clearly fails. Some editors, despite that, unilaterally change some articles that consistently used BC/AD to BCE/CE. I (along with other editors) edit them back (as there was no basis for the change) - and you decide I am wrong and to be chastised, but those who made the unilateral edits to change an article that consistently used BC/AD to BCE/CE are acting perfectly properly. How is that fair or reasonable?!?!? Kind regards, jguk 22:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The proposed decision will develop further, but according to the manual of style both usages are acceptable. What is not acceptable is repeatedly reverting any article simply to make it conform to a particular style. Fred Bauder 22:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * It would seem to me that the person who goes around changing the status quo in the first place is the one in the wrong. To let them off scot free and then go after the person who reverts them strikes me as being somewhat bizarre. Ambi 02:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is SouthernComfort, egged on by Slrubenstein, who has been editing articles that were completely consistently using BC/AD so that they use BCE/CE - all I have been doing is reverting these changes because (and I agree with you here) it is not acceptable to change an article simply to make it conform to another style that you prefer. It is not me that has been initiating these changes! (There was one article, Elamite Empire, where I inadvertently did do this - as SouthernComfort was pretty making so many unilateral changes to articles, I made a mistake on this one. But on every other one you will see that before SC recently visited them, they always used BC/AD.)

You seem to be deciding the case on content, deciding you prefer SouthernComfort's content, and then concluding I have misbehaved because I have been stopping SouthernComfort's changes. ArbCom is meant to stay away from content, isn't it? I have also indicated on a number of occasions to SC that the act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE causes a lot of offence - and I have referred him to the outrage caused in New South Wales when this happened in one exam question, and led to questions being raised in both chambers of parliament and the minister backing down. SC has chosen to ignore this offence - if I am to be chastised on this for disagreeing with him, should he not also be chastised for disagreeing with me? jguk 22:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between changing an article and repeatedly reverting it.(Especially when you know very well that the other editor is offended by the usage). Fred Bauder 23:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * SC changed an article when he was fully aware Slrubenstein's proposal had failed and reverted time and time again to insert his preferred usage despite his being fully aware that I (and others) are offended by such deliberate changes). Why is my taking offence at his changes irrelevant? Where changes such as this happened in NSW it caused parliamentary questions, and the news that religious leaders in NSW were not actually offended by BC/AD usage (ie those who were making the changes were doing so on a false premise). Where similar changes have happened in the UK there have been angry letters to newspapers. The offence caused by SC's changes is real, yet you seem to say that is irrelevant, and we should instead concede to SC because he claims to be offended. You may, of course, not have been fully aware of this when you made your findings of fact. However, I should be grateful if you would reconsider whether your findings are really fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, jguk 23:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Either usage is acceptable according to Wikipedia's Manual of style. Taking offense at another user who is following the Wikipedia Manual of Style and selecting their preferred notation of era and then repeatedly reverting them is a violation of our policy which discourages edit warring. The failure of Slrubensein's proposal did not affect the manual of style nor did it remove the option for any editor to consider which notation of era is appropriate for a particular article. Taking the articles which relate to Persia where, as an example, as pointed out by User:SouthernComfort there is only minimal history of Chrisianity (and that by Christians to whom the usage AD was probably unheard of). There is some evidence that the theoretical offense postulated by those who advocate the common era usage in fact occurs as you may see by the comments of SouthernComfort on your own talk page, see User_talk:Jguk/Archive6. It is quite reasonable that the common era usage notation be used in articles which have no relationship, even an antagonistic relationship to Christianity. One might debate the issue, perhaps on the talk page of the articles in question, but there is no basis for repeated reversion, based on spurious reasoning with no foundation in Wikipedia policies. One takes one's victim as one finds him: if he is more sensitive to injury than he ought to be, he is nevertheless hurt. Fred Bauder 12:14, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Fred - you seem to have some argument but the wrong man. All those articles used BC/AD. SouthernComfort, egged on by Slrubenstein, systematically changed that on the articles he visited. He then reverted back to his preferred version.

 * To get to me, you have come to the conclusion that you will judge this on content and prefer SC's content. I have argued throughout that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity - and I have noted that articles on Persian subjects have (and most certainly when I was learning about them) always traditionally used BC/AD notation. If you argue that it is inappropriate to change an article to your preferred notation (when either is acceptable) and then to revert to maintain it, it is SC and Slr that you should be admonishing, not me! jguk 12:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunctions
Whilst I would have no temporary injunction against me changing BCE/CE notation to BC/AD notation where BC/AD notation was not established prior to this dispute (since 1 May, say) if a similar injunction is placed on others, I do not see why it should be one-sided. Shouldn't such a temporary injunction apply to all users that they should neither go about changing BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa for the duration (with penalties to apply, say, if they have been specifically warned about the injunction on their talk pages)? jguk 12:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It has to do with the extent and intensity of your editing regarding this matter, see User:MPerel/Jguk's era-related edits. Our policy permits change from one notation to another but prohibits edit warring. Even while this dreary business proceeds you have continued aggressively reverting, often in articles where you have no other interest than patrolling to enforce your preference, see Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Evidence. Fred Bauder 16:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * The other parties if they change notation are doing so in the articles which they regularly edit. Fred Bauder 16:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

That is a nonsense Fred - I have only been reverting changes in notation instigated by SC and others - had SC not been reverting aggressively back to his preferred notation recently (and whilst this case was ongoing) I would not have needed to revert him back. Logic dictates that my reverts must number (and must be as aggressive) as those of the people I disagree with, but you appear to be singling me out for approbation, jguk 17:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * "...I would not have needed to revert him back." What is this need? Fred Bauder 17:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Failed proposals should not be implemented. If we allow them to be implemented we disrespect the views of those that meant the proposal fail. You might as well ask SC why he feels he needs to keep trying to impose his changes in style when the Manual of Style makes it quite clear that the style that those articles already had is quite acceptable, jguk 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Jguk, please try to consider the possibility that their actions have nothing to do with SLR's failed proposal, but are rather based on currently accepted policy. The decision to use CE or AD is similar to the decision to use BE or AE spelling, at least as far as our Manual of Style is concerned. So, capricious changes from one option to another are discouraged, but there is no requirement to stick eternally to the original author's choice - that's just a fallback in the case that the authors of the article can't agree on a sensible criterion to decide which option to use. If it were otherwise, United Kingdom would still use American spelling (as somebody pointed out). Zocky 02:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous
These proposed findings are utterly ridiculous. They are as one-sided as could be believed possible. I fail to see how the arbitrators can find so much more wrong with jguk's actions than with slr's or SC's. No-one has behaved well, here. Nevertheless, these proposed findings are completely unfair. As can be seen from his user page, jguk has been driven away from Wikipedia by, in part, this committee's failure to see the issues that he had. If the committee cannot understand and note for the record the others' failings, they must be blind or incompetant. I don't know which is worse. FoF 2 is clearly and blatantly an attempt to do down jguk. This page has played its part in driving off one of the encyclopedia's finest contributors. I hope you're happy, Fred. smoddy 21:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedy
I must weigh in on this (FYI, I have also recently weighed in on the Evidence page).

I have been clashing with Jguk on this issue since November 2004 -- in a way I tried to keep as reasonable and accommodating as the situation permitted -- and I believe that a strong remedy is called for here. I am dismayed to see the vote going against the Limitation on editing by Jguk. Perhaps a year may be too harsh (though I don't think so), but I believe six months at the very least is not.

When another user and I participated in a failed Request for Mediation with Jguk. This prompted him to stay away for about six weeks, from April 5 to May 27 (check the Common Era history page). But by May 27 he apparently figured that the heat was off and he resumed his usual disruptive behavior.

I urge the Committee to consider a sufficiently strong remedy to Jguk's continued aggressive and disruptive behavior.

—da blaze  01:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would also add that in those six weeks, a great deal of useful and informative new edits were contributed to the page, both by new and previously chased-away editors, once Jguk had ceased his squatting. (The Common Era history page reflects this.) And once he returned, so did the unproductive and stagnant squabbling that marks his efforts.

 * —da blaze  01:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree the Jguk's campaign should be limited if he returns. I ask anyone who disagrees to look at the evidence.
 * Disclosure: I have not been involved in this dispute, but in others with Jguk. He does make valued contributions at times. At other times, and with some issues, he is overly aggressive and noncooperative. Maurreen 17:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One-sided injunction
I'm not fully up to speed with the details of this dispute (and have no desire to poke into the edit histories of the articles in dispute) but the proposed injunction seems somewhat bizarre - it takes two to edit/revert war. Just because it is mainly jguk reinstating BC/AD versus a bunch of people supporting a move to BCE/CE, does that make his reverts any more culpable than the others? The weight of Wiki opinion, expressed in the policy vote, was against wholesale movement to BCE/CE - why should it be acceptable to allow the same result to be achieved piecemeal? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * With respect, ALoan, if you're not up to speed with the dispute and have not examined the edit histories involved, then perhaps you might consider doing so before offering your opinion in this case.

 * I see from your user page that you are a UK Wikipedian who, like Jguk, frequently contibutes to cricket-themed pages. To his credit, Jguk seems to contribute geniuinely useful and collaborative edits within that subject area. I assure you that in other areas, like BCE/CE, he does not.

 * If this case has distressed cricket fans on Wikipedia, I don't know what to tell you. Lord knows we need as many people as possible to explain that game. :) But in this case, Jguk's behavior is, well, simply not cricket. –da blaze  14:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * After reviewing the edit histories at length I proposed the injunction based on Jguk's editing patterns. In most instances his only edit to the articles was to change the era notation which was followed by reversions if the regular editors of the article changed it back. The other parties are simply editing the articles they usually edit and making editorial judgments which are acceptable under current style guidelines. Fred Bauder 14:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, dablaze, but the fact that ALoan is from the UK and likes cricket is totally unrelated to his opinion here. He's well aware of the way this place works and is more than free to express his view.  Indeed, it's interesting to see how it looks to someone that has had very little involvement.  You clearly have the opinion that jguk has acted improperly, but to claim that he did and that others did not is simply blinkered.

 * He shouldn't edit war, no, but neither should others. The current policy is too vague and, were it tightened, the situation would not be allowed to happen.  Eras is still an ongoing effort to do this, and any ruling made here may well become unnecessary if the policy explicitly states how AD/CE changes may (or may not) occur.  I encourage people to discuss it there.  violet/riga (t) 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * violet, I'm not saying ALoan doesn't have the right to express his opinion here; I'm just saying that if he hasn't looked into any of the evidence in the case, I don't think his opinion shouldn't carry much weight in a formal arbitration.

 * I'm also not dumping on him for being a British cricket fan, as Jguk also apparently is. What I am saying is that he's probably had a much different interaction with Jguk -- from all accounts a collegial one -- on Wikipedia's cricket pages than those of us who have struggled with him for months over his BC/AD edit-warring. This marked difference in interactions, IMO, also reduces the weight of his opinion in this matter. But by no means do I dispute his right to express it.

 * Also, I have not been involved in the debacle with Jguk, Slrubenstein and others. I have made the extent of my involvement clear on the Evidence page.

 * Moreover, even if others behaved wrongly, which they may have, that doesn't necessarily make Jguk's behavior right. In fact, if you'll go back and attentively read what I have written here and elsewhere in this arbitration, you'll realize that I have never defended Jguk's accusers, much less even mentioned them. So to call me "blinkered" in this regard is simply not accurate.

 * As for the policy under question, do some more careful reading -- I haven't even mentioned it, nor is this case about Wikipedia policy, but about Jguk's behavior. Again, even if the policy is vague doesn't necessarily excuse Jguk's actions, which is the only thing this case is about. You want to change the policy? Fine then. Change it. You think Jguk's accusers have acted improperly? Fine. Take them to dispute resolution. Both of those issues fall outside the scope of this case, however.

 * I don't mind criticism, violet. Just please base it on what I've actually said.

 * —da blaze  17:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * It is perfectly reasonable to base it on what you haven't said, as well as what you have. You say "Moreover, even if others behaved wrongly, which they may have, that doesn't necessarily make Jguk's behavior right."  I would agree, but emphasise that other users have edit-warred as well.  They were in the wrong for edit-warring.  They deserve punishment or sanctions in the same way as jguk.  This is the point ALoan made, this is the point violet/riga made, and this is the point I made.  I don't think anyone protested jguk's innocence, but the ArbComm are doing a good job of protesting the innocence of everyone else. smoddy 17:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Your reply to me is as inappropriate as your reply to ALoan. You say that I should "attentively read" yet seem to have done exactly what you accuse me of doing.  I did not say you were "blinkered", that you mentioned policies or accuse you of any of the things you seem to think I said.  I was commenting on the situation, and my criticism of you is simply that your mentioning of ALoan being a cricket-enjoying UK Wikipedian is irrelevant to the matter.  It also seems odd that you are trying to downplay the "weight of his opinion" in a matter solely decided by the ArbComm. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * As I said just a few minutes ago, smoddy, this case is about Jguk's behavior. If Jguk had bothered to avail himself of the dispute resolution process against the others in this case instead of the other way around, the focus would be on their behavior, not his. But instead of acting in a spirit of community and cooperation, he continued his months-long, unilateral POV-pushing. And now his behavior is the focus. Rightly so, IMO.

 * (On a side note, you have obviously failed to notice that one of Jguk's accusers will likely be admonished for edit-warring. So this is not as one-sided as you think -- or have bothered to find out.)

 * If the others are at fault, anyone involved could have begun dispute resolution against them. They still can. Does this apply to you? If so, then go for it. If not, then your two-wrongs-make-a-right argument is irrelevant here. —da blaze  17:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Arbitration is not about jguk's behaviour alone, but by all the parties in the case. This isn't a prosecution, but an arbitration.  I am perfectly aware of the proposed sanctioning of SC for edit-warring.  I am not as careless or as biased as you may believe.  But the injunction being solely against jguk?  That is wholly biased, and completely unjustified.  Revert-warring is wrong.   Full stop.  Yes, jguk did revert-war, and he deserved the injunction, and deserved to be admonished.  However, other users, including but not limited to SC, also revert warred.  The ArbComm's judgment was very much biased.  Arbitration should almost always be listed as [user] v. [user] to be fair to both sides and reflect that it is not a prosecution.  The injunction (see section title) was very anti-jguk, and unnecessarily lenient on the others who had revert-warred.  smoddy 18:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I fail to see what's so inappropriate about dablaze's response to ALoan. ALoan, by his own admission, mentioned that he hasn't examined the case in detail, so what is so interesting about a self professed outsider's opinion on a matter that he hasn't looked into? srs 18:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Because there are people with blatant biases writing things on this talk page. It's also good to have someone come along that knows about disputes and can offer their opinion without going along with one of those biases. violet/riga (t) 19:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Huh? It would be one thing for someone to come along and give their opinion after catching up on what the dispute actually entails, it's something else entirely to proffer an opinion when you self admittedly are not "fully up to speed with the details of the dispute". To offer a well thought out opinion, one should at least know what they're giving an opinion on, should they not? You seem to be equating ignorance with unbiased. srs 19:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * He clearly knows something about the topic and, from his point of view, thinks it is currently "one-sided". He doesn't need to know every detail for that.  violet/riga (t) 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, on the topic of biases, it might be appropriate to note that indeed ALoan might have come from the Cricket portal, or from Jguk's user page where there is a rather one sided version of events, along with claims of persecution, and this plus ALoan's admission of not being fully aware of the details of this case might result in a biased perception of events, instead of an unbiased opinion as you would claim. srs 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It might do, but I don't think it does. violet/riga (t) 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This case is about User:Jguk's eight month history of enforcing his favored style over others. It is interesting to note how his defenders first claim that its all a conspiracy by User:Slrubenstein, then how his actions are equivalent to others, and now, failing that, how it's all User:Fred Bauders fault. The simple fact is that Jguk's actions do not compare to the actions of others, neither in scope nor scale, and equating his actions to others is very misleading, whether intentional or not. It should also be noted that the edit war primarily stopped as a result of the others standing down and allowing Jguk to have his way for the time being, as these series of particularly comical edits illustrate: , so an injunction against Jguk is entirely appropriate. srs 18:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not "defending" jguk. I am merely stating that others are culpable as well.  The scope is not as large, admittedly, but that is because they were acting in tandem.  Why do I think Fred Bauder did badly wrong?  Because his series of heavily biased proposed findings and remedies caused one of WP's best editors to leave.  I don't believe in a conspiracy by slr, but I do believe in fairness.  The ArbComm has so far failed to offer that, although later changes are a dramatic improvement.  I am agreeing fully that there was a "one-sided injunction" (see section heading) and am explaining that fully. smoddy 18:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Not to comment on whether it is one-sided or not, I must note the following Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter:
 * Accept: Not to judge the actions of either party in particular but to consider the issue of consensus and disputed style changes. Neutrality
 * Accept (to look into issues of who's been doing things unilaterally, as opposed to issues of policy. Ambi
 * That clearly states that members of the ArbComm will be looking at this as a case about the situation and not just jguk, as they do so with other cases. Fred Bauder is free to add votes to the proposed decision page in the way he feels appropriate, dealing with the situation as he thinks it should be done.  Other ArbComm members are free to do the same to "balance it out" (that is, add proposals related to any other party should they feel it necessary to do so) and I have full confidence that they will deal with the case correctly.  violet/riga (t) 18:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe very much that the case will eventually be heard fairly. I still protest at the horrendous unfairness of the injunction, which has directly caused jguk to leave Wikipedia.  That is my protest, and I fully believe it is a valid one. smoddy 20:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * What an interesting discussion. I thought I would let it cool down before responding.  Just to address a few of the points above:
 * I will express an opinion on anything I like;
 * my opinion worth is exactly as much as you have paid for it;
 * I have my own biases, but then I am not on the arbcom and am not obliged to be impartial (I hope everyone else recognises that they may not be entirely impartial too?);
 * I am not defending jguk, simply pointing out the temporary injunction seems pretty one-sided to me;
 * smoddy pretty much hits the nail on the head: this is an arbitration of a situation involving a dispute, not a prosecution of one party to the dispute; neither side in this dispute has covered themselves with glory, which is why the one-sided nature of the injunction look off to me. I am glad that the evolving proposals for final resolution seem to be addressing these concerns. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This decision is odious
This decision in its current form represents a blatant and gross hatchet job. In particular, apart from what others have commented on, the implication that whatever SouthernComfort takes personal offence at should govern other users' editing is a deeply divisive one that POV pushers will cite in the future and that will drive away many good contributors. Fred, I urge you personally to reconsider you position as an arbitrator. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I was somewhat surprised to see it proposed that editors should take into consideration what people find offensive, at least to such a degree as this. It could easily be countered by people claiming to have been offended by the change away from BC/AD ("You're stamping on my religion" or whatever).  violet/riga (t) 18:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I find the whole CE/BCE thing seriously offensive - and before anyone wastes electrons, I am neither i) Christian, ii) living in the UK, or iii) have anything to do with cricket articles. I despise it because it's Politically Correct drivel, a futile attempt to paper over the source of the numbering system - which remains the same, no matter what contrived label is applied to it. Noel (talk) 03:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this - it could just have easily applied to both sides in this, and Jguk had made a case for the reverse. Ambi 21:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then he should have made his case through the dispute resolution process instead of vandalism. —da blaze  21:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * And that applies to both sides too! violet/riga (t) 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, anyone on the business end of the "other side's" possible improper actions is free to initiate dispute resolution against them. (I was involved on the Common Era side of things, not the policy debate, so that's why I haven't taken my own advice on this.) But it seems a lot of outside commenters think that Jguk's accusers should be taken to dispute resolution, though no one with any direct involvement has yet done so. Interesting, no? —da blaze  21:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Or they're just saying that both parties should've initiated such proceedings. violet/riga (t) 21:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Or they (i.e. me) are noting that arbitration is between parties, not against parties, except in very clear cut circumstances (violet/riga and myself against Irate was one such example). smoddy 21:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you're all happy. We've lost a good editor in jguk over this nonsense. Please note that he was reverting changes made by Southern Comfort at the encouragement of Slrubenstein, when there was no particular standard and jguk was converting to a standard. SouthernComfort is the one at fault here, and, ultimately, Slrubenstein is the instigator of the whole problem, and yet SouthernComfort and Slrubenstein get off with nothing and jguk gets attacked, censured, and forced off the project. RickK 20:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

And the following comment above is particularly bizarre: I think there is a distinction between changing an article and repeatedly reverting it.(Especially when you know very well that the other editor is offended by the usage. So does that mean that if any vandal comes along and moves Mecca to al-Makkah or Kiev to Kyiv and we move it back because they've violated consensus, the person who moves it back is at fault if the vandal claims they are offended by the usage?  Since when did an individual's claimed offense override consensus?  RickK 20:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no consensus that AD-BC is preferred. Jguk was expressing a personal preference without support in Wikipedia policy. Fred Bauder 20:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * And how are SC and slr's actions any different on the majority of pages? smoddy 21:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * In SC's case, it seems fairly clear to me that in the cases involved, it was the consensus of the editors working on that article to use BCE-CE, which really means Jguk has no business going around and changing it, which is why I changed my original votes. However, I'm not so sure about Slrubenstein's role in this - he seems to have been egging SC on and trying to cause trouble, which is indeed a Bad Thing. Ambi 03:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that your assessment is correct. There was consensus of the editors working on the article and Jguk was acting outside of Wikipedia policy in reverting SC's changes.  As to Slrubenstein egging SC on, it seems clear to me that he was simply reassuring SC that what he had done was in accordance with policy.  Sunray 07:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
 * Let me adjust that last sentence slightly: [Slr was] reassuring SC that what he had done was in his view in accordance with policy. I should like to add that while I also held that view at that time, I do agree with ArbCom's admonishment about using the dispute resolution process.  Sunray 16:39, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Question to David Gerard
Hi, David. You have argued that B/CE "has recently come to be preferred among certain portions of US academia," hinting that it is largely limited to it, pointing out that otherwise, outside U.S. academia, this increasing preference is negligable. Although my findings did cite: international/non-US sources such as ifla.org and yorku.ca, it was a very incomplete survey (though, indeed, featuring mostly sources from US academia). I was wandering, then, for my own interest having involved myself in this debate, on what evidence your position is based on (conclusively?) that it is largely limited to the US. Thank you in advance for taking the time. Yours, El_C 04:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The significance of ArbCom's final decision
The Arbitration Committee has sifted through a great deal of information related to this case. Although many editors have presented evidence, that of MPerel stands out in showing the magnitude of the problem caused by Jguk’s campaign to eradicate BCE/CE from Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the facts of this case are relatively simple and the ArbCom’s decisions thus far show a clear understanding of those facts.

I could be mistaken, but the case seems to have stalled. I’m not sure whether Jguk’s departure has anything to do with this, but don’t see why it should. Many of us editors have left at some point. It is part of Wikipedia life. We become too involved at times and have to gain some distance and (hopefully) perspective.

Whether or not Jguk returns, closure on this case is very important, in my view. There is a need to determine whether Wikipedia guidelines such as the Manual of Style guidelines for eras and consensus are simply too weak to be of use to editors with divergent points of view. More importantly, are policies such as NPOV, civility and assume good faith merely high-minded nostrums or are they actual enforceable policies? This case puts current policy to the test. Is our policy framework effective in a case such as this or do we need to expand the rulebook? I believe that the Arbitration Committee's final deliberations will be most important in helping respond to this. Sunray 06:57, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

 * This case is definitely stalled and most arbitrators do not support the proposed decisions, in view of the feedback from a few vocal users. Most of them want to start over. However I believe my proposals to be sound and based on the facts of the case. Fred Bauder 14:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Fred your proposals are right on. Jguk has made many valuable contributions, but it doesn't exempt him from following Wikipedia policy.  It's unfortunate that he'd rather stomp off instead of agree to play by simple rules everyone else has to follow.  The fact that he would rather leave the project over this makes me skeptical that he would adhere to a simple "admonishment" should he decide to return.  And I do hope (and predict) he will decide to return like most seem to do, but he should be limited from making era-related edits, since it is an area in which he has demonstrated stubborn refusal to edit in a reasonable fashion.  Style issues in general do not appear to be his bailiwick, or at least not when it comes to working with other editors. -- M P er el ( talk 19:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * MPerel, if you try reading, you will see that the ArbComm case is just one of the factors that have caused jguk to leave. He left because "it was no longer fun".  And, while he was certainly going over the top with his actions, none of the participants of this affair have conducted themselves with any grace whatsoever, your good self included.  The fact that users reverted together against him does not exonerate him.  The new decisions are balanced and fair, IMO. smoddy 19:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Please clarify what you mean by "none of the participants of this affair have conducted themselves with any grace whatsoever, your good self included" -- M P er el ( talk 19:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly. Both sides had wholly valid POVs, and both completely ignored the validity of the other's.  Gracious editing would have involved recognising other's legitimate viewpoints and discussing them to get a good encyclopedia.  No-one has come out of this affair looking good, including the arbitrators (though, to me, they have certainly exonerated themselves with what will be a good decision).  smoddy 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think lumping all parties (and not even by name) as equally culpable is ambiguous and accomplishes nothing. I signed on to this case because I observed one editor, Jguk, ignoring policy having aggressively changed 700 different articles to a style he preferred, on his way to systematically changing all of Wikipedia to his preference.  And it appears he will continue with the same behavior if he ever returns since he feels he did no wrong.  No one else from *any* POV did and continued to do what Jguk was doing.  For that reason, I have to disagree with you that this case is simply about "Both sides had wholly valid POVs, and both completely ignored the validity of the other's".  Btw, I'd be sincerely interested in where exactly you believe *I've* "completely ignored the validity of the other's valid POVs".  -- M P er el ( talk 21:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I apologise if I have missed something, but I have not seen particular evidence of this. If I am wrong, I apologise.  Is it an invalid POV to suggest that all articles be BC/AD?  You may not agree with it (indeed, neither do I), but that is not to say that it is invalid.  jguk failed to be civil (as did pretty much everyone else), and revert-warred (as did pretty much everyone else).  The only real difference is in the scale.  He went about his actions in the wrong way.  As did everyone else.  From what I can see (which may not be everything) you did not approach jguk to suggest he stop or anything of that sort.  That would have been perfectly good behaviour.  I see that you are mainly a peripharal member of this dispute, so I guess your not doing so is more acceptable.  smoddy 21:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's certainly valid to make the suggestion (that all articles be BC/AD or vice versa), but that's not what this case was about, or at least not why I am involved. Like you mention, the difference is in scale, and that for me is the main issue at hand.  In fact I fear this point is getting lost due to the POV debate in question.  Making massive edits (over a thousand) to 700 articles to push a particular POV style at the expense of another valid style is/was the behavior that needs to be addressed (I gave the link in the Evidence and above to all these edits that were done).  In fact, apparently an anon just yesterday has taken up Jguk's cause where he left off and has changed about 300 articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD.  Wikipedians have not agreed to changing era style on a large scale, one way or the other, so these massive edits (and editors who insist on making them) should be proscribed. -- M P er el ( talk 22:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not invalid to have the POV that all articles should be BC/AD, but it certainly is invalid to edit 700 different articles in an attempt to enforce that POV. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess that is the point where I have to differ. It isn't right to do so, and it's probably a bit stupid.  jguk should have known that conflict was the only outcome.  Nevertheless, he did nothing wrong by policy, only a failure of civilty which has been shown equally by both sides. smoddy 22:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * With respect, Smoddy, you are mistaken when you describe the situation as "...a failure of civility which has been shown equally by both sides." Several editors spent months trying to reason with Jguk about BCE/CE notation.  Time and time again he refused to abide by consensus.  Even during the so-called revert war there were several attempts to discuss matters with him on talk pages.  He rarely participated and when he did, it was only to say something like "think of our readers" or "use a date notation that our readers will understand." Sunray 07:12, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

The significance of ArbCom's final decision is to place a warning of bias louder than any “neutrality disputed” template on Wikipedia. Jguk’s crime was to defend the integrity of WP; to have an encyclopaedia to inform the reader, rather than a platform for editors who have their own Newspeak. It has been Jguk’s misfortune. It should serve as a warning to potential editors (such as yours truly) --ClemMcGann 13:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed principle
I'd like to propose the following principle as something that might want to be considered in this case:

At times the proper execution of Wikipedia's NPOV policy will be a matter of dispute between reasonable editors who sincerely wish to uphold the principle. In these instances, a lengthy dispute is likely to ensue, and no attempts to dictate the proper solution, whether coming from the arbitration committee or from a mechanism such as a poll, will be helpful. All that can be done is to insist that the participants in the dispute remain civil and respectful.

Snowspinner 19:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I concur – this sums up the problems that the ArbComm have had here perfectly. smoddy 19:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Nice one. Added (minus the bit about edit wars, which I bet some idjits would take as permission) - David Gerard 19:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegation
Last night, Fred added FoF 9, headed "Sockpuppet". It is clearly insinuated that 195.40.200.222 is Jguk editing logged out, but no evidence has been offered of this. Without such evidence, this clearly constitutes a personal attack from within the Arbcom. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but I think you clearly misunderstand what the meaning of a personal attack is. Calling someone's mother fat is a personal attack; accusing someone of using/being a sockpuppet is not. →Raul654 08:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I would feel personally attacked if someone called me a sockpuppet, or falsely accused me of using a sockpuppet. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have found no evidence that Jguk is the anonymous editor, but the emergence of the anonymous editor is relevant to the decision, in this case, indecision. Fred Bauder 14:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Abstentions
I'd like to ask for the arbitrators' rationale for abstentions in the findings of facts. Thanks. Maurreen 10:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that one of the arbitrators lost context for others' votes when he went away. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Because they're unnecessary. Ambi 11:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if one withdrawing from participation would strikethrough rather than blank the prior contributions. As it stands, reading the page there are votes like, "Concur with Grunt", which makes no sense now that Grunt's reasoning is gone ... --Tabor 19:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of the finding of fact are my work. After Jguk quit Wikipedia and made a big fuss there was a focus of attention on finding of fact 6 Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Proposed_decision which was considered a very bad, even "stupid" finding. Ambi wanted to start over with a blank page, but thwarted with that has abstained. So a mini war among the arbitrators. Fred Bauder 22:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a war; merely a disagreement between reasonable people who, I should mention, have done nothing besides voting against/abstaining on each other's proposals and discussing them. →Raul654 22:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Handwriting recognition

Handwriting_Recognition (with a capital R)
Reconsider redirecting Handwriting_Recognition (with a capital R) to this one Handwriting_recognition. I am skeptical that the capital R makes that big a difference, and I don't think anyone intends to find graphology when they wiki for handwriting recognition. Hgkamath 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

-DONE -- Hgkamath 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ink Pens with Handwriting Recog
I'm a heavy user of the Anoto/Logitech digital pen! (But I'm probably the only person who likes it). The handwriting recognition I only use for the search feature....Swirsky 04:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ad
The text about the a2ia company is and AD in this article. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.94.105 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandelism
The IEEE does not recognize either formally or informally the IWFHR or the ICDAR so whoever is vandelizing the page saying they do please stop

 * The Evernote paragraphe looks a lot like advert to me, same as it's page (NB: Please do not forget to sign your comments) － Cy21(talk) 08:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Add Real Examples?
I was wondering if real online examples could be added without it being considered as spam. I know two online experimental hand writing apps and I don't think many exist.
 * Chinese Stroke Lookup / Input Experiment
 * Ajax を使った手書き文字認識 (japanese)

Can they be added? － Cy21(talk) 09:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Inferno
Can anyone cite references for the discussion on the Microsoft Inferno software or project, please? I've failed to find anything on the net (eg googling "+inferno +neural site:microsoft.com" finds nothing). Many thank P.r.newman (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://rwservices.no-ip.info:81/pens/biblio83.html#Inforite82
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist
 * http://rwservices.no-ip.info:81/pens/biblio83.html#Pencept83
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist
 * http://rwservices.no-ip.info:81/pens/biblio85.html#CIC85
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 05:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at College Of Engineering Pune supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Strenghts and Missing Links
The strenghts of this article so far is to distinguish between online/offline models and cursive versus separated letters. But as for actually available software or services in order to recognize handwritten texts from paper, it fails. Maybe it is a matter of fact that all promising products have been swallowed by microsoft? And their office tools do include OCR for printed texts and onine HWR using a stylus. But how about handwritings on paper? Is there any FOSS projects at least? 2A02:3100:70E1:700:3CC8:3756:EEA8:DBBD (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Handwriting recognition


text:
Virden, Manitoba

Virden is a town in southwestern Manitoba, Canada. Oil was first discovered in 1951, and Virden has since come to be known as the "Oil Capital of Manitoba".

History
Virden has its roots as a farming community known as Gopher Creek. However, it became a railway tent town in 1882, and grew in population due to the brick and flour industry, as well as with the discovery of oil in the 1950s. The origin of the name, Virden, allegedly arose as a misspelling of the German town Verden in the homeland of the 7th Duke of Manchester's wife, Louisa Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire.

Geography
The town is located at the junction of the Trans-Canada Highway (also known as Highway #1) and Highway 83 (the "Palms to Pines" route) and is surrounded by the Rural Municipality of Wallace – Woodworth. Virden is a regional service centre owing in part to its location, and it has a stable commercial sector, including several restaurants, gas stations, body shops, a movie theatre, and a performing arts theatre.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Virden had a population of 3,118 living in 1,401 of its 1,508 total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of 3,322. With a land area of 8.96 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

In 2011, the median age was 42.7 years old which is 2 years older than the national average at 40.6 years old. There were 1,446 dwellings in Virden with an occupancy rate of 95.1%, and the median cost of a dwelling at $159,748, more than $100,000 lower than the national average at $280,552.

According to the 2011 National Household Survey, 96.8% of Virden residents are Canadian citizens, and about 3.2% of residents are recent immigrants (from 2001 to 2011). The racial make up of Virden is mostly Caucasian (92.0%), with a moderate Aboriginal population (5.5%); First Nations (2.0%), Métis (3.5%), and a small visible minority population (2.7%), most of which are Filipino (2.0%) or multiracial (0.5%).

Virden Pioneer Home Museum
Known as the "Victorian Home on the Prairies", the Virden Pioneer Home Museum is located within a red brick veneer home built by James Frame in 1888. With an extensive collection of over eleven thousand donated artifacts relating to Virden and area, the museum is a must-see tourist destination. It is open May to September where guided tours are offered by knowledgeable guides. The museum is located at 390 King Street West in Virden.

Notable people

 * Mary Carter, one of the first female judges in Saskatchewan; resided in Virden during childhood.
 * Isabella Dryden, educator and centenarian
 * Happy Felsch, American baseball player who played in Virden in the late 1920s after being banned for involvement in the Black Sox Scandal.
 * Dorothy Ferguson, infielder and outfielder who played from 1945 through 1954 in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League
 * Jim Murray, former NHL player
 * Bud Sketchley, former right fielder for the Chicago White Sox
 * Jim Treliving, Co-owner of Boston Pizza
 * Lila Bell Acheson Wallace, Co-founder of the Reader's Digest
 * Warren Winkler, former Chief Justice of Ontario
 * Carman Lapointe-Young, Under-Secretary-General for the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services

title: Virden, Manitoba


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/To Fix

Wow..that's a lot of N64 games! I guess it'll keep me busy... Thunderbrand 04:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been holding off on doing previous gens for a while, but it appears that most articles (at least the ones I can find) for Xbox, PS2, and GameCube are covered. Please note that not all of these articles, especially the stubs, need images. Also, some of the ones listed here (ex the Nascar one) should be considered for merging into an article on the series. Yearly sports games, at least IMO, should all be merged together in series articles unless of course editors can actually make it more than just a stub and without it being redundant of the previous game in the series. K1Bond007 05:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to add some new titles to this list, but are we not putting infoboxes for older gens like the NES? Once this stupid mess regarding the screenshots/boxart is sorted, maybe we should move this project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/To Fix, and make it more noticable on the project page. Jacoplane 00:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I kind of like having it as a subpage, the way Topbanana has his reports, for example, as a subpage. If you REALLY think it would help, though, you can move it. Andre ( talk ) 20:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think moving it will help. However, I do feel that a link should be placed more prominently on the Wikiproject page. Right now it's just a link right at the bottom of the page. I only noticed it was there recently. Jacoplane 21:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been steadily going back. There aren't that many people that actually do this besides Thunderbrand and myself whenever I feel bored so I haven't been listing a whole lot. A problem arises around the 8-16 bit eras where some (more like "most") games are arcade games. In the event of a game being arcade we usually let that Wikiproject handle it since it's almost an identical infobox, but with more information for the arcade versions. I'd start with PlayStation if you want though. Theres tons of those that need it done. K1Bond007 02:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

box covers
There are a lot of box covers on this site:

http://spoonman.roarvgm.com/videogame/ Jacoplane 14:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * they're watermarked.... Jacoplane 14:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arcade games
I created a section at the bottom called "Arcade games" - this is really so that we can dump computer and video games that are also for the arcade there. As I originally stated earlier, a lot of the 8-16 and even 32 (especially Sega)-bit games are for the arcade and we usually let that Wikiproject handle that. Their infobox, based on ours, isn't quite ready yet so I figure we can put them there for the time being. I really haven't thought this out too much, but it would be best to do this so we can at the very least keep track of which games have been listed here and why they don't have an infobox. K1Bond007 20:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

H-L: Decay and HSG
I removed Half-Life: Decay because this isn't a stand-alone game and doesn't really need an infobox. The Hot Shots Golf series page would look too messy with the infoboxes there. Thunderbrand 18:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


text:
File:Strappingyoungladhaarht.jpg

Summary
Strapping Young Lad - Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing album cover. Copyright 1995 Century Media Records.

title: File:Strappingyoungladhaarht.jpg


text:
Sattar Zare

Sattar Zare (, born 27 January 1982) is an Iranian football coach and former player who currently manages Bargh Shiraz. He played both the wing-back and midfield positions.

Club career
Zare started his youth career at Bargh Shiraz at the age of 8 and stayed with the youth team until he was 20 and played for the team after becoming influential in the club's relative success in recent years. He is the captain of Bargh and the only Bargh player that participates in Team melli in recent years. In the middle of 2007–08 season, he was fired and banned from training by the team manager Mahmoud Yavari because of anarchy, but he was forgiven after a brief period and played for the club again. at the end of 2007–08 season, he was a free agent and had offers from both Iranian giants Persepolis and Esteghlal, and also an offer from Mes, but he decided to remain at Hafezieh for another season. He was the best player for Bargh Shiraz but the team was relegated and despite having offers again he decided to stay.

He joined Shahin Bushehr in July 2010 and spent one season there. After the end of the season, he signed a contract with Rah Ahan on 1 July 2011 but he was fired by Rah Ahan's head coach, Ali Daei on 5 October 2011. He returned to Shahin Bushehr during the winter transfer window.

Club career statistics

 * Assist Goals

International career
He was a little-known player beyond the Hafezieh Stadium in his native city of Shiraz, until his selection for the Iranian national under-23 football team.

Zare was drafted to mend the defenses of the Iranian U-23s, after Hossein Faraki took over the coaching job. Along with Zare, Faraki also invited Alavi and the duo were a success. After that performance, Iran's coach Branko Ivankovic invited both of the players to the squad for the game against Jordan in June 2004. He made his debut on 20 July 2004 in the match against Thailand. He was a part of Iran's 2004 Asian Cup squad. During the quarterfinals against China he received a controversial red card after lightly pushing a Chinese player's chest who fell over holding his face.

Zare was set to play for Iran at the 2006 World Cup, but after damaging ligaments in his right knee, he was replaced by Moharram Navidkia. After missing the World Cup, he was not a regular part of Team Melli. After the World Cup, Amir Ghalenoei became Iran's coach. Ghalenoei called up Zare for his 30-man list for the 2007 AFC Asian Cup, but he did not select him for the Iranian squad. When Ali Daei became Team Melli's coach, he called Zare i[ again and used him as a left defender in starting line up in the World Cup 2010 first round qualifications.

Club

 * Hazfi Cup
 * Runner up:
 * 2011–12 with Shahin Bushehr

title: Sattar Zare


text:
Miracle Mart

Miracle Mart was a chain of discount department stores with locations in Ontario and Quebec, Canada based in Saint-Laurent, Quebec. The chain was renamed to simply M in the mid-1980s.

History
The company was founded in early 1961 as Miracle Mart Limited by Montreal-based grocery chain Steinberg's. Later in the year, Steinberg's associated itself with Vancouver-based chain Woodward's. They opened their first store on October 11, 1961, in Pont-Viau under the trade name of Woodward Steinberg. A second store with the same trademark opened in November 1961 at the Place Greenfield Park shopping centre. The partnership between Steinberg's and Woodward ended in 1962 due to differences of opinions, and the two Woodward Steinberg stores were converted to the Miracle Mart name.

Miracle Mart operated at mid-level and competed with the likes of Towers/Bonimart, Zellers, Woolco and Kmart. There was also a similarly named grocery chain, Miracle Food Mart (Steinberg's rebranded all their Ontario grocery stores to Miracle Food Marts on January 15, 1969), that operated exclusively in Ontario. Often found together, some locations with both a grocery and department store were regrouped under the single name Beaucoup.

In order to provide photographic film-processing services at Miracle Mart stores, a company was created by the Greenberg brothers, named Angreen Photo, which evolved into Astral Photo and became giant Astral Media.

After years of losses, parent company Steinberg's underwent in the mid-1980s a restructuring plan to rebrand the chain to the shorter name of M. By then, Miracle Mart had made profits only twice since its founding. The transformation of Miracle Mart locations into M stores was done in different phases. Miracle Mart at Carrefour Laval was the first location to convert as a M store and the only one to do so in the year of 1985. Four additional stores in Greater Montreal were converted to the M name by August 1986; specifically at Promenades Saint-Bruno, Place Longueuil, Mail Champlain and Pont-Viau. Four more stores, again all located in the Montreal area, were added to the M cluster on April 8, 1987: Châteauguay, West Island Mall, Place Lasalle and Galeries Lachine. The remaining 11 Miracle Mart stores were renamed on August 19, 1987.

Overall, only 20 of Miracle Mart's 31 stores  rebranded to the M nameplate. The other 11 locations (7 in Ontario and 4 in Quebec) were closed during the restructuring process. This basically erased the chain from Ontario except for two Ottawa stores (both in Nepean) that rebranded as M. Other Miracle Mart stores had already been closed in the 1970s and first half of the 1980s due to poor performance.

The M sub-chain was initially successful and promising. In December 1986, the five M stores saw their sales increased while the remaining Miracle Mart-branded locations continued to decline. Despite a good start, the M chain began to go downhill after the last Miracle Mart stores were renamed in 1987, and was soon experiencing the same financial woes that had plagued its predecessor. At some point, the name of the chain was modified to M Aubaine (M Discount), signaling a return to its roots as a discount retailer. But all this ended up accomplishing was to confuse and alienate even more customers who had been accustomed to a more upscale image of the chain since the 1980s.

When Steinberg's parent Socanav was trying to sell parts of the company off, a buyer for the poorly performing M stores could not be found. The chain went bankrupt in June 1992 and the liquidation of the 19 stores began in early July. The original store in Pont-Viau, Laval was still in operation when the company declared bankruptcy. By late August, 15 of the 19 stores had already closed. On August 29, 1992, the stores at Place Versailles, Carrefour Laval and Les Promenades St-Bruno followed. It was said that the fourth remaining M store could possibly outlast the others as it negotiates termination over its lease but it seems to have closed down as well on August 29, 1992. On the 1992-1993 Montreal phone book directory, Bell Canada listed only four stores for the M retail chain; they are the three aforementioned mall locations that closed on August 29, 1992 and the other one at 4325 Jean-Talon Street in Saint-Léonard.

title: Miracle Mart


text:
User talk:Varungarde

India quick links
Hi welcome aboard! Here are some India links:

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  June 29, 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Hindi in unicode
Hi! Your browser settings are incorrect. The Hindi spellings are correct, but your browser is incorrectly displaying them. I don't know how to rectify this problem, but maybe you can ask at the Reference Desk. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  July 4, 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Kawasaki ZX10R.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kawasaki ZX10R.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for responding to Yeditor on the Upanishads page. As you can see all of us "blatant Hindu vandals" are in this together.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo template
Thanks Varun for the Sri Aurobindo template improvement. It looks great! M Alan Kazlev 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo and Fair Use Images on template boxes
The image is not in the public domain, but is copyrighted and tagged with a fair use tag as you note above. Per terms of Fair use criteria item #9, the use of fair use images on templates is proscribed. This covers all such uses, (quoting the policy) "even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law". You are welcome to put the image into articles specifically having to do with the organization represented by the image, but you are not permitted to put it into a template. I hope this clarifies the matter? If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 12:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Why not contact the ashram and ask permission to use the image? M Alan Kazlev 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bangalore meetup notice
 Bangalore Meetup Meetup in planning Next meetup (view/edit)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SriAurobindoSymbols.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:SriAurobindoSymbols.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GaneshRupiyah.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GaneshRupiyah.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UPlogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:UPlogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IITGlogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:IITGlogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo's biography
hi Varun

At the moment unfortunately I am really immersed in writing my own book. So sure I'm happy to help, but it can only be part time, and we need other people as well.

The problem with the wiki page as it is now is that it is presented in a very "devotional" manner. By that I mean it says stuff like "according to Sri Aurobindo (such and such)" but then there are very few references or footnotes at the end of each statement. I added a few a while back, but it needs heaps more. To make it more academic, each paragraph, and often sentences, should be accompanied by page references to The Life Divine and other major works. But i'm not the sort of person who can cite chapter and verse, so we need people who are familar with page by page and chapter by chapter content of Sri Aurobindo's collected works.

There is also a strong need for more references/footnotes in the biography section. I'll add some when i have more time.

Also, the influence of Sri Aurobindo's philosophy, at the end of the page, is in strong need of developing. I'll try to add some more material there as well.

The page also seems to be unbalanced, in that a very large amount of space is devoted to Sri Aurobindo's teachings, and this could be transferred to separate pages on his difefrent major works. I had originally put up these as individual pages but as is typical of Wikipedia - and i totally agree with you, it suffers from an occidental bias as well as a materialistic bias - these had to be merged into a single big page (Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo). I think that we could easily restore them tpo individual pages, but to do that we would need to find third party refernces and citations. And that is where academic scholarship is useful. If you know of good third party references, reviews etc that would be great.

I would certainly like to see several qualified people working on this page. Do you know of anyone else who would be interested in collaborating on this project? M Alan Kazlev (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Heehs paper
No probs. I can email the pdf of Heehs' essay to you. Just write to me at alankazlev (at) ihug (dot) com (dot) au M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP Bangalore Meetup
Following the Mailing list discussion that we had, here's a call for an informal meetup of Bangalore Wikipedians soon. Please see Meetup/Bangalore/Bangalore3 --  Tinu  Cherian  - 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:INCOTM
Hi Varun, your nomination of the article Sri Aurobindo has been selected as a candidate for Collaboration of the month for Wikiproject India. Aim is to get GA/FA status for the article. Hope you can find time to contribute and involve more people to collaborate. Currently the article needs a good amount of inline citations for sure.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 2 – July 2009
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. Delivered automatically by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 15:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User infoboard
Mahitgar 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia WikMeetup Bangalore 8
WikMeetup 8 Bangalore is scheduled for Sunday, 20 Dec, 2009 3:00 PM - 5:30 PM. Please ping me if you require any more information. Hoping to meet you on the meetup day. Take care --  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 1 - (June 2010)
This newsletter is automatically delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 03:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Anushilan Samiti into Sri Aurobindo. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 2 - November 2010
This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo

The article Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Sadly. This may be a notable topic but I am struggling to find decent non-primary references for it. Currently it is simply an essay sourced directly from "The Life Divine" and needs complete reworking - something it has been tagged for for over a year - to get right.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Errant $(chat!)$ 16:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project
Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation working on collecting stories of Indian Wikipedians for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Bangalore

I’ll be traveling to India from the 12th -20th of November to conduct face to face interviews with Indian Wikipedians. I’ll be in Bangalore from November 12-15 and in Mumbai for WikiConference India from November 17 - 20.

If you are interested, and would like to schedule an interview with me, please mark your time and place of interview on this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Indiastorytelling or send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) with any questions or concerns you may have.

If you feel that you’d like to talk to me, but wont be able to make it to either of these locations and would like to schedule a Skype or Telephone interview, please email me at vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Cheers, Victor

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

Revival of COTM
Hi,

You may be aware that Collaboration of the Month has been revived by members of WP: India. For January 2012 there are 2 articles - Indian COTM - Premchand and Indian COTM for GA - Mahatma Gandhi. As a senior and respected editor you are requested to partake in this activity. Cheers, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 14:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

& (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=481419438#Message_to_take_part_in_Assessment_Drive request] on Bot requests. The Helpful  Bot  01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello Varungarde, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Virtually the entire article was copy and paste from other sources Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Varungarde


text:
Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing

Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing is the debut studio album by Canadian extreme metal band Strapping Young Lad. It was released on April 4, 1995. Century Media Europe released a remastered version of the album on June 12, 2006, which includes the video for "S.Y.L.", several bonus tracks, and a 12-page booklet containing extended liner notes.

Background
Strapping Young Lad began in 1994 as a solo project of Canadian musician Devin Townsend. Following his work as vocalist on Steve Vai's 1993 album Sex & Religion and its 1994 tour, Townsend believed he had been a "musical whore", spending "the first five years of [his] career working at the behest of other people". During a brief stint as touring guitarist for The Wildhearts, Townsend received a phone call from an A&R representative for Roadrunner Records, expressing an interest in his demos and an intention to sign him. The offer was ultimately rescinded by the head of Roadrunner, who regarded Townsend's recordings as "just noise". He faced further rejection by Relativity Records, the label behind Vai's Sex & Religion, who saw no commercial appeal in his music. Century Media Records subsequently contacted the musician, offering him a contract to "make us some extreme albums". Townsend agreed to a five-album deal with the record label.

Following his tour with The Wildhearts, Townsend began recording and producing his debut album, Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing, under the moniker Strapping Young Lad. According to Townsend, the recording process took "about a week". Embracing The Wildhearts' anarchist approach, "while focusing on dissonance and just being as over-the-top as [he] could", Townsend sang on the record and performed the majority of its instrumental tracks (with the assistance of a drum machine). A few songs, however, featured local session musicians, including guitarist Jed Simon, Townsend's future bandmate.

Release and reception
Released on April 4, 1995, Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing was not widely recognized in the metal community. The album sold 143 copies in its first six months, but received favorable reviews from the heavy metal press. Its unusual musical ideas—a synthesis of death, thrash, and industrial metal influences—prompted Andy Stout from Metal Hammer to call it "one of the most disturbing albums you'll hear for a very long time". Nevertheless, Townsend has repeatedly expressed his distaste for the recording. He dismissed the album in the liner notes of the record's 2006 reissue, contending that it contained only two great songs. He also deemed its production poor in interviews, referring to the album as "basically a collection of demos that were remixed". When Century Media advertised the reissue of Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing as the "rebirth of a genre-defying classic", Townsend called it "record company bullshit".

The album was remastered and re-released on June 12, 2006, by Century Media Europe. The re-release contains several bonus tracks taken from international versions of the album, an unreleased track, and the video for "S.Y.L.".

Personnel

 * Devin Townsend – guitar, vocals, keyboards, programming, mixing, editing, production, arrangements, child voice on Track #1, art direction (as Nived)

Additional musicians

 * Adrian White – drums
 * Jed Simon – additional guitar ("Critic", "Skin Me")
 * Chris Byes – drums ("Critic", "The Filler: Sweet City Jesus")
 * Chris Meyers – additional keyboards ("Goat", "Skin Me")
 * Greg Price – assistant on drum programming ("Skin Me", "Drizzlehell")
 * Smokin' Lord Toot – drums ("Cod Metal King")
 * Stooly and E: Val Yum – Bon Jovi gang vocals
 * Ashley Scribner – bass
 * Mike Sudar – guitar
 * Chris Valagao Mina – guitar, backing vocal

Production

 * Blair Calibaba – engineering
 * Rod Michaels – additional engineering ("Critic")
 * Greg Reely – editing, mixing
 * Jason Mausa – mixing ("The Filler: Sweet City Jesus")
 * Jamie Myers – additional editing
 * Doctor Skinny – additional mixing
 * Brian Gardner – mastering
 * Tania Rudy – photography
 * Byron Stroud – photography
 * Robert Lowden – cover art
 * Borivoj Krgin – A&R

title: Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing


text:
Category:Michigan State University

 * Michigan State University — located in East Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan.

title: Category:Michigan State University


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J eastman

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

J eastman
Vanity and verifiability problems, couple of google hits. func (talk) 04:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. func (talk) 04:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 04:24, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would request that this article remain. j eastman is gaining attention in the twin cities as "the" anti-folk artist to see.  He's worked with both Jewel and Steve Poltz in the past, which is missing from the original article. Seeing that there are many other local Minneapolis artist, such as Har Mar Superstar and Mark Mallman, I don't believee his work is any less relevant.--Andymosity 00:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This is user's first post, comment, or edit. jglc | t | c 13:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Mohammad Alavi (footballer)

Seyed Mohammad Alavi (, born 29 January 1982 in Kashan, Iran) is an Iranian retired footballer and football manager. He manages Esteghlal Khuzestan in Persian Gulf Pro League. He usually played in the defensive midfield position.

Club career
A product of the football rich province of Khuzestan and the young team of Foolad, he was a pivotal player within this young team and his consistency and solid defending was one of the factors for the success of his club in becoming the champions of the IPL 2004/05. He played for the club in Iran's Premier League till its relegation to the lower division, Azadegan League, in 2007. He also played for Foolad in the 2006 AFC Champions League group stage.

He moved to Pas and stayed there for a season. He moved to Persepolis and stayed for few months where he only played 2 games and had no spot in the team because of excellent performances by Karim Bagheri and Maziar Zare and moved for back to Pas for 6 months loan. He moved back to Foolad in summer 2009.

Club Career Statistics
Last Update  4 May 2011

 * Assist Goals

Under-23 national team
Alavi stormed on the national scene after his header goal against China in Azadi Stadium which assured Iran Under-23 team 3 points in the anticipated revival of the team's chances in the 2004 Olympic qualifying matches. Although Alavi was selected by then coach Mohammad Mayeli Kohan in the roster of the U23 team, he was not given much playing time. After Hossein Faraki was appointed as the new coach, Alavi was given more playing time in all the remaining matches. Apart from his goal against China, Alavi played well in all the remaining matches under Faraki although it was a step too late as Iran did not manage to dislodge the Koreans from clinching the qualification to Athens.

Senior national team
In the 2004 Asian Cup, Alavi scored a goal in Iran's controversial loss to China in the semifinals of the tournament held in China 2004. The goal kept Iran's hopes alive, as they were forced to play one man down due to a red card, but China progressed to the final match at the end by penalty shoot-outs.

Alavi was usually a substitute player within the national team and was not part of the World Cup squad.

Honours

 * Persian Gulf Cup
 * 2003–04 with Foolad

title: Mohammad Alavi (footballer)


text:
Wikipedia:Contact school systems responsible for mass vandalism

What this proposal is about and why it is needed
We all know that admins can just block vandals to stop vandalism. The problem is that their power is severely limited when it comes to shared IPs and proxies.... For example, a block for vandalism lasting 24 hours is not uncommon when blocking a vandal IP, but that isn't an option with a shared IP. Unfortunately, this appears to have resulted in constant vandalism by anon. users editing from an IP that is registered to a school system. Blocks don't appear to be working very well, and this is probably for several reasons (all of them related to the maturity of the vandal.) This proposal came to mind after reading a comment on WP:VIP by another users wondering if a policy existed for dealing with this. I don't believe one currently exists for this particular problem.

The specifics
First off, this policy is not aimed for dealing with every single case of vandalism originating from an IP registered to a school system. It is meant for dealing with cases of constant AND long-term vandalism that have continued despite repeated warnings and multiple blocks. In other words, this would be a "last resort" measure. A rule of thumb should be that unless the vandalism has continued for at least a month and has required multiple reverts/edits to repair damage done to specific articles, this policy will not come into play. Here's what will be done under this policy when these conditions are met. Starting at the beginning of the next warning cycle (after a block but before a warning message such as test or test2 is posted), a warning will be posted upon the talkpage of the IP. It will state that this is the final time that Wikipedia will put up with the vandalism and that they will be blocked only one more time before sterner measures are taken. If and when the IP is blocked again, a message would be left on the talkpage stating that the IP has been blocked again... but if the vandalism continues after the block is lifted, the school system will be contacted in regard to the vandalism being committed by that IP. Any infraction after that results in an immediate contacting of the school system.

Countermeasures to help mitigate "collateral damage" by this policy
The contacted school system will be provided with the edit history of the vandalized articles in order to narrow down the number of users who could be responsible for the vandalism. This countermeasure will probably work best with colleges and universities, but it may have some effect in other cases. For example, if vandalism is committed using an IP registered to a public school system on a day that the schools are closed to students, the chance of a student being responsible for the vandalism is slim to none. Likewise, colleges may have a photo ID requirement for access to places where students can use a computer and keep track of the time that the ID is handed over to when the ID is returned to the student. Checking the time that the vandalism was committed against the attendance records and class schedules of an accused student could end up exonerating them as being wrongfully accused of vandalism. Furthermore, the time at which vandalism is committed can rule out certain places as to where the vandal was on the computer at the time of the vandalism. Classrooms and computer labs are locked up, libraries close; this limits the number of computers that would have been accessible to the vandal.

Voting
At this point, this policy shall not be voted upon. The reason? It probably should undergo some discussion and some revision before that should occur.


text:
Glossopteridales

Glossopteridales is an extinct order of seed plants, known from the Permian of Gondwana. They arose at the beginning of the Permian, and the majority or all members of the group became extinct at the end of the Permian (251.9 mya), during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. Possible Triassic records of the group have been recorded. The best known genus is Glossopteris, a leaf form genus. Other examples are Gangamopteris, Glossotheca, and Vertebraria.

Permian permineralised glossopterid reproduction organs found in the central Transantarctic Mountains suggest seeds had an adaxial attachment to the leaf-like mega-sporophyll. This indicate Glossopteridales can be classified as seed ferns and is important in determining the status of the group as either close relatives or ancestors of the angiosperms.

Midrib-less forms were common in the Early Permian whereas midrib forms were more common in the Late Permian.

title: Glossopteridales